"Glofish" ID... Zebra Danio care... sel.
11/9/09
I have recently seen a fish called a "Glofish" - a relative of the
zebra, yet genetically enhanced to exhibit colors -
<Not "a relative" of the Zebra Danio (Danio rerio) but the same species,
just with an extra gene. Maintenance is identical, though they're likely
to be somewhat delicate by comparison to standard Zebra Danios thanks to
inbreeding and less genetic variation.>
I thought they would make an interesting addition to my tank - What size
tank do they require?
<Like Zebra Danios, tank 60 cm/2 feet long is the key thing; these fish
get to about 5-6 cm in length and are highly active. In small tanks
they're less happy and prone to becoming frustrated bullies.>
Are they a shoaling fish?
<Yes; keep in groups of 6 or more (either 6 Glofish, or a mix of 6
Glofish and standard Zebra Danios, as you prefer).>
Are they compatible with other species of fish?
<Like Zebra Danios in this regard. Community fish, provided not mixed
with anything too slow that might be nipped or otherwise harassed.>
In general, what is the best way to keep them healthy and happy?
<As Zebra Danios, with due allowance for their preferred cool water
temperature -- 22-25 C is ideal -- and their need for clean water with a
good current and lots of oxygen.>
Also, Do they reproduce in species-only tanks?
<In theory they should be easy to spawn, just like Zebra Danios. But
when you buy these fish, you actually accept a license that prohibits
you from doing so (bizarre as that sounds):
http://glofish.com/license.html
Since these animals aren't sold in the UK, I don't know anyone who has
actually bred them (the European Union has restricted sale of
genetically modified organisms on public safety, animal welfare and
ethical grounds).
Can't say I'm all that bothered by their absence, and I'd encourage you
to look for some of the naturally occurring Danio species (like Danio
choprae and Danio margaritatus) that are much prettier, in my opinion,
and very definitely legal to breed! Cheers, Neale.>
GloFish Question
Bob,
<Yep>
Wondering if we can get your opinion on the GloFish fluorescent zebra
Danios? They look amazing, esp. for freshwater (n fact, even better than some
marine species). Could you comment? If you haven't heard of them yet, they are
at www.glofish.com and
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=3873977§ion=news
has a good article.
Thanks!
Sandi
<Have seen these transgenics... a whole bunch at last times Aquarama in
Singapore... a neat scientific application... but para mi, "no sale"... too
pricey. Bob Fenner>
Re: GloFish Question
Bob,
Thanks so much for your time. I think I'll go with the GloFish even at the
price. They look to cool to pass up.
Sandi
<They are very beautiful, and a very interesting "story" to relate re their
"genetic clip-on" technology. Bob Fenner>
The Ethics of Glo-Fish (TM) (6/5/05) Hiya Bob, <<Howdy. RMF>>
I just finished reading the article on the Glo-fish, and I was wondering if it
would be possible to ask the author if he considers every breed of dog, most
breeds of milk and beef producing cattle, and probably 80% or better of all of
the grains and fruits he eats as also being 'garbage' due to the fact that they
are also man induced 'mutations' (yes, the method may be different, but the
intent and process is the same and similar-one is just more 'trial and error,
after all, no?) For the record, I also don't like the idea of Glo-fish, or
painted chandas, but plenty of folks hate telescopes, black moors, fancy guppies
and swords for just as legitimate reasons. <Agreed> I can understand a POV of
distaste and dislike, I was just wondering what selective bias the author uses
to determine which of our obvious genetic alterations are 'garbage' and why? ;)
(heh, maybe I should write a counter point article for submission, playing
devil's advocate) <All submissions are welcome for consideration. You will have
to use a lot better grammar than you did in this e-mail. Please capitalize the
proper noun "I" and the first letter of sentences. We post all e-mails and
replies. It's a lot easier for folks to read them if they are punctuated
properly. If you do it then we can spend less time proofreading and more time
answering.> Keep up the good work-been observing your website for years, all the
best!
Alan
<Thanks. The author of the article is not a member of the question-answering
crew, so I do not know how to contact him. I do agree with you on this issue. I
have nothing against Glo-Fish (TM) myself. They were created to serve a
utilitarian purpose (pollution detection). If there is a side benefit of
providing pretty fishes that have not been chemically burned and dyed, that's
great from my perspective. I have no problem with GM foods either. I say you're
right that there is no difference in principle between this and selective
breeding. It's only method and speed. In fact, GM is better because the planning
will lead to fewer bad mutations. It just needs to be properly regulated. As for
the other fish you mention, I have qualms about some of them. If fish are
selectively bred for appearance, I only have a problem if that creates a
deformity that impairs the fish or causes pain. Some of the fish sold these days
definitely suffer as a result of their selectively-bred appearance. That's my
opinion, for what it's worth. Steve Allen>
