Fish artificial selection ethics (why are albinos apparently not hated here?)

[Lycosid]

I wonder whether that is true. I once had a Pteroplichthys pardalis with 1 eye - it had no problem competing with it´s conspecifics. But would the same go for all catfish? Even the free swiming ones who are active during the day, such as the

Kryptopterus

species?

There probably are some species where this would apply - but it probably isn't the general rule. I also can't think of any of these species which actually have albino morphs in the trade.

From the above, I think there is going to develop a consensus that while we may dislike albino´s (or not) the real point is the well-being of the fish. For many albinos we do not know the result of this albinism - and here comes the problem. If you are not certain the fishes´well being is in trouble, do you say `you can´t say the fish suffers, and it is breeding, so I will continue` or will you say `you can´t be certain the fish does not suffer, so I will not breed it`.

I think this difference in attitudes is seen more and more. Not only in ethics

So let's talk about suffering. Most of what we've been discussing hasn't actually been about suffering. Everyone seems to be against actual suffering - dyeing fish, keeping them in cramped quarters, etc. However, what we've been discussing is fish who are inconvenienced. Except they aren't, really, because we take care of getting them food, lowering their light level, etc. Is being blind (which is even more extreme than what we're discussing) suffering? My blind friends don't think it is. It's an inconvenience, and it's one they know about because they talk to other humans who have full sight.

If you want to talk about suffering we'd need to see evidence of disease or mortality. Now, albinism can result in skin lesions which are presumably painful, but that's in high-light conditions. There are many naturally albino cave catfish out there, which suggests that albinism is harmful only under a particular visual environment and actually carries benefits in other environments.

Also, I'll say it again, but albinism isn't one thing. There are many genetic ways to make an albino, and some come with other complications. (There's a type of albinism in horses that is lethal if both copies of the gene show that mutation.) If we were discussing a form of albinism that caused some other side effect, like tumors, that would be clear evidence of suffering. I'm not even talking about scientific paper grade evidence - if I started seeing a lot of people saying albino bristlenose had shorter lifespans than their colored conspecifics I'd say that was sufficient to avoid breeding them. (Although it is possible for a species to have a shorter lifespan without additional suffering. I don't assume that mice have lives of misery because they only live a few years at most.)

[Bas Pels]

Is being blind (which is even more extreme than what we're discussing) suffering? My blind friends don't think it is. It's an inconvenience, and it's one they know about because they talk to other humans who have full sight.

Wheter being blind is an inconvenience or suffering is, I think, partly a matter of intelligence. Your blind friend knows he cannot see, and is able to adapt himself. But a dog, which does not understand what being blind means, will have a hard time adapting.

I think suffering or being inconvient is just a matter af gradation

There are many naturally albino cave catfish out there, which suggests that albinism is harmful only under a particular visual environment and actually carries benefits in other environments.

As I wrote before, being colorless is not albinism.

And even is a certain species of cave fish would be albinistic, this line has, obviously, adapted to being albinos. By compoensating for the loss, somehow.

This is completely different for, say, an albino Corydoras, which has all the genes for developing color, but some of them went wrong. It does, however, have not any gene for compensating the loss of color.

Also, I'll say it again, but albinism isn't one thing. There are many genetic ways to make an albino, and some come with other complications. (There's a type of albinism in horses that is lethal if both copies of the gene show that mutation.) If we were discussing a form of albinism that caused some other side effect, like tumors, that would be clear evidence of suffering. I'm not even talking about scientific paper grade evidence - if I started seeing a lot of people saying albino bristlenose had shorter lifespans than their colored conspecifics I'd say that was sufficient to avoid breeding them. (Although it is possible for a species to have a shorter lifespan without additional suffering. I don't assume that mice have lives of misery because they only live a few years at most.)

Here I agree mostly, but again, please do not make the mistake of messing up species with individuals. You mice, for instance, normally live for say 2 years. This 2 years give them a good, fulfilling, satisfying lifespan.

My Brachydanio albolineatus @ 3 years of age are showing signs of old age - getting colorless, the body lines are not as smooth as they used to be, they swim less rapidly, while my Platydoras @, I think 30 years are still strong and vital. To me this says more that Platydoras are evolved to leve a lot more than Brachydanio - rather than that I took ten times better care of the Platydoras.

Obviously, a genetic defect can have much more results than just being an albino. The more results the defect has, the more chanses are the animal will suffer (plants, lacking nerves do not suffer at all, so it is not an error to use ´animal´ and not ´organism´)

So yes, some treats of albinism can have more drastic results than others. In fact I can imagine there are albinos wich do make melanin, but is it not controled because the cell is unable to understand the needed signals. Such an albino would not need to have impaired vision. And if it lives in black water, where the sun penetrates only a few centimeters, it might not even have less chances of survival.

[Viktor Jarikov]

I have a 2' blind iridescent shark catfish, a free and non-stop swimming species. It does tend to spook easier and run into stuff (this is common in the species anyway) more than my other iridescent sharks but overall I think it's coping just fine.

Blind ambush predators like TSN usually do just fine for themselves too.

[AZCatfish]

Genetic manipulation via selective breeding has been going on for thousands of years. Selective breeding of wolves produced the great variety of dogs we have today. And most of the crops and farm animals we have are the result of selective breeding. Selective breeding, which is a slow process, is now being replaced by much faster laboratory genetic modification. Example...the controversial glo fish - a genetically engineered fresh water species with marine invertebrate DNA. Its probably just a matter of time before they create a "Galactic Purple" cory. And that mushy, bland and dyed filet of Salmon most people think is delicious is a farm raised GMO that doesn't exist in nature.

I am a new member here. I find it interesting to note that this site discourages catfish hybrids and prefers species. And there is nothing wrong with that. I also grow orchids in addition to my aquarium hobby. However, in the orchid world, few people are interested in species. Its the hybrid orchids that get all the attention and awards!

I'm not tying to make any kind of statement, other than this is a very interesting topic!

[fat meloe!]

I have a 2' blind iridescent shark catfish, a free and non-stop swimming species. It does tend to spook easier and run into stuff (this is common in the species anyway) more than my other iridescent sharks but overall I think it's coping just fine.

Blind ambush predators like TSN usually do just fine for themselves too.

Is TSN tiger shovelnose?

I am fine with fish that are blind due to accidental injuries. If you rescue an albino from a tiny tank I am okay, but I do have some doubts about trying to breed it.

So purposeful breeding of blind or halfblind fish, if it is proven that catfish albinos are indeed halfblind, is what I have doubts with. And if a purposely bred halfblind fish does not suffer, I still have doubts. To paraphrase Jools on his aeneus cory article from
the beginning of this thread:

Whether it suffers or not is unimportant. To deliberately breed disabled or unhealthy fish (keep in mind that I am not calling albinos or other artificial morphs disabled because I have doubts) for the unthinking aquarist's visual enjoyment is simply wrong.

Edit: This may be superfluous, but since facial and body language are absent, people including myself often are offended by posts sometimes. Please don't misinterpret anything here

[fat meloe!]

Genetic manipulation via selective breeding has been going on for thousands of years. Selective breeding of wolves produced the great variety of dogs we have today. And most of the crops and farm animals we have are the result of selective breeding. Selective breeding, which is a slow process, is now being replaced by much faster laboratory genetic modification. Example...the controversial glo fish - a genetically engineered fresh water species with marine invertebrate DNA. Its probably just a matter of time before they create a "Galactic Purple" cory. And that mushy, bland and dyed filet of Salmon most people think is delicious is a farm raised GMO that doesn't exist in nature.

I am a new member here. I find it interesting to note that this site discourages catfish hybrids and prefers species. And there is nothing wrong with that. I also grow orchids in addition to my aquarium hobby. However, in the orchid world, few people are interested in species. Its the hybrid orchids that get all the attention and awards!

I'm not tying to make any kind of statement, other than this is a very interesting topic!

Thank you for providing info. Not opposed to artificial modification in general, but only modification that is harmful.

Darwin talks about niata cattle, which are the bovine equivalent of bulldogs. They have wrinkled faces and lips that do not touch. Strangely, they are less hardy during famines, because their short lips prevent them from eating famine food (shrubs) although they can eat tall grasses normally during times of plenty.

This is only one example of a trait with nearly invisible effects.

[Lycosid]

Wheter being blind is an inconvenience or suffering is, I think, partly a matter of intelligence. Your blind friend knows he cannot see, and is able to adapt himself. But a dog, which does not understand what being blind means, will have a hard time adapting.

I think suffering or being inconvient is just a matter af gradation

I think intelligence is a hindrance here - a blind dog just does what it's always done, it's not aware that it's missing something. So let's talk specifics. A blind fish would suffer if it ran into things, couldn't find food, or was unable to otherwise take care of itself. Unlike a human with a disability it would not suffer existential angst over why it was forced to have this lot in life. And, in an aquarium, the actual causes of suffering can be removed.

As I wrote before, being colorless is not albinism.

Albinism lacks a clear, set definition, and I can't figure out which one you are using. I assumed you meant that "albino" meant, to you, a colorless individual of a normally colored fish but then you discuss albinistic cave fish which seems to contradict this.

And even is a certain species of cave fish would be albinistic, this line has, obviously, adapted to being albinos. By compoensating for the loss, somehow.

This assumes that the loss is meaningful. A fish in a cave probably suffers no loss at all - melanin is probably primarily a defense against UV light which is missing in caves (and fish tanks).

This is completely different for, say, an albino Corydoras, which has all the genes for developing color, but some of them went wrong. It does, however, have not any gene for compensating the loss of color.

This actually sounds exactly like the most natural route for evolving into a colorless cave fish.

In fact I can imagine there are albinos wich do make melanin, but is it not controled because the cell is unable to understand the needed signals. Such an albino would not need to have impaired vision.

It would suffer the unavoidable problems of being unable to adapt the eye to high light conditions since it would have no color in the iris to block light. This would require a low-light environment.

[Bas Pels]

What is the difference between an albino and a colorless animal, such as seen in caves?

Albinism is a genetic defect. In order to produce melanin an animal needs to have a series of proteins each setting a further step in this production.

That is also why albino1 * albino2 can sometimes produce colored offspring: if albino 1 lacks protein 1, and albino 2 lacks protein 4 - they both will compensate each others genetic defects.

A colorless fish does not have agenetic defect, but it is supposed to be colorless. Yes, the first step towards being colorless can be albinism. But the big difference is, a cave fish has been colorless for countless generations. Any negative effect the lack of color could have on the way the body funtions is compensated. Or dealt with differently / many cave fish lack eyes, and thus the failure to produce pigment for eyesight is, obviously, not a hindrance. Their other senses are much sharper.

[AZCatfish]

If you stop and think about it, the tropical fish trade may be the most cruel pet trade of all. Think about what the wild caught fish go through to reach their final destination of an aquarium somewhere in the world. Same for captive bred fish. The abuse, trauma, death, disease, and malnutrition is staggering. If they make it alive to the LFS, often there is even more suffering. I can hardly bring myself to go into most fish stores because of the suffering I see in the tanks. And once they leave the LFS, there is no telling what final cruelty awaits them if they wind up in an irresponsible persons aquarium. I try not to think about it, because I know by purchasing fish I help support an often cruel trade which greatly conflicts me. So when I buy fish, I feel a personal responsibility to provide them the best home my skills can provide them. To me they are a pet....no different than a dog or cat.

I guess what I am saying is that a lot of fish suffer, not just the genetically modified ones. You have a strong conscience "fat meloe" and I can see that certain things bother you. The pet trade in general is problematic, with many issues & concerns. But the positive is that excellent sites like this one promote responsible ownership of tropical fish and most of the members & guests are well intending. If each one of us takes care of our fish as we should and we share our knowledge then we will help reduce the suffering that many fish might have to endure.

[Bas Pels]

If you stop and think about it, the tropical fish trade may be the most cruel pet trade of all. Think about what the wild caught fish go through to reach their final destination of an aquarium somewhere in the world. Same for captive bred fish. The abuse, trauma, death, disease, and malnutrition is staggering. If they make it alive to the LFS, often there is even more suffering.

While collecters, exporters and I think many importers do not feed their fish I think we should nog anthroposize more than needed. Fish can go without food much longer than we do, and in the dry season it is often months without food.

Further, many people think that half the collected fish die before they come to a shop. Luckily it is far less, I would assume 25 % - but if 25 % of dogs would die between being born and delivered at their final owner's home, evereybody would screem murder.
This 25 % is far too high indeed

I used to breed cichlids, selling some 200 fish a year to shops. But where did the 20 pairs a year Cryptoheros septemfasciatus go? I never heard about them. While an optimist, I do not believe the 100 pairs of this species I sold were all kept decently. Not that many people in the Netherlands are interested in Central American cichlids. Even small ones.
In fact, I would be surprised if 10 of these pairs ended up right. For me, this was a reason not to breed anymore.

So yes, you do raise a few good questions

[gulogulo]

First off, this is a great discussion and kudos to all for posting clearly and rationally and not devolving into a flame war which can often happen in posts like this.

I am in agreement with the opinion that man made deformities that clearly affect the fish (balloon body, etc.) are horrible, longer fins are often a matter of degree so I have less of an issue with finnage but by and large I usually avoid long finned varieties, more of a personal preference on that one, I don't have issues with others keeping them.
Dying fish by injecting or tattooing is not good and should not be supported. While to my knowledge there are not yet catfish that have genetically inserted jellyfish genes to create the glowing colors of the glow fish there may be some day. I have gone back and forth on this process and still don't know where I stand but I think it falls in a similar light as hybrids (see below). Natural or line bred color varieties I have no issue with, I think the possible health issues with albinism or other color morphs is minimal, and would we prevent albino humans from breeding because they would pass on the albinism trait? Extreme example, I know, but what is the goal of any fish you may keep in an aquarium (or the wild)? Survive and pass on its genes, why should albinos be prevented from this because their lifespan could be shorter?
And what about hybrids? I used to be categorically opposed to them, I have altered my opinion and now can see the value in hybrids if they are properly labeled as such (unlike many syno hybrids). I heard a talk a year ago about how many people get drawn into the hobby by seeing a pretty fish, often this may be a hybrid (any platy, swordtail, molly, and many guppies, peacocks, etc.). Once they are in the hobby they begin to appreciate the fish, learn more about them and perhaps get involved in conservation, habitat preservation, species maintenance or some other activity that supports the wild places our fish come from. While there are certainly colorful and interesting fish that are not line bred, hybrid, genetically modified, etc. different things appeal to different people and if a hybrid gets someone involved in habitat preservation for your favorite fish, bird, mamal, etc. is it worth it? Or do we shun those who haven't had enough science education or don't know the right questions to ask? What if that person who loves their hybrid fish and was told they can't keep it, is a law maker who thinks all fish should stay in the wild? again extreme reactions but when we try to think from someone else's perspective we gain insight into our own. I went to a very environmentally focused college (we were called treehuggers) and one of the biggest issues I saw with the environmental movement at the time (still exists to a large extent today) is they wanted to save the environment from people without taking the people's needs into account or looking at it from the perspective of the people cutting down rainforests to survive. We all need to look for the balance between what is acceptable and sustainable and what is wrong. I know I broadened the topic a bit but I hope I didn't go to far afield of the original intent of the thread.

Thanks for listening

[AZCatfish]

All this got me thinking. Can anyone name a fish that has had a genetic modification that is "helpful" vs "harmful?"

Is there any dog that is superior to the wolf from which it descended?

Such a fascinating topic!

[Bas Pels]

What do yoou mean by helpful?

Commercial bred fish are often hybrids. Because infertile as they are, they will not spend anergy breeding, and Thuys will be more efficient. A pleasant side effect is, if these fish would escape, they will not harm nature as much as fertile fish could

But if you look form the fishes' point of view, I think all alterations are, at best, not very bad

[fat meloe!]

I have heard that captive raised fishes are often better suited and thrive better than wild ones in tanks. However this does not mean the change is always genetic, they may simply have gotten used to tank conditions.
https://www.bluezooaquatics.com/product ... =1&cid=361
http://www.liveaquaria.com/general/gene ... pagesid=85

Also, in an insect keeping book, it is mentioned that the first captive bred generation of the beetle Eleodes spinipes has a high die off rate during pupation, but later generations survive better. I infer this to be rapid natural selection, because the larvae of all generations are said to be healthy.

I do think we are drifting off topic a bit. The intent was to discuss artificial forms that were not discouraged but still had a negative effect. Maybe start a new topic?

[Bas Pels]

Breeding fish in a tsank obviously is selective. We select fish that breed over those that do not.

Adapatbility to a tank is something that wild fishes have in a certain measue. If you want to breed a hard to breed species, it is therefore a good idea to start with a large group. Imagine that half the fishes adapt well. Than, most likely, 3 out of a group of 6 would breed, but with 3, chances could be there is not a male and a female around. And if they are, it could be they just don't like each other sufficiently to breed. It could, however, also be you are a bit unlucky and have only 2, with far less chanses

If you had 10, normally you would have 4 that breed - and with 4, you have either 2:2 or 1:3 - that is 3 or 4 possible combinations. Much better chances indeed