FrankenFish

F

FishFinger

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
1,223
Location
Central Oregon
What are your views on genetically modifying salmon?

Clarified: What does "genetically modified" salmon mean? – Eatocracy - CNN.com Blogs

Salmon Nation: Genetically Engineered Salmon

http://www.aquabounty.com/

Twice the weight in one half the time.... Sounds like exactly what we wouldn't want mixing with "conventional" salmon. Jacks are two year sexually mature males. I can imagine four year fish losing the habitat battle against a hybrid creation that breeds twice as fast.

the unintended consequences could be profound.
 
Last edited:
Raincatcher

Raincatcher

Moderator
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
4,742
Location
Less than 50 feet from the Santiam River! :)
Aren't these to be bred and raised strictly on fish farms? If they are rigorously restricted to farms only it would just be another enterprise that will most likely get dropped in short order when the American public turns up their noses. Similar to the whole Emu and Ostrich industry coming over to crush the chicken/egg industry in this country. I'm not a scientist,but I have been around long enough to know I wouldn't be interested in them on my table. Probably taste like warm cottage cheese.
 
C

chrisohm

Banned User
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
362
Location
Canby.....
These fish are raised to be on fish farms only and miles away from other water. They are also sterile so they cannot breed or create hybrids. This will have a huge impact on the fishing industry. If people start buying farm raised GMO salmon then guess what will happen...price per pound will go down on other salmon to compete. The gross part is they are not required to label it as GMO. You would never know that the fish at the counter is natural or not. I find it atrocious that money is spent to find out how to create a bigger fish faster. We already did it with turkeys and that is horrible, big white turkeys designed for the slaughterhouse. Spend the money on real research that can help people instead of making fat fish. I can go catch a fat fish and I have more fun doing so, the fish tastes better and doesn't have a third eye that could give me cancer. Who knows, they could target other fish in the future....
 
O

OnTheFly

Well-known member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
2,906
Location
Oregon City
Has anybody seen the movie Jurassic Park?
 
Last edited:
B

bigsteel

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
2,546
Location
salem, oregon
they need to just leave well enough alone,its bad enough we have hatchery fish,,,,maybe theyll make a gorgeous looking carp
 
B

bigfootfish

What's amazing is the giant fish farms out in the ocean now. A netted area miles and miles across that contains the fish in an ocean environment. Steelhead, salmon and tuna are the species these companies are targeting to raise in their "farms" way out there. Sheesh.

BFF
 
O

OnTheFly

Well-known member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
2,906
Location
Oregon City
bigsteel said:
That would be genetically impossible and definitely not practicable. It would be like trying to polish a turd.
 
troutdude

troutdude

Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,036
Location
Willy Valley, Oregon
Isn't a polished turd more commonly called a carp? <just kidding folks> LOL

BTW, if you poke a farm fish...will they leak salt like those "non Foster Farm" chickens on TV?
 
S

SemperFly

New member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
24
Growing fish twice as fast is hugely beneficial to humanity. They're not going to let these fish run amok with wild salmon populations. Even if they did, they can't interbreed. The planet is overpopulated and there are already more mouths than food to feed; its only getting worse. If we don't figure out how to feed all these people we're going to be at war over natural resources. The technology that allows these "frankenfish" to exist already gives us cheap insulin, growth hormone and a variety of other benefits. Most of the crops you buy in the store and eat have herbicide resistance genes. Creating these fish is building on research that was already done years ago. It's like figuring out that you can combine a crow bar and a block of steel to have a single tool, a hammer, that can drive nails and remove them. It's a novel use of existing ideas.
 
C

chrisohm

Banned User
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
362
Location
Canby.....
Growing fish twice as fast is hugely beneficial to humanity. They're not going to let these fish run amok with wild salmon populations. Even if they did, they can't interbreed. The planet is overpopulated and there are already more mouths than food to feed; its only getting worse. If we don't figure out how to feed all these people we're going to be at war over natural resources. The technology that allows these "frankenfish" to exist already gives us cheap insulin, growth hormone and a variety of other benefits. Most of the crops you buy in the store and eat have herbicide resistance genes. Creating these fish is building on research that was already done years ago. It's like figuring out that you can combine a crow bar and a block of steel to have a single tool, a hammer, that can drive nails and remove them. It's a novel use of existing ideas.

Genetically modifying anything should be against the law. We should not privilege ourselves to mess with nature. Technology can be great if it is used in a way to transport our excess food to other places where food is not plentiful. We have too many overweight people in this country and some of that has to do with the food we eat and how it is processed. Also, if you allow these companies to continue messing with genetics, then one day the only fish you can have would be your farmed salmon and your herbicide resistant fruits/vegetables. They modified those crops so they could over spray them then control the market by only allowing farmers to grow that crop. There are loads of good documentaries you could watch that may only anger you in the long run when you understand what they are trying to do. On a side note they say they are sterile but even nature can undo the modifications we have made. Every fish comes from an egg and from that egg could be any set of genes to thwart their process.:think:
 
J

JSpencer

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
120
Location
Beaverton
I have to play the devils advocate here. I'm for this, it's already being done with other animals we consume for food. The same technology that is being used to modify these fish is also being used to extend the lives of humans. Decades ago the average life expectancy for humans was 60, decades before that, 50. Just a couple of centuries ago living to the ripe old age of 40 was some feat! Now we have people celebrating birthdays past 100. Modern medicine helps keep people healthy (regardless of obesity), and a bi-product of that is longer lifespans.

Every day more humans are born and begin consuming food, less than half the number born every day are dying. The balance isn't there due to modern medicine, so we HAVE to turn to modern science to help counter the impact our very same science has on the natural world. Until we begin controlling our own population (in China families are allowed one child only, they can have another if the first dies or is adopted out of country), we do not have many choices. I guarantee you here in the US you wont see any laws being passed on how many kids you are allowed to have. There are too many who would scream and cry against it, even if it would be in the best interest of the entire world.

So until something changes drastically we should be embracing this. There are just too many humans consuming the food in the world, the natural way of things just cannot keep up. I'm not going to get inflammatory about this, but i am going to urge those of you against it to think about this from this stand point. We praise the technology we have that saves lives very day, but in the end its working to kill us at the same time. Now i'm not going to say we should let people die, quite the opposite, i work in the medical field myself! But i am going to say that this technology being used to help sustain our population should be embraced rather than disdained.
 
C

chrisohm

Banned User
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
362
Location
Canby.....
I have to play the devils advocate here. I'm for this, it's already being done with other animals we consume for food. The same technology that is being used to modify these fish is also being used to extend the lives of humans. Decades ago the average life expectancy for humans was 60, decades before that, 50. Just a couple of centuries ago living to the ripe old age of 40 was some feat! Now we have people celebrating birthdays past 100. Modern medicine helps keep people healthy (regardless of obesity), and a bi-product of that is longer lifespans.

Every day more humans are born and begin consuming food, less than half the number born every day are dying. The balance isn't there due to modern medicine, so we HAVE to turn to modern science to help counter the impact our very same science has on the natural world. Until we begin controlling our own population (in China families are allowed one child only, they can have another if the first dies or is adopted out of country), we do not have many choices. I guarantee you here in the US you wont see any laws being passed on how many kids you are allowed to have. There are too many who would scream and cry against it, even if it would be in the best interest of the entire world.

So until something changes drastically we should be embracing this. There are just too many humans consuming the food in the world, the natural way of things just cannot keep up. I'm not going to get inflammatory about this, but i am going to urge those of you against it to think about this from this stand point. We praise the technology we have that saves lives very day, but in the end its working to kill us at the same time. Now i'm not going to say we should let people die, quite the opposite, i work in the medical field myself! But i am going to say that this technology being used to help sustain our population should be embraced rather than disdained.

Yeah, you don't get it. You don't get it at all. They are using that technology for the wrong purposes. Great, save lives but keep it out of the fish. Leave nature alone and encourage people to change their eating habits. Want to lose weight?Two words: EAT LESS. Do some reasearch. With the wasted food in this country we could feed a few small nations without a problem. I don't have a problem with the technology, I have a problem with the abuse of it. All it will take is a few lobbyists and some time, then none of us will get to have a license to fish. Did you see what happened with the gulf coast oil spill? If I had that much money to own a few oil rigs, I would probably own some of these fish farms with the "frankenfish", then I would allow my rigs to break, let the oil spill out killing and destroying the fishing industry there. Where will people turn to when they want fish? My fish farms. It would take no less than 6 months to take over an entire industry. If I had no soul and that much money, you bet your sweet heine I would do it. I wouldn't stop there. How about lobster, shrimp, lingcod? Better yet, a salmon the size of an Orca with twice the appetite. Good thing I have a soul and only enough money to keep this fantastic hobby. That will keep the frankenfish off my dinner table.
 
J

JSpencer

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
120
Location
Beaverton
Yeah, you don't get it. You don't get it at all. They are using that technology for the wrong purposes. Great, save lives but keep it out of the fish. Leave nature alone and encourage people to change their eating habits. Want to lose weight?Two words: EAT LESS.

I didn't say anything about over-eating and wasting food did i? I'm talking about the population of humans in the world. The problems of the world do not reside in people who "eat too much." In fact, did you know that most average and skinny people eat MORE than "fat" people usually eat? That's right chum, that metabolism you're so fond of that keeps ya skinny makes you eat more than i do.

Now get off your high horse, go back and actually read what i took the time to type and dont come back with "fat people are the worlds problems" bullcrap.
 
C

chrisohm

Banned User
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
362
Location
Canby.....
I never said that fat people are the world's problem. This has nothing to do with metabolism or cheap insulin. My high horse is only as high as you make it with snips of my discussion posts. That is a real good Fox News tactic by the way. The population of the world has nothing to do with this topic either. The topic is genetically modifying fish to grow twice as fast while making them sterile. I don't see the point in making a farmed fish of that nature. We don't need to. Farmed fish will never cure cancer or feed the hungry. GMO anything is a bad idea. We are playing GOD with what nature has put in place well before we could walk and find ants with a stick. By the sheer possibility that these fish did get into any other water system what would the consequence be? For something to grow that fast it has to be eating enough. If there was just one that wasn't sterile then we have an even bigger problem. There are no guarantees here. This is not a clearly defined science because they just made it possible with the Atlantic salmon. As I said, I love modern technology and the health advances but this is far from curing AIDS or creating world peace. I have nothing more to say, enjoy your weekends!! :D
 
J

JSpencer

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
120
Location
Beaverton
Farmed fish will never cure cancer or feed the hungry

Feeding those in need is the WHOLE POINT. It's already being done with sheep, cows and other animals we butcher as well as vegetables we eat, unless you buy strictly organic you're eating genetically modified fruits and vegetables.

I never said that fat people are the world's problem.

I'll rebute that with a quote from your earlier post
Leave nature alone and encourage people to change their eating habits. Want to lose weight?Two words: EAT LESS

By the sheer possibility that these fish did get into any other water system what would the consequence be? For something to grow that fast it has to be eating enough. If there was just one that wasn't sterile then we have an even bigger problem

Read the articles on triploid trout. They are exactly what we are talking about, have been released into the wild, yet still are incapable of breeding. Removing the ability to breed is what causes these fish to grow so big so fast. They have no concerns with breeding, they just eat and grow. And therefore produce more meat to eat. Even if they did escape into a coastal river, they would migrate out to the ocean where they would have tons of food to eat, and eventually they would die to a larger predator (shark, orca, fishermen, etc). Yes they do eat a lot, but i would like to think that the people doing this are doing this in holding tanks not connected to any bodies of water.

The population of the world has nothing to do with this topic either.
Now for the Fox News tactic. You are twisting what i said about medical advances to suit your own needs. Our advances in medicine are allowing people to live 40+ years longer than nature intended. Thats 4 additional decades of consuming food, extended fertility time (again ensuring a higher population growth). We live longer, we eat more over time. Thats a larger strain per person on the natural economy. Seriously just think about it. We live longer, because we live longer we eat a lot over time, we take up space. As the population grows, we need more room, so we cut down more trees, drain more lakes and ponds and take away places for plants and animals to live and grow naturally. Now that we have the technology it only makes sense to use it to try to keep up with the demand that humanity has on the world. You can't tell me that this has nothing to do with the population of the world when this very issue is the driving concern behind genetically modifying fish, animals and plants!
This is a fact you cannot refute no matter how much you try, no matter what words you twist. If we dont do this, it will be far worse than if we do. So what if the technology is in its infant stage right now? Continued research and work in it will produce better results, and help offset the impact we already have.

As far as playing God. Would our technology have reached this point if God hadnt given us the brains to do so? Spare me the Christian Science routine, our science is based on years and years of research, mistakes and trial and error. What does it matter if we're doing it with microscopes and test tubes? Centuries ago we did it with our livestock by interbreeding animals with traits we desired them to have. It may have taken a few generations in the animal sense to accomplish it, but we did it and nobody gave it a second thought. We did it with dogs to breed more loyal and attractive pets. We did it with horses to breed stronger work horses, or faster race horses. It's all the very same thing! The only difference is HOW we are doing it now. Whether or not people find it morally right or wrong, i couldnt care less, i pity people with closed minds. This kind of research is exactly what we need to offset population growth caused by our own short sightedness.

Sorry to offend any Christian Science people or Faith Healing people, but we have science, medicine and technology for a reason, regardless of what your personal/religious beliefs are.
 
Last edited:
C

chrisohm

Banned User
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
362
Location
Canby.....
I have not seen any evidence that people in need are being fed with hormone juiced animals or GMO salmon. When was the last time you saw a third world nation with starving people just gifted with beef? When was the last time you saw a homeless child get a house? I see people line up at shelters and turned away because the shelters didn't have enough expired food to feed them all.

Breeding is way different than reprogramming genes. Nature still has a hand to play in that role.

I am not religious, close minded or affiliated with any political party but thank you for assuming so. You seem like the kind of person that looks at the paper and sees the death count of US soldiers but fails to recognize the number of civilian casualties dwarfs the death counts of both sides. Maybe the moderators should just delete this thread before it gets out of hand....and I hope this is your last year in Oregon. You seem to want to destroy nature for the progress of mankind, in some ways I believe nature should destroy man to secure its own future.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom