PDA

View Full Version : New Starfire Red tiger barb released



AmazonJoe
09-27-2016, 04:48 PM
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1297786606898376&substory_index=0&id=202687863074928&__tn__=%2As

mommy1
09-27-2016, 06:35 PM
Alright, I didn't mind the danios, in the name of science, information, and all that, but seriously... Enough is enough.

AmazonJoe
09-27-2016, 06:41 PM
You mean for environmental indicator?

I have no issue with the science it actually exposes fish keeping to a lot more people that other wise might not of considered keeping fish. Of course we get the cases of improper stocking and cycling but that is also true with there natural counterparts as well.

AmazonJoe
09-27-2016, 06:49 PM
I plan on doing a glo tank eventually and when done right it looks really awesome IMO

mommy1
09-27-2016, 06:53 PM
You mean for environmental indicator?Yes. Originally that was their purpose and it didn't bother me. But how many genetically altered species does science need?
I like natural looking fish.

AmazonJoe
09-27-2016, 07:00 PM
I know where your coming from I myself enjoy the natural look of course. But genetics is the new frontier in the world today. GMO's are a super big topic right now. We always will asked that question just because we have the technology should we use it?

Taurus
09-27-2016, 07:15 PM
I like natural looking fish.

Yes, I'm right there with you on this one.

BluewaterBoof
09-27-2016, 07:19 PM
Alright, I didn't mind the danios, in the name of science, information, and all that, but seriously... Enough is enough.

Selective breeding, genetically modified, hybridization...all of these are just different methods to obtain the same end result: producing an organism with desired traits that aren't available in nature. Humans have been manipulating the genetic makeup of plants and animals for thousands of years, whether it's to make bigger cobs of corn, a new breed of dog, or making tomatoes red because they're more visually appealing than their original yellow. Even the cotton in your clothes is genetically modified.

AmazonJoe
09-27-2016, 07:20 PM
I was going to say that we have all type of color variants in the world of fish so nothing new really in terms of changing the natural coloration

Taurus
09-27-2016, 07:33 PM
It's rather simple, glofish, whether they are danios or tiger barbs, do not appeal to me.

Taurus
09-27-2016, 07:36 PM
Never been a fan of either really, why?

BluewaterBoof
09-27-2016, 07:39 PM
It's rather simple, glofish, whether they are danios or tiger barbs, do not appeal to me.

Danios and barbs, whether they are glofish or not, do not appeal to me :14:

AmazonJoe
09-27-2016, 07:40 PM
I was wondering if it was the danios and barbs or the modification you didn't like I never been a fan of danios or barbs myself lol

Although there Tetras are very nice looking and vibrant. I would like to put a tank together with all of the different colors. I think it would look visually stunning under proper conditions.

Taurus
09-27-2016, 07:44 PM
I certainly don't like the modification Joe, but to each their own.

BluewaterBoof
09-27-2016, 07:54 PM
Is it just the color that bothers you, or is your distaste based on an ethical standpoint?

AmazonJoe
09-27-2016, 07:54 PM
Yes to each there own.

This tank is 250g with around 200fish
Although they only had white lights under the bluelight they actually glo flourcents on the back and other areas.
So at night you would only see these areas not necessarily the whole fish.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=929535063723534&id=202687863074928

BluewaterBoof
09-27-2016, 07:58 PM
That's an impressive stocking. I bet if the owner tried plugging all that into AqAdvisor they'd crash the website haha

I'm curious as to what kind of maintenance schedule they have on that tank. That's a huge bio load. I would think you'd be constantly the water to keep nitrates down.

AmazonJoe
09-27-2016, 08:02 PM
They actually had a automatic drain and fill system and I'll have to ask again about filtration can't remember.

But 250 gallons is still a big volume so with a good water change schedule you'll be fine and with a auto system it's easy as flip of a switch and a valve or two.

I'll ask how often/how much WC they did

Taurus
09-27-2016, 08:03 PM
Is it just the color that bothers you, or is your distaste based on an ethical standpoint?

I think it's mostly the colors that don't appeal to me Boof. But I'll also admit not really liking the modifications that german rams, for example, have been through. Maybe I shouldn't equate one modification to the other but I do.

AmazonJoe
09-27-2016, 08:06 PM
It is certainly a novelty any color variant to me is not something I would seek to keep in an aquarium per say. Because my draw to fish has always been because of nature. With that said a lot of the colors like in the natural ram for example is amazing and complex that it doesn't need any modification

Taurus
09-27-2016, 08:11 PM
With that said a lot of the colors like in the natural ram for example is amazing and complex that it doesn't need any modification

I certain agree with that Joe. Just take a look at this wild pair.

http://www.seriouslyfish.com/species/mikrogeophagus-ramirezi/

AmazonJoe
09-27-2016, 08:21 PM
I have some Bolivian rams right now that are looking like two are pairing up showing a lot of different colors. Blues,reds,greens,gold,black and white so complex.

Taurus
09-27-2016, 08:28 PM
Oh great! Bolivian rams are almost as beautiful and a bit hardier. I hope they spawn for you.

AmazonJoe
09-27-2016, 09:36 PM
They might spawn but there in a community tank so most likely wont get any fry but thanks! :)

mommy1
09-27-2016, 10:06 PM
I think it's mostly the colors that don't appeal to me Boof. But I'll also admit not really liking the modifications that german rams, for example, have been through. Maybe I shouldn't equate one modification to the other but I do.
You can add EBJD's and pretty much all of the fancy goldfish, to my list. And of course I still don't understand why we bred molly's to be so ugly when this is what they are in the wild.

http://dlgdxii3fgupk.cloudfront.net/myaquariumclub.com/components/com_mojo/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/xYucatan,P20Molly.jpg.pagespeed.ic.4JPB18QxiN.jpg

Taurus
09-27-2016, 11:18 PM
That is the perfect example of where I'm at.

DebinWhitmore
09-28-2016, 02:23 AM
Yes to each there own.

This tank is 250g with around 200fish
Although they only had white lights under the bluelight they actually glo flourcents on the back and other areas.
So at night you would only see these areas not necessarily the whole fish.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=929535063723534&id=202687863074928

While not a big fan of genetically modification, it happens as stated by others on this thread both with animals and food. There are all kinds of dog breeds that did not exist when I was a kid. Having said all that I think an all glofish tank with the right lighting and decor would look really nice. I don't have a problem with people wanting to keep fish like this.

Agreed also that there is tremendous beauty in natural wildlife of any sort, finned, feathered and furred.

mac
09-28-2016, 06:31 AM
You can add EBJD's and pretty much all of the fancy goldfish, to my list. And of course I still don't understand why we bred molly's to be so ugly when this is what they are in the wild.

http://dlgdxii3fgupk.cloudfront.net/myaquariumclub.com/components/com_mojo/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/xYucatan,P20Molly.jpg.pagespeed.ic.4JPB18QxiN.jpg

Thank you for posting this amazing photo.
I for one do not like this manipulation of nature at all. But it seems we have no say any more as to what can be modified or what can't.
But I know for a fact I will not at all ever buy one.

Sandz
10-06-2016, 12:49 AM
Im on two sides of this fence... One - genetic modification just isnt natural and I personally will never own a fish in my home from the glo-fish line. However - Two - I love electric blue acara, rams, gold rams, discus of all variety, quad red cacatoides and so on....... also albino and lucistic fish. It is "kind of" natural but not the way the genetic scale was "supposed" to play out... line bred fish too in order to get the specific trate.

I saw the last video of a fish farm here in florida that is run really well and their rams they breed are crazy different from wilds... its just a line thats been crossed sooooo many times and I like a lot of what its produced. I just think its how egregious its gotten with fish the color of a highlighter box that we know arent naturally even close to that... Thats what seems to set people over their edge.

WhistlingBadger
10-19-2016, 05:48 PM
I feel like some species (comet goldfish, for example) have really benefited from selective breeding, becoming much more beautiful than the wild form, while still maintaining an ability to thrive in wild environments. Just ask the goldies in my pond.

Others, such as rams, dwarf gouramis, and (especially for me) angel fish, have been bred into colors that, while striking, can't possibly compete with the wild types for beauty and ability to function.

I often hear that selective breeding and genetic modification are the same thing, but there's a big difference. In the former, we take advantage of already existing genetic variability (some wolves are more tolerant of human proximity; some prussian carp have an orange color). These variables already exist in the wild populations; we simply capitalize on them by controlling who can breed with whom.

The latter means creating genetic variability that does not exist: Taking a gene for fluorescent coloration from a jellyfish, say, and artificially splicing it into the genetic code of a zebra fish. I'm not really trying to argue the ethics or aesthetics of either one, just pointing out that they really are fundamentally different processes.

As for me, glofish are not only aesthetically displeasing--way too bright and unnatural looking. They also sort of creep me out.

Slaphppy7
10-19-2016, 05:59 PM
As for me, glofish are not only aesthetically displeasing--way too bright and unnatural looking. They also sort of creep me out.

Same here for me.

BluewaterBoof
10-19-2016, 07:38 PM
I'm not really trying to argue the ethics or aesthetics of either one, just pointing out that they really are fundamentally different processes.

Not disagreeing with you on the fact that they are different processes. My point was that it was the end result that's the same. Altering the genetic makeup of a particular organism to exhibit traits that we find helpful or pleasing. We've been playing around with genetic modification for thousands of years. Direct manipulation of genetic information in a laboratory is simply the next step up from what we've been doing. Heck, we aren't even the only organisms that play with genetic modification; viruses are an incredibly common vector for mutations, hijacking the very DNA and RNA of their targets.

I know a lot of others don't share my point of view, but genetic modification really doesn't strike any moral soft spots in me. Manipulation of crops and animals was what allowed us to crawl away from being the nomadic slaves of nature that our ancestors were for the vast majority of human existence. Without it, you and I would still be crawling through bushes, looking for berries to snack on and hoping a rabbit crosses our path. Large communities would not exist, and modern civilization would not have been possible.

I look at it this way:
If God exists, "he" is omnipresent and all-knowing. He created nature in a way that allows genetic modification/mutation of his creations, knowing full well that his little brilliant and devious humans would mess around with it. If he didn't want the natural order of things to be messed with, he could have locked the secrets of genetics away so that they could never be discovered and manipulated.

On the other hand, if God does not exist, living creatures are just random mistakes that occurred in the vast nothingness of the universe, there is no good or evil, and morals are just human constructs designed to keep society from slaughtering itself faster than it already is. All bets are off, it's every creature for itself, and if creating a purple Labrador is a spin-off of the technology/methods used to eradicate Huntington's Disease, I'll allow it. Humankind is guilty of much more horrific crimes than creating a neon yellow fish. :soapbox:

WhistlingBadger
10-19-2016, 08:29 PM
...you and I would still be crawling through bushes, looking for berries to snack on and hoping a rabbit crosses our path. Large communities would not exist...

That sounds kind of wonderful, actually...but I digress. ha ha ha

Seriously, though, your very thought-provoking post opens a lot of moral/scientific/theological cans that I find fascinating to discuss, but not in online forums. I definitely agree with your closing point: If this is the worst ethical/scientific dilemma we face, we're doing pretty well.

AmazonJoe
10-19-2016, 08:42 PM
I to am enjoying the thought provoking topic and comments. Well said boof, genetics is a very vast and intricate world a lot of good can also come out of genetics. Such as the new recent Zika virus CRISPR screen breakthrough.