# Genetically engineered Salmon



## sfy2004 (Jun 2, 2008)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39265727/ns ... od_safety/

In a nutshell, a Massachusets company has found a way to genetically engineer Atlantic Salmon, making then MUCH larger than a normal salmon at the same age. (see article pic)

of course,they must get FDA approval before being allowed to place them on the market, which has many calling it a "Frankenfish" and calling for it's approval to be denied from fear 
that it could escape its pens and breed, or diminish the available food in that area. along with the fact that we don't know if their are any side effects from consumption of them, or if they have different allergens than a normal Salmon.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

They do the same thing with chickens and turkeys, including the ones you have on your table at Thanksgiving.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Absolutely a good idea. There is a huge need for food such as salmon, the more farm raised salmon used for that purpose the less reliant commercial fisherman are on native fish which are of a fixed population.


-DallanC


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A couple of comments here.



Dodger said:


> They do the same thing with chickens and turkeys, including the ones you have on your table at Thanksgiving.


True, along with many other things we eat. Fears about the meat being unhealthy have been unfounded so far.



DallanC said:


> Absolutely a good idea. There is a huge need for food such as salmon, the more farm raised salmon used for that purpose the less reliant commercial fisherman are on native fish which are of a fixed population.


It should be mentioned that many conservation organizations such as Trout Unlimited have expressed concerns about how current salmon farming is conducted. Their issues include increased parasitism of nearby wild salmonids from the fish farms, (the concentrated fish densities in the farm causes an explosion of the population of certain parasites) the waste products from the farms being of such a nature that it causes nearby oceanic dead zones, and escapee Atlantic salmon trying to spawn in Pacific streams and displacing native Pacific species. last year, when I went to Southern Alaska for some fishing, the Fish and Game there had set up bulletins about these Atlantic salmon showing up in Alaskan streams and their concerns about it. TU has a program where they encourage their members to support *wild* salmon consumption by asking that restaurants serve wild pacific salmon only.

This is not to say that salmon farming cannot be improved and done more safely, but that how it is presently conducted should be changed.

One last item on the "genetically engineered fish" topic. If this bugs you, I would advise against fishing for and consuming tiger trout, wipers and splake. -Ov-


----------



## Dagwood (May 12, 2010)

I think it's a very bad idea. They are debating if these frankenfish will breed with 'natural' salmon. I don't think there is any question that they will! It's just a matter of time. Then where will we be? Once that happens there is no turning back. Honestly, this kind if thing scares the bajeezus out of me :shock:


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Catherder said:


> A couple of comments here.
> This is not to say that salmon farming cannot be improved and done more safely, but that how it is presently conducted should be changed.
> 
> One last item on the "genetically engineered fish" topic. If this bugs you, I would advise against fishing for and consuming tiger trout, wipers and splake. -Ov-


Agreed. Don't forget the triploid rainbows at Strawberry and elsewhere!



Dagwood said:


> They are debating if these frankenfish will breed with 'natural' salmon. I don't think there is any question that they will! It's just a matter of time. Then where will we be?


That's a good question. Where will we be? What would be the harm if one of these fish bred with a natural salmon?

Is this any different from hatchery salmon on the west coast breeding with "wild" salmon in rivers? Should the spawn of hatcheryxwild salmon still be considered "wild?"

Are hatchery fish some how genetically inferior to their "wild" bretheren? If not, then why are these Atlantic salmon genetically inferior?


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

Don't confuse the terms "wild" and "native"


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Pez Gallo said:


> Don't confuse the terms "wild" and "native"


Why not? The fishing regulations don't distinguish between them.


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

Dodger said:


> Pez Gallo said:
> 
> 
> > Don't confuse the terms "wild" and "native"
> ...


You don't see any merit in preserving native fisheries?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Dodger said:


> Pez Gallo said:
> 
> 
> > Don't confuse the terms "wild" and "native"
> ...


Sadly, some regulations and more importantly, Federal and state agencies often don't distinguish, to the detriment of our trout and salmon. It has been shown clearly that with respect to Pacific salmon, the viability and survivability of wild salmon fry whose ancestors have historically spawned in the given river is significantly higher than random hatchery born fish *of the same species* released into the same river. When all of the dams were built in the Northwest, agencies promised the public that through the magic of the hatchery system, we would have nearly as many salmon as we had previously. This has been and continues to be an epic FAIL in the lower 48. Protection of wild salmon runs is one of the reasons that TU is so concerned about these Canadian Atlantic salmon farms. It would appear that entities like the Alaska F&G also shares these concerns.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

Did you guys read the comment at the bottom, I thought it was pretty funny. :lol: 

"I want them to bioengineer a hybrid chicken, crossed with a centipede... I loves drumsticks!!"


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Pez Gallo said:


> You don't see any merit in preserving native fisheries?


Not what I said, and not that I disagree with your point although it is different from the subject of this thread.

Genetically, I don't believe the generically engineered fish are genetically inferior.

I do see a value of preserving native fisheries, but when the regulators don't make a distinction between wild and native, I don't see how native fisheries can be maintained.


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

Dodger said:


> Genetically, I don't believe the generically engineered fish are genetically inferior.


Aren't you studying this? You should know that you are leaving out one HUGE genetic factor when you start using hatcheries to produce offspring, or allow hatchery reared fish to mix with native fish.

Or, are you one of those guys who doesn't believe in evolution and natural selection?


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Okay, In Bear Lake they have been catching the spawners for decades and milking the eggs from them. They hatch these out in a hatchery and then place the fry and hatchery reared fish back into the lake. Do these hatchery fish have an imprint to go back to the stream the parent fish used for spawning or do they just have an imprint to go up any stream? Is this imprint lessened somehow because the fish were not hatched or reared in the natural stream?

If I remember right, the same hatched fish from Bear Lake were introduced to Strawberry in hope of establishing a run of spawners there. Did this work out?

As a side note: if the Utah dwr could learn this engineering technique they could use it on the browns in the Provo River system. Imagine huge sterile browns!


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Not sure where I'm at on this one. We have our share of frankenfish here. Wipers. Tiger Trout. Splake. Cut-bows. And the crown jewel of frnaken-animals - Shasta the Liger that was encased in glass at the Hogle Zoo for decades. So what's the deal with franken-salmon? Looks interesting. I'll have to learn more before I form an opinion on this one.


----------



## MKP (Mar 7, 2010)

For me there's a difference between crossing two species, i.e. brown trout + brook trout = tiger trout and gene splicing. Mixing two species that, in theory, could cross breed in the wild, and mixing and matching in the lab, totally different to me. Not sure why but implanting a totally different animal's DNA into another animal's DNA spooks me a little.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Thing is, brown trout and brook trout can't hyrbridize in the wild. One is a char and one is a salmonid. This isn't that different. Is it?


----------



## MKP (Mar 7, 2010)

They can, but its much more successful in the lab. How about splake as a another example.



> Tiger trout can be produced reliably in hatcheries. This is done by fertilizing brown trout eggs with brook trout milt and heat shocking them, which causes creation of an extra set of chromosomes and increases survival from 5% to 85%. Tiger trout have been reported to grow faster than natural species, though this assessment is not universal, and they have been widely stocked for sport fishing.


You've heard of the glow in the dark mice? That's the freaky stuff I'm talking about. I'm not sure how this new salmon came about, but I don't think it was by normal cross-breeding and hybridizing. I'm just saying I can understand why some people aren't comfortable with it.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Pez Gallo said:


> Dodger said:
> 
> 
> > Genetically, I don't believe the generically engineered fish are genetically inferior.
> ...


No, I'm not studying biology.

Pez, I'm really not, or at least not trying, to be a jerk. So, no need to take the shots at me. All I'm saying is that the cat is out of the bag with hatchery fish producing offspring with native/wild fish.

In the northwest, specifically, there is no real distinction whatsoever. Say a hatchery salmon has his fin clipped and goes out into the wild blue to spend his 4 years avoiding predators. He survives and heads back up the Columbia River to spawn. He finds himself a nice fin-clipped female and they score a sweet gravel bed to do their thing.

Every one of their fry that make it to the ocean is going to be a "wild" salmon. At least they will not be fin-clipped which identifies them as "wild" and protected.

How can the fry of two fin-clipped fish that survived 4 years in the ocean be genetically inferior to the fry of two unclipped fish that spawned in the next gravel bed over? I don't believe they can.

I think you are missing that artificial/hatchery spawning *does* provide opportunities for natural selection. The fish that are spawned in a hatchery proved their genetic material was good enough to survive 4 years in the ocean. The spawn of fin-clipped salmon that come from the hatchery aren't any different, genetically speaking, from the spawn of fin-clipped salmon that do their thing in the river. That's evolution, in the classical sense, at work.

Thus, I reiterate my previous question. Why would the spawn of genetically engineered salmon be inferior to the spawn of any other salmon? The same principles apply.


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

I'm not taking shots a you dodger. I had thought you were studying biology, and so I was confused by your assertions.

I realize that hatchery reared fish do have opportunities at the wild part of nature and have a chance at being eaten etc., but when you rear fish in a hatchery, the choice of mate is not made by the fish, and the most attritious time for the eggs and alevins is made safe by the hatchery. So the fish didn't need to survive those stages. We are denying natural selection when we do this.

I grew up in the PacNW and know quite a lot about this subject. I can say that most hatchery fish do not mix with native stock. Many rivers have fish dams where the fish are collected and separated. Wild fish are allowed upstream, hatchery fish are used for eggs and milt until they reach their quota, the rest are trucked down and recycled through the river.

Not many rivers have native fish anymore, and its sad. So when I see someone posting that there is no big deal to let hatchery fish spawn with the native, it hits a nerve.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Pez Gallo said:


> I'm not taking shots a you dodger. I had thought you were studying biology, and so I was confused by your assertions.
> 
> I realize that hatchery reared fish do have opportunities at the wild part of nature and have a chance at being eaten etc., but when you rear fish in a hatchery, the choice of mate is not made by the fish, and the most attritious time for the eggs and alevins is made safe by the hatchery. So the fish didn't need to survive those stages. We are denying natural selection when we do this.
> 
> ...


No problem, sorry I misunderstood.

I agree with you that the hatchery protects fish during their development. I think it is possible that the alevins that survive because of the hatchery protection would be eliminated during life. If the fish were genetically unfit to survive as alevins, then shouldn't they be genetically unfit to survive later in life? I don't necessarily think that taking the choice of mates away from the fish denies natural selection. Natural selection just takes its toll later in the process.

I do agree that it is unlikely that the wild and hatchery fish spawn together because of the fish's desire to return to it's home waters, but I'm relatively confident to say that it has happened. Statistically, the numbers say it must have happened.

I'm not saying that it isn't a big deal. I wish native fisheries were protected. They just haven't been and the cat is out of the bag.


----------

