Pond Boss Forums GENERAL QUESTIONS Pond Boss Geneticly modified tuna?

Is this in our pond future?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...super-tuna.html

Maybe they'll genetically alter them to adapt to freshwater so we can fish for them in local lakes too...

This has already been done with several species most notably trout. By putting fish into artificial conditions you already are selecting for those that can adapt to it. I see nothing wrong with this. In fact it could take pressure off of wild stocks that in some parts of the world's oceans are seriously over fished.

Freshwater Tuna would be an incredible advance! Great sport fish and Cecil's right - the oceans are far too pressured/polluted right now as it is - this would relieve some of demand from overseas fishermen if we could produce them domestically.

Don't some species grow to be over 500 lbs...or am I goin loco again?

You're not going loco... Northern bluefin tuna before they were over harvested commonly went over 500 pounds with the world record approaching 1500 pounds if I recall correctly. Today a 200 pound fish is large.

My favorite tuna to catch is the little tunny, they only average about 4-6 pounds but they make even the mighty HSB seem pathetic when it comes to stamina and power.

My one worry is what happens if some escape into other water systems or oceans. If they are modified to grow bigger faster, the amount of food they will need will be staggering. Introduce a predator that is engineered to be bigger and faster and you could easily decimate other fish populations. IF they could make them sterile it might be a good idea, but personally I still worry when we monkey around with animals for our own benefit. Usually whatever you gain also has a downside to the actual animal. What we did to chicken is a good example. We bred roosters to have huge breasts for more white meat production and then their bones did not solidify correctly due to the explosive growth and many had twisted legs or could not walk at all. It is simply not humane to engineer an animal for one trait and make it suffer it's entire life for our benefit.

If you want more info on some of the things that have occurred in genetic modification of food animals read Temple Grandin's books Animals in Translation or the newest one Animals Make Us Human.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for saving endangered species, finding new ways to raise the foods without impacting wild populations and I'm a meat lover. However, I want to know that the food animals I eat were raised in a humane environment and were not made to suffer unnecessarily during slaughter.

Just my two cents...

I'm not trying to start an argument and I'm not picking on you Anna, and I agree with what you stated about the risk to wild populations. That being said there are over 700 different dog species. Many, many dog species have been selectively bred for appearance. Man has selectively bred (which IHMO opinion is for all intents and purposes genetic engineering) dogs, cats, rabbits, cattle, pigs, fish (that evil mastermind Dr. Condello), birds, and lord knows what else. It seems as though we "forgive" genetic manipulation if we find the results cute and cuddly.

I'm no expert, just another idiot with an opinion, but this topic always strikes me as odd. And once again Anna, I'm not picking on you or attacking your opinion.

Anna don't you mean hens? I wasn't aware roosters were bred for fast growth and the table. All the chickens we ever raised for food were hens.

I'm with Jeff. Genetic manipulation goes back to before the time of Jesus. Nothing new.

Sometimes people seem to have a difficult time differentiating between manipulating the selection process vs. manipulating the genes themselves.

Man always has, and always will be in the business of manipulating the selection process of animals. Heck, animals are in the business of manipulating the selection process of other animals.

If we were to ban selection, we'd all have to pick our spouses randomly.

Ref: We bred roosters to have huge breasts for more white meat production and then their bones did not solidify correctly due to the explosive growth and many had twisted legs or could not walk at all.

Have we met?! : ) George S.

I'm not touching the spouse comment!

But altering genomes is scary to me. I'd rather not have franken-fish for dinner or even know about sharks with laser beams on their heads.

None of you though, addressed what could happen if these super tuna escape into other waters. With a predator that large and that fast, it could be catastrophic for indigenous fish populations.

Selective breeding is one thing, but monkeying around with the genes in a lab, completely different. Didn't any of you see Jurassic Park? Not that I believe we could do what they did in the movie, but one line stood out to me. I'm paraphrasing, I think it was Jeff Goldblum's character that said something to the fact that it was amazing that they could do something like that but no one ever considered if they should.

I'm not highly religious but I do think that God created things as they should be and when we start toying with DNA and changing the basic nature of animals, we are playing God and could really frap something up.

Quite true. I randomly selected my first two spouses and the results we akin to a natural disaster.

Thankfully, on the third time at bat, with some careful selection, I hit a home run. Now it's true that Ricki (aka JWHAP) should have been more careful in her selection process but I figure that's her problem.

Interesting and very respectful discussion.

Not necessarily Anna. A fish that is adapted and genetically modified to perform best under aquaculture conditions i.e. raceways, tanks, netpens, may not be adapted to the wild and simply disappear for the most part. Case in point with trout many of the domesticated trout planted in wild waters don't adapt well or grow as fast. Many die from the time of planting up to 3 or 4 years.

Domestic dogs which have been selectively bred from Grey wolves have a very low survival rate in the wild.

This is like worrying that English Mastiffs will escape and eat all the wolves, or that cows will break free and out-compete the deer. Hope that my flowering dogwood does not seed into the woods and kill off the oaks!

I think Anna has some valid points but its not an easy equation. Most times, animals that have been tinkered with by man simple don't do well in the wild.

A good example of a bad man tinkered with animal messing up a wild population is bobwhite quail. When pen raised birds are released where wild birds are, the few pen raised birds that do survive can breed with wild birds and cause future problems.

There can be that possibility with fish as well. I think the benefits of reduced pressure on wild fish far outweighs the risk of genetic tampering though.

Wow this is strange I was just responding on another thread about some super BG and brought up this same exact topic. Now that you guys are right in the thick of things I think I'll weigh in.

Genes and gene modification is a very touchy subject and presents people with a unique problem that we've never faced. Currently we are still learning about how complex organisms work. Soon we will now how we work. It truly is the new frontier for science. Our best and brightest in the US are now becoming biochemists and with health care in its current state of disrepair we have a lot to gain from this technology. Once we know how something works people we find a way to harness it to make money, solve a problem or whatever. We will be able to make living organisms with desired traits, desired function, etc. We will in essence be able to "Play God".

I am very interested to see how we harness and use this technology. As well as to see how we navigate the moral conundrum it represents. The stem cell debate in this country is just the tip of the iceberg for what's to come. With the expanding global economy the US needs to stay in the forefront of this endeavor while still setting some kind of moral framework that we as people can live with.

I don't want to start a big discussion or offend anyone with this post. I just think it's amazing how little this issue is discussed when we are probably not far away some major breakthroughs. That's just my two cents I'll get back on topic of super tuna...

So I am not surprised to see Japanese scientists experimenting with tuna. The state of the worlds oceans is sad and if we continue down the same path we will be in real trouble.

Genetic engineering is always a hot topic and as Black Bass says it is a happening thing.

If we forget the economics for a moment and just look at the growing population's nutritional needs, there would seem to be no escape from the need to alter food sources. Because, looking at the available wild food sources makes it easy to see that they aren't sufficient to feed us.

We get stuck between trying to protect the naturals and providing food, which seems to wind up doing a poor job of both. We, some of us, believe that we can turn the decline of natural species around. Until we realize that is not ever going to happen we will keep the topic a hot button.

IMHO, we should forget resisting it, accept it and put our effort into seeing that it is done correctly.

Wow! - This is the most rational discussion of GE that I have ever witnessed. There must be something about owning a pond that calms folks down and lets them see straight (or else we're all sharing the same dilusion).

To be fair, Sunil and I have stayed out of it.

Genetic Engineering .... it's what's for dinner;-)

Growth hormones are allowed in cattle and pork and we're worried about genetic manipulation in fish? Why do you think kids enter puberty so early?

Total weight of harvest of fishes from the oceans has not increased for about 25 years. In fact many fish stocks are overfished and the harvest from the world's oceans is likely to decrease. The increased demand for seafood has been met by aquaculture. Genetically engineered fish is one way for aquaculturists to meet this demand.

Fish escaping is definitely an issue. The GE fish might not be able to do well in the wild, but the diseases that are likely to develop in the crowded conditions of a pen could do just fine in the wild fish.

Another factoid: Seafood is the third highest contributor to the United States' national deficit. Only oil and automobiles rank higher.

Cecil - If you eat a bunch of tuna and a tiger eats you, will he growe fins. Cows that are injected with GH don't have higher amounts of GH in their meat and milk. A study of lizards on the Galapigos islands some years ago found that lizards increased in average size every year. The scientists could not understand why until there was a drought and all the big lizards died. The population then started over at a smaller average size. If we don't increase our food supply, in part through genetic engeneering, then our average age of puberty (and our average larger size) may also reset. I hope not to see this.

Great info! Often misunderstood...

Eating genetically modified stuff doesn't affect the person who ate it. That is why it cracks me up when people flip out over genetically modified corn or soybeans. There maybe other ramifications to genetically modified stuff, but not to the animals that eat it.

HSB were the savior to the wild striped bass. If it weren't for fish farms raising HSB and taking the pressure off wild striped bass, I hate to think what fishing for stripers would be like today...