RandomKayos

Has anyone crossed the color types? Results?
Has anyone figured out the dominance of these colors?
Has anyone seen anything beyond the orange, red and green variations. And I’m only asking about the danio’s.
Does anyone know if the new “Glass Danio” will be made commercially available?



I think that's enough questions for one post.
RK

Ouch, "Fish Newbie"? I've had Aquariums for 40 years now. New to this board but not a fish newbie by any means.
RK

Lucy

Hi RandomKayos Welcome to Fish Lore

I don't think I've read about anyone here breeding glo-fish, not saying they haven't though. I've seen yellow ones in the store.

Everyone is a Fish Newbie when they join, that name will change as your post count goes up.

We hope you enjoy the site, post some pics when you get the chance..

Septhen

Do you know if you can get Glofish in Australia or are they only availible in America? They look pretty cool. I know they're genetically modified(sea jelly) but they look pretty cool and something cool to add to the collection.

PS It's funny how in the emoticon library there are no pic's of actual fish-just a shark and a guy whacking another guy on the head with a fish(!)

mathas

Those are the only colors available.




US-only, according to the website:

Lucy

It would be pretty cool to get different colors, like mixing paint.

Is that what you're going to try to do?

Like these?

sirdarksol

I doubt anyone would admit to attempting to cross-breed these guys, since the company that makes GloFish has a trademark on the genetic sequence, and nobody is really sure how far they'll go to try to protect that trademark.

There is a large number of countries (I believe the entire EU is included) where GloFish are illegal to own as pets, so the company is unlikely to apply for the licenses necessary to sell the fish outside of the US. It would be too much cost with too little gain.

Lucy

That's right, I remember reading about that.

RandomKayos

Well, I have been researching this very heavely for several weeks now. I'm working on an article but information I can get seems either outdated or just assumptions. I do know the following for any who might want to know:

So far the US is still the only verified place to get them excluding California.

There are still pet shops that refuse to carry them for ethical reasons, even the chains, though that might be left to the individual store or department managers.

The lab that created these does have a purple variety now but I can't get an answer from the Texas company that distributes Glofish if they intend to carry that line as well.

The quality of the fish and the colors has improved remarkedly. The initial fish were created with normal Zebra's and the color was masked by the normal pigments. The fish I saw yesterday at a local fish store appear to have been modified gold Danio's and the color was fantastic.

As for breeding. It now states on the Glofish site that breeding for institunal use and educational purposes is specifically allows and from interviews it is implied that they will enforce thier patent rights in the event anyone tries to sell fish they have raised but wouldn't bother with anyone breeding for themselves. Selling them is the key point.

I have also concluded from observation and some technical papers I found that the modified color is in all tissue and does not compete with natural pigments.

I recently read an article about a lab in the north east US that has developed a "Glass Danio" that is completely devoid of pigments for cancer research. I thing it would be very interesting to introduce the glow effect to these if they are ever available to the public. They should produce a transluent color.

The thing I like best about this manipulation verses the tatooing and dying is that this is done within minutes of fertilazation of the initial batch and from then on it's carried naturally to thier offspring where as the tatooing and dying is applied to fully developed fish and causes enough stress to kill many.

I do have more information but I'm still compiling it. Anyone that has any questions, feel free to ask. I will update this thread as I get things sorted out and any new information comes in.

And now that I have found a supply of them I am setting up a couple tanks to educate myself and any interested to the effects of breeding amongst patened strains as well as natural variations. I have a decent aquatic photo setup and will provide pictures as I get them. And sorry, as much as I would like to I won't be sharing any fish at this point. Even asking someone to pay shipping could possibly be twisted by a lawyer and I can't afford to ship let alone pay a defence lawyer.

The good news is they are getting cheaper. My local Wally market has good looking specimens that appear in good condition for $4.69. The chain pet stores either won't carry them or have very unhealty looking fish. I've yet to find them at any LFS so don't know the prices.

Sorry for the long post but I tend to do that.
RK

sirdarksol

Thanks for the update on the "breeding for personal use is okay." Most of our information around here came from the GloFish website and, honestly, I haven't been back there in a few months. At the time, all they said was "we have a patent on the genetics," and, as I said, nobody had any idea of how far they would go to protect the patent.

mathas

The GloFish website still isn't entirely clear on the matter.
RandomKayos said their site claims educational breeding is allowed... assuming he's right (I can't find that on there anywhere, but I have no reason to doubt him), the website contradicts itself. It's ambiguous enough that the line I quoted could mean you're not allowed to breed GloFish at all, or it could mean you're not allowed to breed any GloFish offspring you wind up with (i.e. breeding one generation is OK, but you aren't allowed to breed the second generation).

clinton1621

Seriously... its getting ridiculous when you even patent live animals, have they ever heard of God?

Lucy

God didn't create glo-fish. Man created glo-fish by genetically alternating the zebra danio.
But God gave man the knowledge to do so.

clinton1621

I know that, but just because you alter a dna strand to make an animal look different doesnt mean you own it. If they altered human dna to make us glow then would they patent us too? My point is how do you patent something thats alive, its just ethically wrong.

mathas

Patents on genetically-engineered organisms have been around and enforced for years. Monsanto created a genetically-engineered strain of canola which ended up contaminating a nearby farmer's crop through natural cross-pollination, and the farmer was found guilty of patent infringement for planting seeds with Monsanto's patented genetics (http://www.greenpeace.org/india/news...loses-case-aga). And this occured in Canada (it even went to their Supreme Court), so it's not just the US Patent Office that finds it acceptable to patent organisms.

RandomKayos

um, note the you quoted is item #4, Item #5 reads "5) Notwithstanding the foregoing, production of these fish is permitted for educational use by teachers and students in bona fide educational institutions, provided, however, that any sale, barter, or trade, of the offspring from such reproduction of these fish is strictly prohibited."

This is a catch 22 phrase. If you breed for your own use and education, you are both teacher and student and it would be up to the courts to decide if you are "bona fide –adjective 1. made, done, presented, etc., in good faith; without deception or fraud: a bona fide statement of intent to sell.
2. authentic; true: a bona fide sample of Lincoln's handwriting.". The catch is that breeding Glofish as educational material at a paid institution could be considered barter or trade. In effect the teaching instution is using Glofish to provide thier service of teaching for which they are compensated through tuition. In effect they are using Glofish to generate thier income.

I don't see Yorktown persuing a school in court in this way but they could, even with the above statement. And I also don't see Yorktown persuing a hobbiest with even a few hundred offspring as long as there is no indication they were selling or trading etc. Yes, they could. But then pigs might one day fly and fish come with built in night lights...... er nevermind.
RK

I agree in part with this. It's scary to think about what can be owned these days. As for the God aspect. I had hoped this could remain about the fish and frankly, I have no idea of God's plans. Most major religions feel a higher being created them and with some purpose. Very few of them give an indication of what that purpose is and since none of those higher beings have contacted me directly in a manor I can understand I am left to assume that as long as I am not causing harm for no reason I'm good.

I further that with the assumption that if there is a God, and he/she does have a plan, and he/she created us, then it would follow that what we do is part of that plan. But back to the fish....

Do these fish cause harm? I don't see it. Does a company owning the rights to production and profit from this fish cause harm. Again, I don't see it. So for me, I fully intend to enjoy my Glofish, in all aspects a hobbiest can enjoy thier fish......Unless of course God comes along and says no.....
RK

Again my opinion on this but they don't own the patent on the the fish. They own the patent on the genes and the base processes of creating that gene. The example here would be that I buy 2 glofish, male and female, both of the red variety. The DNA code is (Rw) as in Red/wild types. Their offspring will be on average, 25% (RR), 50% (Rw) and 25% (ww). So far as I can tell the (RR) type never even develop. Those eggs are not viable and goes the way of any unfertilazed egg would go.

The 50% (Rw) would be glow fish and as such contain the gene that cannot be sold. The remaining 25% of (ww) offspring you can sell, it don't contain the patented gene so there is no problem. Well, unless you try to sell them as glofish or use the glofish name in relation to thier sales. Glofish is a trademark that is copywrite protected.

yet?

RK

Lucy

Yes, back on the glo-fish topic...

Do you have them now? If so how long have you had them?

I've heard that they're lifespan isn't as long as zebra danios, I don't know if this is true or not.

Keep us up to date, it sounds interesting.

clinton1621

I had no ill intent about the fish, I personally like them. My comments were merely me trying to say thats its ridiculous that they act like they still own the fish... yes fish that cost like 2 bucks each... even after you buy them and put them in your own tank.

RandomKayos

I read that link and based only on the information there I have to say:

The farmer knew his crops were contaminated and should have sue'd Monsanto. Probably would have gotten a good settlement out of court. But he instead used the contaminated crop to seed another crop which he then sold, thus violating the Patent laws. That's how Monsanto won instead of haveing to pay him. And he did not have to pay Monsanto anything in the settlement. He just lost the case.

RK