June 20, 2008
Wow, that was all ghastly... /sad.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad.gif" /> Mine were in need of a home, whether or not they should have been bred. /unsure.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":unsure:" border="0" alt="unsure.gif" /> All I want to know is how to house them properly. /sad.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad.gif" />
and I dont approve of obviously dyed fish or any of those other horrible fish pet cubes or anything. Please let's not get sadder here.
But as long as we are on the topic, what's up with the danios that are flourescent colors? they swear it's dna alteration and not dye. Popping up all over the place..even in my otherwise very nice LFS
Do you mean Glofish Reva? /angry.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":angry:" border="0" alt="angry.gif" /> (face at the fish not you ninja-lady). Yeah they're genetically-modified, test-tube thingies that resemble fish. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />
April 30, 2008
the danios have quite an interesting story - they were originally used as a scientific test on the impacts of pollution in natural waterways - the dyed fish were used as they were much easier to see - and the checks could be made as to how long they could live etc etc. still something that should definately not be in the hobby though . i just cant see the point of buying artificial fish when theres so many fish out there. a lot is economics - re the syno issue - they are easier to hormone breed (and therefor cheaper) than catching or breeding natural stock so have unfortunately caught on -most people buying a syno wouldnt know what they are looking at , so as long as its 'pretty' it will do and again the fish farms have reacted to this, the biggest barrier to natural fish being in shops is cost - most people who buy fish just arent interested so will pick what they can justify economically - only a small percentage of people will pay extra for a 'correct' fish even if it is far superior
Not having a go at you for repeating it, but I've always regarded that claim as balderdash. Testing would still be necessary and far more accurate. As far as I'm concerned it was a money making scam.
April 30, 2008
its not a story, i read a piece (about 5 years ago in a scientific paper) on the use they were originally designed for - a lot of the dyed fish were injected - the danios originally had a flourescent 'gene' adapted into the strain ( naturally occuring ) so i dont think the danios now are produced in exactly the same way as it would have been more expensive to copy
I'm with you here Mark. Maybe the initial idea was to use these as some kind of biological pollution indicator (although why such a thing would be necessary is beyond me when we have more sophisticated methods of measuring pollutant levels already in use). The following claim froim the glofish website also made me /rolleyes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":rolleyes:" border="0" alt="rolleyes.gif" />:
"Fluorescent zebrafish have been particularly helpful in understanding cellular disease and development, as well as cancer and gene therapy."
Actually the fish have never been used for research in any of those fields as far as I can gather, although I know that glowing mice and cats have...
April 30, 2008
April 30, 2008
i think i must have been typing at the same time as you matt, i put the links above on then went back and noticed youd added about the cancer etc - the 2nd link above gives the reason that why the fish are used - namely because the embrios are transparent and share a lot of indicators (in the link above hiv) to us. i also think they are used because they are so hardy and breed relatively easily
Yes mate I know that zebra danios have been used in research for loads of things, cellular research included. My point was that the flourescent ones specifically haven't; they were developed for tests on water pollution as in the first article you posted. That glofish website contains all sorts of spurious claims in my opinion...
April 30, 2008
the top link is for the university of singapore where they were originally developed - glofish is a trade name owned by yorktown technologies who have an agreement with the university to be the sole suppliers around the world, (which is why they still give a percentage of the sales to the uni) - below is another extract -
In 1999, Dr. Zhiyuan Gong and his colleagues at the National University of Singapore extracted the green fluorescent protein (GFP) gene from a jellyfish that naturally produced bright green bioluminescence. They inserted the gene into the zebrafish genome, causing the fish to glow brightly under both natural white light and ultraviolet light. Their goal was to develop a fish that could detect pollution by selectively fluorescing in the presence of environmental toxins. The development of the always fluorescing fish was the first step in this process. Shortly thereafter, his team developed a line of red fluorescent zebra fish by adding a gene from a sea coral, and yellow fluorescent zebra fish, by adding a variant of the jellyfish gene. Later, a team of Taiwanese researchers at the National University of Taiwan, headed by Professor Huai-Jen Tsai (蔡懷禎), succeeded in creating a medaka (rice fish) with a fluorescent green color.
The scientists from NUS and businessmen Alan Blake & Richard Crockett from Yorktown Technologies, a company in Austin, Texas, met and a deal was signed whereby Yorktown obtained the worldwide rights to market the GloFish. At around the same time, a separate deal was made between Taikong, the largest aquarium fish producer in Taiwan, and the Taiwanese researchers to market the green medaka in Taiwan under the name TK-1. In spring of 2003, Taiwan became the first to authorize sales of a genetically modified organism as a pet. One hundred thousand fish were reported sold in less than a month at US$18.60 a piece. It should be clarified that the fluorescent medaka are not GloFish, as they are not marketed by Yorktown Technologies, but instead by Taikong Corp under a different brand name.
June 20, 2008
the reason I asked about these is that they do not look dyed and I wondered how and why this could occur. The ones in the LFS here are displayed under a black light. I always like the natural fish..even with swordtails I prefer the green wild ones, but these danios had my curiousity. they make me feel the same way that little dayglo ceramic castles do /blink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":blink:" border="0" alt="blink.gif" />
But here's why I was curious...One night I was walking on the beach here on a moonless night. I like to walk in the wet sand, and I kicked up a bit of sand playfully, and as it lit on the beach it exploded in very bright green sparkles. Of course it was some kind of bioluminescent plankton or algae, but it was magical. I love the way giant squids etc. do a light show to communicate. so these fish are interesting to say the least.
Dont be sad Matt. I am sorry I started the Parrot Cichlid thread...I hate those deplorable practices too. and you are right...there are so many beautiful , naturally occurring fish to choose from. That's why I like Kribs and Rainbows so much /blush.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":blush:" border="0" alt="blush.gif" />
These fish are banned in the EU & are illegal imports as far as I know.There is a reference to this on Pete Cottle's website.
February 8, 2008
while i agree that these fish are 'pretty', they are indeed an abomination. they are genetically engineered and as such should be kept for research and nothing else.
i read that they were supposed to be sterile so couldn't breed, but this is obviously not the case.
i believe someone tried to sell these on ebay a few years ago and ended up being reported to defra and i think the chap was fined and all fish destroyed as they are indeed illegal in the EU and i believe many US states.
June 13, 2011
Yep they're illegal here alright. You can understand why some people like them I suppose but I totally agree with you Keith.
[Image Can Not Be Found]
Pic credit: 2dayblog.com
June 13, 2011
May 13, 2008
When you say the fish were destroyed Matt.. how do they do it on such a large scale? Must be difficult killing that many fish in a humane manner.
probably by using chemicals...we used to do that when we had to exterminate fish at the fish farm
Most Users Ever Online: 246
Currently Online: Thomas
Currently Browsing this Page:
Devices in use: Desktop (2)
Mark Duffill: 1012
Guest Posters: 0
Newest Members: QuentinTarantino, gustavowoltmann, spicytofu, Wicked_75, TemplarAce
Administrators: dunc: 1323, Matt: 8239