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

[fat meloe!]

Why are dyed fish, deformed fish (balloon

paroon shark

as an example) and big fish in tiny tanks scorned by Planet Catfish, but not albinos? Aren't they nearly blind and hypersensitive to sun damage of skin (let's ignore genetic inbreeding, which can be corrected)? I am not screaming or pouring hate at the site, just mystified that this is not included in the banned list. Also, how much are longfinned fish discouraged here? Although it does not harm them in the aquarium, it still creates swimming issues. Finally, do other morphs (let's ignore fancy goldfish) such as leucistic have issues that are directly caused by the mutation that alters their color? Directly caused means inbreeding problems don't count, but "too much pigment makes their immune system weak" or "the gene for red color makes digestion inefficient" do (Personally I am least opposed to fancy goldfish that have bright colors and no other strange traits, since bright colors have absolutely no effect in tanks but I am doubtful about the ethics of modifying animals for our own pleasure, even if it is completely harmless).

[dw1305]

Hi all,
I think most posters on this site probably prefer "wild type" fish, I certainly do.

I suppose it is a matter of degree, I've kept domestic colour forms of Apistogramma cacatuoides :https://www.aquaticrepublic.com/common/ ... es_id=2570, but personally I wouldn't keep long-fin, balloon or albino fish.

I suppose that once any animals are bred in captivity people will select for different genetic mutations, with dogs breeds being a prime example.

cheers Darrel

[Viktor Jarikov]

I may be wrong but there is no official policy on this site that deals with this topic. It appears to me it all comes down to the individual perceptions and opinions, so if people are not treated as well as they wish on this site for keeping this or that fish this or that way, it's not the site but the members that are responsible.

So what you perceive as a "site" attitude, it could merely be the majority attitude.

I hope the staff or members higher up in the food chain will correct me.

Meanwhile, my personal view agrees with yours that modifying animals is wrong, except I'd say for whatever reason... I say so perhaps in my ignorance but I learn every day.

[Jools]

I was unaware that albino catfish have either impaired vision or are adversely affect by the sun - has anyone seen any research on this or is it hearsay?

Jools

[Bas Pels]

I have not read anything about this, but albinism is an impairment for the animal to make black pigment. Quite often other pigment are missing too, but an albino can (as far as I know) have red or yellow pigment

Vision requires pigments too. So on one hand it is logical to say albinos see less (and most humans with albinism do) but as far as I know, it is not certain. Or neccessary

[fat meloe!]

I may be wrong but there is no official policy on this site that deals with this topic. It appears to me it all comes down to the individual perceptions and opinions, so if people are not treated as well as they wish on this site for keeping this or that fish this or that way, it's not the site but the members that are responsible.

So what you perceive as a "site" attitude, it could merely be the majority attitude.

I hope the staff or members higher up in the food chain will correct me.

No, it has nothing to do with the forum. I base my claim on this: https://www.planetcatfish.com/shaneswor ... +Ancistrus

and maybe this, in which Jools condemns dyed corys but not albino ones:

https://www.planetcatfish.com/cotm/cotm ... cle_id=110

(Please remember this only proves albinos are not condemned by the "staffmoderatorexpert" group, and not that albinos are harmful.)

...except I'd say for whatever reason... I say so perhaps in my ignorance but I learn every day.

Can you clarify? I'm not sure what you meant.

I have not read anything about this, but albinism is an impairment for the animal to make black pigment. Quite often other pigment are missing too, but an albino can (as far as I know) have red or yellow pigment

Vision requires pigments too. So on one hand it is logical to say albinos see less (and most humans with albinism do)

Albino chickens have bad vision: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script= ... 8000300003

Albino mammals have various abnormal systems, including vision: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7403210

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2280977

Albino

Ictalurus punctatus

grow slower and have higher mortality: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... via%3Dihub

And albino zebra danios behave normally under moderate, but not dim, bright, or low-contrast lighting. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 890100284X

The two fish articles stand out very, very brightly, especially the zebra danio one, which shows the albino fish have abnormal vision. Surely if zebras can have reduced vision from albinism, corys and bristlenose plecos might possibly have something similar, too?

Edit: Albino

Silurus glanis

(giant wels catfish): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4841223/

And by the way, here is related info from Aquarium Atlas on

Megalechis thoracata

var. niger, which I infer to be an artificial color form: https://books.google.com/books?id=IlPTz ... er&f=false
Sadly, despite shortcomings, this black color variety is quite beautiful in my opinion.

Edit again: I didn't include anything on sun-sensitivity, but surely the science articles are buried somewhere? I make a lot of edits!

[Viktor Jarikov]

Nice input. Looks like you have done a good amount of homework.

I am confused. In your OP, you say "here", which means this forum to me, then in your reply you say "it has nothing to do with the forum".

It sounds like you have questions to the staff individuals, who expressed their opinions, that is Jools and Shane, and Co. Then they can speak for themselves. No real need to generalize to the whole forum, all the members. Perhaps. If I get it right.

...except I'd say for whatever reason... I say so perhaps in my ignorance but I learn every day.

I said I am against any purposeful genetic modification of any animal by man but I reserve the right to be shown wrong perhaps in some cases. My objection is religious in nature.

I don't see what's wrong with people farming fish for food, in the process of which some naturally occurring fish, such as albino, are not weeded out anymore preferentially by wild predators and sooner or later a lot of the farmed fish become albino or have some other leucistic trait, and then some of these make it into the ornamental fish trade. I don't see a reason to condemn this. This is just one thought. I do not generalize and spread this thinking over any and all practices involving albino or leucistic animals.

[dw1305]

Hi all,

.......I don't see what's wrong with people farming fish for food, in the process of which some naturally occurring fish, such as albino, are not weeded out anymore preferentially by wild predators and sooner or later a lot of the farmed fish become albino or have some other leucistic trait.....

I can tell you one of the reasons why a lot of domestic animals bred for food are albino, or leucistic, and that is that there is a "cost" to creating pigment.

Assuming that loss of pigment is a single gene mutation, in two animals that differ only at this one "gene", but are otherwise genetically similar, the non-pigmented animal will be slightly more efficient in processing food, because it doesn't have the extra cost of making pigment.

It is only a small difference, but it is the same reason that cave dwelling fish etc end up albino.

cheers Darrel

[Viktor Jarikov]

Wow. Mr. $ quietly tinkering behind the scenes again. Rats. Seems like all is driven by $ one way or another.

Very interesting angle. Much appreciate the knowledge, Darrel!

[catfishchaos]

Well albino and leucistic and longfins all exist in the wild- we here are not opposed to wild fish. Finding leucistic and albino specimens in the wild is very difficult as they typically do not last as long as the other normal or 'wildtype' specimens for different reasons but its rarely from health issues as far as I'm aware. Most cases its the ease of predation as their camouflage has been completely compromised and or they are treated differently by their congeners (I forget who posted it or what species was involved but I do recall a publication about albino catfish being ostracized by their fellow species, I believe it was corydoras).

Now for some genetic stuff... Genetics that cause color mutation (in the snake hobby they are referred to as morphs) can usually be divided into these main groups.

Polygenic: A trait that through selective breeding can be exaggerated or intensified through selecting the best examples from every clutch and crossing them to other prime examples until the result is at a desirable level (which is never for humans...)

Recessive: genetics that are only visually apparent in the offspring of two animals that both posses the gene either by being heterozygous (carrying the gene but not showing it) or by two parents that show the gene physically. Albinism is a recessive trait.

Dominant: These genes are the easiest to produce as only one parents must possess this gene for it to be expressed in the offspring.

Codominant:(If I word this incorrectly then I encourage someone to call me out). Getting more specific- this refers to genes that posses equally strong alleles that are both expressed and do not hide the other.

Leucistic and albino genes are different in the fact that albino is a specimen with greatly reduced melanin (black pigment) and leucism being so mixed by the hobby/medical worlds that its best to just say its a skin problem making it inhospitable to pigment (it sometimes affects the eyes but the majority of the time the eyes retain there colour and going off of what Birger said we can theoretically say it can affect vision but IF it does it would not be to the extent of what albinism could.

ANYWAY the point it that these all exist in the wild but are less likely to survive because of predation which isn't usually a problem in the aquarium so to say they can be related to fish purposely injected with colour or line bred to have a deformity that lowers the animals ability to live is (to me anyway) comparing apples to oranges. By the time you factor in nature of catfish which is that they tend to hate bright lights (or light...), are most reliant on smell and touch to find anything and maneuver you have to wonder... How large of an impact does this really have on our beloved catfish

People seem to forget that dogs are all the same species... the only difference between a great dane and a chihuahua is the amount of or reasons for inbreeding. Purebred dogs can be loosely translated to Proudly inbred- this is why different breeds always have the same problems like German shepherds and hip problems or Golden retrievers with their ludicrously high rates of cancer. This is also why mutts tend to live longer than purebreds, mutts are more genetically diverse and are closer to looking what dogs are probably supposed to look like than any purebred but people have been doing this so long... lets just they hope they looked like wolves for the sake of the dogfood indusrty

I hope this doesn't come across as an attack on you or anything like that and I apologize in advance if it does because
a) I'm Canadian.
b) I believe the best way to have progressive conversation is to 'defend' whatever side is opposing which can be frustrating I admit but often betters the argument in the end.
c) Topics I have a passion for or feel confident about allow me to step out of my low self esteem (teenagers these days) is something I enjoy and fully embrace which can lead to both grammatical and vocabulary choices that grossly exaggerate that confidence and can at times even seem condescending.
D) Some people say I might overthink things but I have yet to find any proof ( )

[Lycosid]

Why are dyed fish, deformed fish (balloon

paroon shark

as an example) and big fish in tiny tanks scorned by Planet Catfish, but not albinos? Aren't they nearly blind and hypersensitive to sun damage of skin (let's ignore genetic inbreeding, which can be corrected)?

Albinos, longfins, and leucistic morphs are all genetic.
Deformed paroon sharks are the direct result of rearing a fish wrong - obviously we're against bad standards of care for fish. Big fish in small tanks IS bad care. Dyeing fish is bad care.

The question seems to me to be "Why are you against taking bad care of your fish but not against selective breeding?" However, that also seems to answer the question - there is a self-consistent rationale here.

I, personally, am no fan of "domestic" morphs. I'm interested in catfishes as an example of a fascinating evolutionary radiation covering a variety of interesting ecological niches. However, since most of these morphs can be cared for well in an aquarium I'm not really opposed to other people breeding them. (And I'm ALWAYS opposed to people dumping aquarium fish into the wild.)

[Birger]

Code: Select all

going off of what Birger said

Hehe, how did I get dragged into this.

My feeling on the original question is there is so many beautiful species and natural variants, why must people be playing god and creating these messed up abhorrences.

I use the example of paint, there are so many beautiful colors but if you mix all paints together eventually there will be a blah brown color left over...no one really likes a blah brown fish unless you like Synodontis of course, but only the natural versions.

Birger

[Jools]

albinos? Aren't they nearly blind and hypersensitive to sun damage of skin

My comment was more along the lines of testing the above. In the aquarium, I've not noticeably observed any quality of life detriment attributable to poorer eyesight. The quoted links don't suggest this either. Hypersensitivity to sunlight appears undocumented.

On a personal level while I'm not great fan of albino versions of species, I don't hate them and in my view that would seem a rather divisive word to use. They are part of the global aquarium hobby but not a special interest of mine.

Jools

[fat meloe!]

My comment was more along the lines of testing the above. In the aquarium, I've not noticeably observed any quality of life detriment attributable to poorer eyesight. The quoted links don't suggest this either. Hypersensitivity to sunlight appears undocumented.

On a personal level while I'm not great fan of albino versions of species, I don't hate them

Well, quality of life is one thing and health is another. If the albino Ictalurus in the study acquired their problems directly because of albinism and not inbreeding, I would prefer the wildtype for being more healthy. Also the sun sensitivity was an assumption derived from sensitivity of albino mammals. Fish pigments might protect from the sun too, I assumed, because goldfish in dark environments lose pigments and regain them when exposed to sunny areas (search google).

Nice input. Looks like you have done a good amount of homework.

I am confused. In your OP, you say "here", which means this forum to me, then in your reply you say "it has nothing to do with the forum".

It sounds like you have questions to the staff individuals, who expressed their opinions, that is Jools and Shane, and Co. Then they can speak for themselves. No real need to generalize to the whole forum, all the members. Perhaps. If I get it right.

Clarification: Planet Catfish = "here". The forum is only part of the site. CotM is not the forum, and neither is Cat e Log. I was referring to parts of Planet Catfish run by the staff, not the forum.

[Shane]

I do not see all of these conditions as comparable. Injecting fish with dyes, purposely breeding deformed fish, and keeping a fish in too small of a tank are breeder or hobbyists induced cruelties. While albinism is a naturally occurring mutation. It is not induced directly by the hobbyists. I think most of us have seen albino fish have long, healthy lives in the aquarium where the mutation does not work against them (as it would in the wild). The main reason so many food fishes have albinism fixed is so they will be less survivable should they escape into native water ways.
Speaking for myself, my fish hobby is linked to my being a naturalist so you will certainly pick up on that slant in my articles and postings.
-Shane

[fat meloe!]

Fish with harmful-in-the-wild traits that slightly affect them in the aquarium, like the roundbody goldfish which cannot swim well, may be happy and mostly unaffected by their phenotype in a tank. But we are not them, so perhaps they would be even happier if they had a normal shape and swimming was less tiresome? Even if the goldfish truly doesn't care, I would avoid getting one just because we cannot enter the fish's mind and we may never know what it is actually thinking. Also, even though the inconvenience may be slight I do not think breeding fish with a slight inconvenience just because they are pretty is justified. This is why I lump albinos with dyed fish.

Also, unintended consequences that are mostly invisible but rear their ugly heads under certain situations. What if the purple artificial variant of a fish was less hardy in the face of power outages? Personally I would not get a less hardy fish just because it is pretty. Think of the potential heartbreak!

I am ok with mutants proven to be harmless though. This may be difficult though, due to aforementioned reasons

[Lycosid]

Also, unintended consequences that are mostly invisible but rear their ugly heads under certain situations. What if the purple artificial variant of a fish was less hardy in the face of power outages? Personally I would not get a less hardy fish just because it is pretty. Think of the potential heartbreak!

I am ok with mutants proven to be harmless though. This may be difficult though, due to aforementioned reasons

What if artificial variants are actually better adapted for artificial conditions? What if some longfin morph that would get eaten in the wild is also more resistant to high ammonia? Or, since you mentioned the fish's mental health, what if that extra burden of swimming makes it more comfortable in a tank environment since it has no desire to swim long distances?

I think you should probably stick with provable issues, since unproven changes could be either good or bad - you don't know, since they aren't proven.

[fat meloe!]

Well going back to the main focus of the topic (albinos) certain albinos, such as chickens (not necessarily fish though), are certainly not adapted well even for the average chicken yard. If you click the study near the top of the page, it says they have difficulty finding food and water and needed special conditions just to live.

[Lycosid]

Well going back to the main focus of the topic (albinos) certain albinos, such as chickens (not necessarily fish though), are certainly not adapted well even for the average chicken yard. If you click the study near the top of the page, it says they have difficulty finding food and water and needed special conditions just to live.

Chickens are also not fish. Chickens have four types of visual pigments and special filtration in their eyes to push their vision even further as far as color discrimination. If a chicken starts having problems seeing that's a big deal. However, if switching taxa multiple times in my own research has taught me anything it's that you can't safely generalize across large taxonomic categories. Catfish are very much NOT visual creatures and so I wouldn't assume that they have the same issues.

Moreover, that very same study makes it clear that there are many types of albinism and that the effect they are describing is somewhat odd. It's also not occurring in a chicken yard, but in semi-feral chickens, and yet was apparently STILL not a serious enough problem to prevent many of the albino chickens from surviving.

[Bas Pels]

Catfish are very much NOT visual creatures and so I wouldn't assume that they have the same issues.

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?

Personally I think in a discussion about ethics we should take care not to assume much. I myself think writing about chicken can help. It can make a point claer, and this point can be valid for the fish we are talking about.

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

[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