Freshwater BeginnersA place where freshwater aquarium fish beginners can go to post their questions and hopefully get responses from those more experienced. Also check out the Freshwater Fish Beginner's Guide and Aquarium Setup Guides. Setting up a new freshwater aquarium can be a rather large project and you want to make sure you do it right the first time. If you need help with your fish tank please don't be afraid to ask questions. That's what this fish forum is all about!
Such an artificial-sounding name. I happened to see these at the LFS when I was looking for fish a few days ago. I then decided to do research and noticed that the GloFish site hasn't said anything about actually injecting dye... It actually said this:
Quote:
By adding a natural fluorescence gene to the fish, scientists hoped to one day quickly and easily determine when a waterway is contaminated.
Is that true or do they really inject dye? I purchased two GloFish and they seem to be doing great! They're active, healthy and haven't shown any signs of illness or anything. They also like to swim together! It's so cute.
Also, I just read this:
Quote:
Where does the fluorescent color come from?
The fluorescent color in our fish is produced by a fluorescent protein gene, which creates the beautiful fluorescence that can be seen when looking at the fish. The fluorescent protein genes occur naturally, and are derived from marine organisms.
Do you have to add a fluorescence gene to every fish before it hatches?
No. Today's GloFish® fluorescent fish are bred from the offspring of fluorescent zebrafish that were originally developed several years ago. Each new GloFish® fluorescent fish inherits its unique color directly from its parents, maintains the color throughout its life, and passes the color along to its offspring.
So does this mean the super Fruity Pebble-like fish are starting to be a bit more "natural" and safer?
No, they don't inject any dye. For earlier generations of GloFish, they injected a small segment of jellyfish or coral DNA into the egg. That DNA is what gives the GloFish the color. Now, they just breed the GloFish, and the color breeds true.
In my opinion, they are less natural than dyed fish, but the process is theoretically safer than the process of dying fish. It definitely seems better in the long run, as the fish breed true now, with no further injections or alterations needed to keep the line so brightly colored.
The only fish I wish was more safely-colored were Indian Glass Fish:
I used to have a few of these when I was younger and they were so pretty, but they're injected with dye as far as I know and I can't seem to find them colored anywhere else.
Correct, they were originally intended to be used as an alert to pollution in water, as they were meant to fluoresce when certain chemicals were present in the water. However the researchers then saw the market for them in the aquarium hobby. Where Zebra Danios run $1 here, GloFish run $7, and it's basically the same fish, colored differently. I like them and personally have no problem or ethical concerns with them because they are not injected, they are bread.
I have 5 of them in my 29 gallon. They are basically zebra danio's only better looking. :-)
I only have a problem with one of the red ones constantly bothering the other glofish. Overall they're fun little fish to have though. Extremely hardy.
When ever I see these discussion I am always glad that these fish are banned outside of the US, oh and California too.
I never did see why folks would want a chimera in their tank.
I just find it ironic that a failed attempt at bio-engineering should make the manufacturer so much money
The manufacturer isn't making money off of this by leaps and bounds I do not think. A good portion of the money that is spent on the GloFish goes back in to R&D. They are a naturally occurring species now with no outside interference used to make them the way they are.
Clearly it's a fine line for some folks, but I certainly have no issue with it. Bio-engineering and human welfare is a whole different discussion altogether more suited for the HOT talk section of the forums.
Correct, they were originally intended to be used as an alert to pollution in water, as they were meant to fluoresce when certain chemicals were present in the water. However the researchers then saw the market for them in the aquarium hobby. Where Zebra Danios run $1 here, GloFish run $7, and it's basically the same fish, colored differently. I like them and personally have no problem or ethical concerns with them because they are not injected, they are bread.
Ouch! $7 for one? I personally dont care for neither glofish nor painted glass or as maater of fact any man made genetically altered fish. It may had good intention in the beginning, but it is all about $$ in the end, IMO.
The manufacturer isn't making money off of this by leaps and bounds I do not think. A good portion of the money that is spent on the GloFish goes back in to R&D.
Checked their stock price movement over the last few years? And never believe everything you read that was produced by a PR dept.
hmmm, i didn't think that all of the glofish they have are actually bred that way...correct me if i'm wrong but i thought that the process made most glofish (aside from a select few, and it's true that this number is increasing) sterile?
Yes they do not really want 'wild' breeding populations as that means that they do not get a cut of the sales that are made when fish keepers sell offspring to other enthusiasts.
Lets face it if you can breed Zabra Dannios you can beed these fish and all accounts say that they breed true to their colours.
From what I understand it is illegal to breed and sell glofish, since the company that developed them holds the copyright. Only they can legally sell them.
Hmm. Can a company actually hold a copyright or patent on a biological organism? I can understand copyrighting the process to engineer them but afterwards the species will naturally spawn outside of the control of the company and thus they have effectively created a new species. My question is how could they possibly hope to control who and how they breed? any male and female will spawn and after that its just like selling a puppy. I would understand the copyright infringement of actually recreating the the genetic processes the company used to create the species but after they spawn the new generation has no ties to the creator and is a free entity. Only the ones created and breed at the lab could be considered patented.
Who has to know? If they have ways, am sure someone will find the way w/o infringing on their rights. Who is going to say natural behavior is infringement? Besides, cant sell them then trade!
I don't know about the GloFish... IMO... It's not natural, it's laboratory made and not from "nature". I mean a lot of animals have been cross-bred to make new breeds, but this fish has actually been basically manufactured by scientists. Though I do not disagree with the original use of them to find pollution, making them pets is kinda eh for me.
But! To each his/her own, and this is just my opinion
This GloFish argument comes up at least once a month. I think we need a GloFish forum now so that threads don't always get hijacked on a it's right/wrong debate.
Regardless of if they are a market ploy now or not, I would like to believe folks are honest when they are talking about their research. Regarding the legality of breeding them and selling - no way they can say it's illegal for you to breed them. I'd love to se the paperwork on that. Now selling them I could buy in to but even then, I don't know how well that would hold up in court. I never signed off on any waivers when I purchased mine. When it comes to animals, if the previous owner/breeder doesn't want you to breed that animal or sell it's litters/offspring you get to sign a series of forms and waivers.
the only way the previous owner could prevent any type of external breeding by the bew owner would be to have the animals fixed while they are in their possession. Other than that there isn't any way they can prevent it even with waivers because animals will be animals and will do what is natural to them.
the only way the previous owner could prevent any type of external breeding by the bew owner would be to have the animals fixed while they are in their possession. Other than that there isn't any way they can prevent it even with waivers because animals will be animals and will do what is natural to them.
Rght, generally what happens is in the waiver, they are told to have the animal spayed/neutered by a certain date once they own the animal, generally before they reach sexual maturity making sure their is no chance. If it is not done and the seller finds out you are breeding and selling their lineage they could in theory go after you. Again, I'm not sure how that stuff would hold up in court. It's all bologna to me.
I agree, it is bologna. But I would think it would have to be the companies responsibility to insure that the animals are incapable a breeding before they are put on the market. Its not the job of the purchaser to modify the animal to meet the sellers concerns after its sold and the money is exchanged. Once you own the animal, you can do pretty much whatever you want with it so long as its humane. If the seller wants to stop external breeding then they would have to sterile the animals themselves first.
Based on American law, it is illegal to reproduce GloFish to make money, as the corporation that made them has a copyright or trademark or whatever on the genetic sequence. It's not illegal to allow them to breed in the tank (or, if it is, it's unlikely the corp is going to come after you for it). It's just illegal to breed them in order to sell them.
We see the same thing with crops. Cross-pollination causes genetically engineered crops to "infect" other crops. The owners of these other crops are then forced to throw significant portions out when they are charged with selling corn from a trademarked line. Fairness would dictate that this should not be the case, but American law is not based on fairness, especially in more recent times, and especially with regards to civil suits. It is based on precedent, which is created when the guy with the best team of lawyers wins a suit.
my daughter has a beautiful tank with these amazing fish...they have some superb colors and they are always on the move...great fish IMO and so much fun to watch
my daughter has a beautiful tank with these amazing fish...they have some superb colors and they are always on the move...great fish IMO and so much fun to watch
My 2 little ones love em.. oldest was mad when I took hers out of her 10g and put them in my 75g for the time being with a school of normal danios.
They are ALL over the tank.. top bottom, left side right side. These fish are NOT top side fish.. they are ALL OVER fish lol
Similar Aquarium Fish Forum Threads 
