[HEINEKEN357]

Any1 have this fish in there planted tank? Petland has them for 3 for $10 is a sweet deal. If so whats a good number of fish to get?
Tank 55g
11 Sae
4 black neon
2 neons
10 cherrys

 

[mistergreen]

most of us don't keep these because they look and are unnatural. There might be one or two perhaps.

 

[lauraleellbp]

You could stock them the same as "regular" zebra danios. These are zebra danios that have been genetically altered with DNA from I think sea anemones to produce the other coloration.

 

[Kittysnax]

You could stock them the same as "regular" zebra danios. These are zebra danios that have been genetically altered with DNA from I think sea anemones to produce the other coloration.

I saw some neon green ones today at petco for 5.99. When I was exiting the hobby, they only had the orange available for 12.99...when I found out they were produced in the same category as "fruit skirts" and "painted glass" I said nah...........but the green ones I saw today were amazing. If I didnt have such a strong disagreement with it, I would have totally snatched them up.

The green ones though...are testing me LOL! The are pretty amazing lookin in person, I just wish they were natural and not altered. D: I could see a school of like 12 in a 55g now.....that'd be awesome. :frown:

 

[Aquarist_Fist]

Well, there is a big difference between "painted" and genetically altered. GloFish are regular zebra danios that inherit the color gene from their parents and pass it on to their offspring. It's not like the all come from a vat in a Frankenstein-type lab.

I still don't like them because I think we should leave messing with other species to God and Darwin, but I find GloFish much more agreeable than injecting colors and such.

 

[lauraleellbp]

but I find GloFish much more agreeable than injecting colors and such.

I'm pretty much of the same opinion.

Keep in mind that these fish have been patented too, making it illegal to sell any offspring even if they're born in your tanks.

 

[GTR]

I thought they were all sterile to protect their project.

This isn't a problem for me. So much of what we eat has been bred for certain characteristics and using DNA to make these enhancements does make any difference to me.

Now injecting a dye into a molly so it has a cute little heart on it's sides is pushing it. lol

 

[lauraleellbp]

I think they tried.

Didn't work. I know lots of ppl who've had fry, and they exhibit the same coloration (Tex Gal may still have some in her 180gal...?)

 

[Aquarist_Fist]

Keep in mind that these fish have been patented too, making it illegal to sell any offspring even if they're born in your tanks.

Wow, do you know this for a fact? Makes you wonder if they could ever actually enforce their patent. After all, they can only own the rights to the process, not to the actual gene. So strictly speaking, passing on the gene through natural procreation is a very different thing. And I guess you could always argue with spontaneous mutation. Man, I should have stayed in law school instead of switching to linguistics...

 

[GTR]

You can patent a rose and those are even easier to propagate.

SteveU

 

[lauraleellbp]

Wow, do you know this for a fact? Makes you wonder if they could ever actually enforce their patent. After all, they can only own the rights to the process, not to the actual gene. So strictly speaking, passing on the gene through natural procreation is a very different thing. And I guess you could always argue with spontaneous mutation. Man, I should have stayed in law school instead of switching to linguistics...

I'm not a lawyer or law student and I've no idea if it will actually hold up in court, but you can google pretty quickly to find out about the patents:

Because fluorescent fish are unique, their sale is covered by a substantial number of patents and pending patent applications. The providers of GloFish™ fluorescent fish are the only distributors that have the necessary licenses to produce and market fluorescent fish within the United States. The production of fish by any other party, or the sale of any fluorescent fish not originally distributed by authorized providers, is prohibited. Fish Mart is proud to be a wholesale distributor for this unusual livestock.

http://www.fishmartinc.com/glofish.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GloFish

http://www.glofish.com/faq.asp

http://www.gpasi.org/articles/GloFishBanCA.html

 

[GTR]

You can patent a rose and those are even easier to propagate.

SteveU

I should have added though that rose patents only protect the holder from asexual propagation and not sexual reproduction.

SteveU

 

[lopez_316us]

I'm not a lawyer or law student and I've no idea if it will actually hold up in court, but you can google pretty quickly to find out about the patents:
http://www.fishmartinc.com/glofish.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GloFish

http://www.glofish.com/faq.asp

http://www.gpasi.org/articles/GloFishBanCA.html

Laura you alway have an answer!! You are the coolest aquarium girl!

Laura you ruleroud:roud:roud::red_mouth:red_mouth:red_mouth

 

[lauraleellbp]

ROFL Thanks Lopez.

I'd love to know whether the issue would stand up in a court, actually... the whole thing seems quite bizarre to me, too.

 

[Aquarist_Fist]

I'm not a lawyer or law student and I've no idea if it will actually hold up in court, but you can google pretty quickly to find out about the patents:
http://www.fishmartinc.com/glofish.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GloFish

http://www.glofish.com/faq.asp

http://www.gpasi.org/articles/GloFishBanCA.html

Thanks for googling that for me. roud:

Here is the main reason why I don't think GloFish licensees could touch a hobbyist for passing on their unintentionally bred fish: Every living organism is a more or less unique combination of many genes. With the exception of true natural or artificial clones, every individual within the same species is different. Defining any individual or even species by one or a few genes is impossible.

So why would the GloFish producers have the right to a whole fish just because of a limited set of altered genes? They don't. (The fact that these alterations lead to a spectacularly different looking phenotype does not play a role - a gene is a gene.) By the same logic, I could modify a pig in some meaningless way and claim ownership to this whole strain.

Furthermore, what happens if the GloFish decides to make sweet love to my perfectly ordinary zebra danio? Half the offspring's genetic code does not belong to the GloFish owners. Do they still own the rights to the whole fish?

Well, I'm not a lawyer. I'm sure my logic is somehow flawed, but sometimes things seem just plain wrong. where I'm from, GlowFish are banned from trade entirely. (Like beta bowls, btw. My country does a number of things right when it comes to fishkeeping.)

 

[ZID ZULANDER]

I thought they were interesting. I have three in my daughters tank in her room. She wanted some pink fish. So I got those for her.

 

[marrow]

Remember they were not originally intended to be aquarium trade fish, rather they were developed for some sort of water quality procedure. In either case the vast majority of soybeans in this country well over 70% are patented round-up ready soybeans. Basically they are resistant to the herbicide roundup a monsanto product. So if patented recombinant products are a concern for you, there are bigger fish to fry then little danios, like the majority of soybeans and most non-organic big commercial dairy products which are produced with cattle treated with RBGH. These products are banned in the U.K. and Canada (at RBGH is in Canada) but are ubiquitous in the U.S.

 

[Kittysnax]

Remember they were not originally intended to be aquarium trade fish, rather they were developed for some sort of water quality procedure. In either case the vast majority of soybeans in this country well over 70% are patented round-up ready soybeans. Basically they are resistant to the herbicide roundup a monsanto product. So if patented recombinant products are a concern for you, there are bigger fish to fry then little danios, like the majority of soybeans and most non-organic big commercial dairy products which are produced with cattle treated with RBGH. These products are banned in the U.K. and Canada (at RBGH is in Canada) but are ubiquitous in the U.S.

I never thought of the whole glofish-native danio outcome. That would be very interesting. Also, that was basically my whole reasoning behind it being stupid. Mainly because it is an animal that wasnt sterile, so technically the hobbiest could be selling "patented Glofish" and the company who "owns" them would never know anyways....unless they keep an EXACT number of how many get out of thier labs...then again, they just might LOL!

 

[marrow]

I am aware this is not the USDA forums, however the legality of patenting lifeforms produced with recombinant DNA processes was brought up so I attempted to bring in some relevant examples from other fields to illuminate the discussion. I am terribly sorry that you found it tangential.

When these fish originally came out the company producing them stated that they were sterile. Hobbyist quickly found out otherwise as they breed easily with each other and other non-modified zebra danios. Try breeding them and selling them back to an LFS for store credit or cash, I doubt you will have much luck. I could go on with much more detail about the company that markets these fish but I don't want to be tediously relevant.

 

[GTR]

If I see one in CA I'll know it's illegal regardless of who the breeder was. I'm being protect from these evil pisces. lol