motherpusbucket writes "The Telegraph reports that Japanese scientists hope to be breeding a so-called 'Super Tuna' within the next decade or so. They have about 60% of the genome mapped and expect to finish it in the next couple months. The new breed will grow faster, taste good, have resistance to disease and will totally kick your ass if you cross them."
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday July 02, @12:46PM (#28560761)
After reading all those articles about how the ocean would be depleted of fish, Tuna being one of my favorite fish I approve, now they need to make a super version of whatever Tuna eat.
Exactly. If the Tuna are bigger, and less prone to diseases, they will be eating more, and not dying as much from (normal non-human) predators. And on that note, what about the other animals that eat tuna? will they be strong enough to still kill the tuna they normally do, will they eat less, or start eating younger ones and sort of usurping this whole plan? Plus if they are bigger and stronger, they will likely linger in climate zones they would normally leave sooner, also (rather drastically, which is th
Sounds like a good idea, rather then fish Tuna to extinction they're solving the problem by make better Tuna.
Now all we have to have to a bigass debate on slashdot about how this is going to make DRM zombie tunas while ignorantly forgetting the fact that "Natural" tuna have had their genes altered through hundreds of years of breading.. Basically like every other time DNA altering comes up in a story..
We should hunt them to near-extinction. Then they'll get put on the extinction list and all tuna fishing will be banned. Then my roommate will have to find a different terrible-smelling food to eat. . . in mass quantities . . . EVERY evening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Until of course we find that these genetically-mutated tuna have infiltrated natural stocks and any unforeseen genetic abnormalities are passed on to them as well. I don't know why it's so hard to understand the differences between natural selection and the dangers posed by genetically-introduced traits. I'm not a biologists, but I've seen the insanely haphazard changes you can get in plants and animals by manipulating even one seemingly harmless gene. And, not completely understanding what we're doing m
Except for, that GMO are altered in ways unnatural to breeding, such as using viruses to inject not only cross species but cross kingdom genes into their genes. This is a radical departure from selective breeding and natural selection.
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday July 02, @12:48PM (#28560789)
A modify the DNA so that few dozen Sharks Fins appear on the new fish. Perhaps they could save the real thing from extinction. Then again the 'Green Lobby' would rise up against 'Genetically Modified Fish' Sigh.
I predict they will genetically enhance the necessary parts to incorporate them into the weird porn industry that thrives in Japan. After the tunas career is up they can still serve his enhanced parts as a rare delicacy in restaurants.
The article talks about targeting aquaculture farmers, but I suppose it is possible the genetically altered tuna could escape into the wild and breed with wild tuna. Assuming the genes will be patented like Monsanto does with seeds, will fishermen be sued for catching such cross bred tuna?
Also, how do you aquaculture tuna and keep the meat tasty? The reason tuna is so tasty is because of migrations thousands of miles long- which any aquaculture operation isn't going to have.
Shouldn't be too much of a problem. Unlike most fish, which are simply capable of ramjet respiration, (where water is forced over and through the fish's gills at high speed through swimming, as opposed to forcing the water over their gills via the mouth and operculum), with tuna this is obligatory, as otherwise the fish cannot obtain enough O2 from the water, and will for lack of a better word, drown. They swim constantly, even while "sleeping"
The article talks about targeting aquaculture farmers, but I suppose it is possible the genetically altered tuna could escape into the wild and breed with wild tuna. Assuming the genes will be patented like Monsanto does with seeds, will fishermen be sued for catching such cross bred tuna?
Unpossible. Farmers only get sued because they own & 'control' the fields that Monsanto seeds migrate to. There's no way in hell any court will ding you for catching something that escaped into international waters.
People have been altering the genetics of plants and animals for as long as we have practiced agriculture.
However, doing this with modern techniques can present incredible risks, possibly as large as the risks we face from environmental damage. There are significant consequences to altering genomes of existing creatures, and mostly, people would try to be as careful as possible. Most all of the changes we've made have been exceedingly helpful.
Before you get too self-righteous, it's not necessarily quite that simple. First off, scarcity of food may possibly cause people (consciously or unconsciously) to have fewer children. I don't know the science on that one, but it's possible.
Second, it doesn't mean fewer people starving to death so much as it means more people (perhaps temporarily) not-starving to death-- and there's a difference. The whole point of an argument like the one the GP is making is, if you increase the food supply, the population increases to the point where people start starving to death again. If population growth is otherwise unchecked (e.g. by predators), then a population's numbers will grow until the available resources are not sufficient to support further growth. The two possibilities once that happens is (a) there will be some kind of equilibrium reached; or (b) the population will overuse the existing resources to the point where they basically exterminate themselves.
First off, scarcity of food may possibly cause people (consciously or unconsciously) to have fewer children. I don't know the science on that one, but it's possible.
It doesn't. Look at the fertility rates in countries where starvation and famine aren't a problem (Western Europe, US, Japan). Then, compare that with the fertility rates in sub-Saharan Africa.
The whole point of an argument like the one the GP is making is, if you increase the food supply, the population increases to the point where people start starving to death again.
So, you're saying that no matter how much (or little) food we produce, we'll always have people starving to death?
If you want mandatory population control, implement a one child policy like China, forced sterilization, or simply shoot the excess people in the head. But seriously, almost anything would be less cruel an
Actually, what has been shown is that the more power and education women have in a society, the fewer children. It seems that when given the choice, women only really want to have on average about 2 kids. If we are concerned about population growth then we should be working towards making women everywhere free and educated.
Now, having said that, the size of fish (cod definitely, and I would assume tuna as well) has declined due to industrial fishing practices wiping out the larger subspecies entirely and then moving down the chain.
I can't see any objection to reviving a subspecies that would have existed had sane fishing practices existed - say, by using the same technique as for gene therapy and splicing in genes from extinct varieties - provided it is done with caution.
It wouldn't matter too much if such a revived subspecies escaped, as the environment has evolved on the basis that it is present. Creatures further up the food chain might start reviving, for example.
It might also start to deal with "dead zones" (oxygen-free regions in the seas and oceans), which are largely a product of overfishing resulting in excessive algae, the lives, deaths and decaying of which simply eliminates all the oxygen present. Reintroducing a stable, self-sustaining food chain to the oceans would be dangerous but still much safer than the current disaster.
The problem is, this is NOT what is being done. Instead of recreating a subspecies that should have existed but was obliterated due to the stupidity of the seafood industry, they are creating a whole new subspecies according to market tastes. And when the market shifts (as it routinely does), the old stocks will be worthless and dumped into the wild in an uncontrolled way that has nothing to do with restoring the ecology and everything to do with maximizing profit.
They are also not going to make any effort to develop anything further up or down the foodchain, which means you'll have something that throws off whatever balance does exist in the current environment.
Anyone here remember the old ecology computer games, like "foxes and rabbits", where you specify the initial number of each and the available area of grass for the rabbits to feed on? Of those who do, how many of you succeeded in producing stable environments? It turns out that it's damn hard when the number of elements is very small, it's only viable when you've an extremely high level of biodiversity.
Here we have the three elements of the original game, with the food for the tuna replacing the grass, the tuna being the rabbits and the human consumers being the foxes. If, after all this time, you still can't find good starting numbers, what makes you think the fish markets (who don't give a rat's arse about the environment) are going to do any better?
I see potential danger. Tuna are already a highly refined predator. What if the cages break and a group escape? Then you have a disease resistant fast growing population of predators loose in the seas. What could this mean for other species? Could this throw the ecological balance way out of whack?
I've worked in population modelling in the past, and predator/prey ecology is complicated, chaotic and inherently unpredictable. Forget Lotke-Volterra models, although they are nice equations, they are not realistic in real world situations where there are many species with many interactions. Super-Tuna would be another apex-predator, as nothing else can catch them except humans because they swim so fast. Messing with apex predators ALWAYS does weird stuff to ecology, and it's never good.
Even if it lowers the cost, it won't especially matter much, will it? You can't entirely remove tuna from the ecosystem as a consumer, and they get a lot of mercury in their diet, pass it along. Eastern little tuna are lower in mercury according to Wikipedia, but they're specifically mapping and going to be modifying bluefin tuna.
This doesn't terribly seem like the most sensible idea to invest large amounts of time and money in if it's just going to produce more fish that you can't safely consume greater am
That last bit is likely not far from the truth. Tuna is already a kind of superfish- they're a red meat fish with fast-twitch muscles that allow them to swim at up to 60 MPH for some breeds.
If the Japanese try to improve on them, we're going to need steel nets to catch them as they end up with southern migration patterns around both S. America and Africa......
This assumes, of course, that their research on tuna is less weird and unproductive(except of tasty food substances) than their "research" on whales [smh.com.au].
Since this is Japan, we would need to be more worried about tentacles. Anything Japanese that has tentacles is bad, bad news for schoolgirls the world over.
Obligatory..... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You can tune a piano but you can't tuna fish
Re:Obligatory..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Teenage Kanji Ninja Tuna
Teenage Kanji Ninja Tuna
Teenage Kanji Ninja Tuna
Heroes in my sandwich
Tuna Power!
Parent
Sashimi (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...make a super version of whatever Tuna eat.
Exactly. If the Tuna are bigger, and less prone to diseases, they will be eating more, and not dying as much from (normal non-human) predators. And on that note, what about the other animals that eat tuna? will they be strong enough to still kill the tuna they normally do, will they eat less, or start eating younger ones and sort of usurping this whole plan? Plus if they are bigger and stronger, they will likely linger in climate zones they would normally leave sooner, also (rather drastically, which is th
Re:Sashimi (Score:5, Funny)
maybe, but what happens if the super tuna out competes and eats all non-super tuna?
Darwin wins. See, tuna made themselves to tasty that:
1) They'd be overfished.
2) We'd see that, and then make them EVEN BETTER and plentiful.
Well done tuna. You've won the genetic lottery.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. One of the best possible traits to develop is being tasty to humans — if all you care about is population anyway.
I don't think cows, corn, or soy will be going extinct any time soon.
Re:Sashimi (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Cue that eco-maniacs (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like a good idea, rather then fish Tuna to extinction they're solving the problem by make better Tuna.
Now all we have to have to a bigass debate on slashdot about how this is going to make DRM zombie tunas while ignorantly forgetting the fact that "Natural" tuna have had their genes altered through hundreds of years of breading.. Basically like every other time DNA altering comes up in a story..
Re:Cue that eco-maniacs (Score:5, Funny)
"Natural" tuna have had their genes altered through hundreds of years of breading.
Tuna comes pre-breaded now? Talk about a time saver!
Parent
Re:Cue that eco-maniacs (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cue that eco-maniacs (Score:4, Informative)
Except for, that GMO are altered in ways unnatural to breeding, such as using viruses to inject not only cross species but cross kingdom genes into their genes. This is a radical departure from selective breeding and natural selection.
see:
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=94728813969&h=p0i5C&u=Xnrbb [facebook.com]
Parent
It would be nice if they could add (Score:3, Funny)
A modify the DNA so that few dozen Sharks Fins appear on the new fish.
Perhaps they could save the real thing from extinction.
Then again the 'Green Lobby' would rise up against 'Genetically Modified Fish' Sigh.
TUNAZILLA! (Score:4, Funny)
'nuf said...
Tuna Porn? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oblig SouthPark gay fish reference (Score:2)
Do you like fishsticks [wikipedia.org]?
Do you like to put fishsticks in your mouth?
Monsanto of the Sea? (Score:5, Interesting)
The article talks about targeting aquaculture farmers, but I suppose it is possible the genetically altered tuna could escape into the wild and breed with wild tuna. Assuming the genes will be patented like Monsanto does with seeds, will fishermen be sued for catching such cross bred tuna?
Re: (Score:2)
Also, how do you aquaculture tuna and keep the meat tasty? The reason tuna is so tasty is because of migrations thousands of miles long- which any aquaculture operation isn't going to have.
Re:Monsanto of the Sea? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The article talks about targeting aquaculture farmers, but I suppose it is possible the genetically altered tuna could escape into the wild and breed with wild tuna. Assuming the genes will be patented like Monsanto does with seeds, will fishermen be sued for catching such cross bred tuna?
Unpossible.
Farmers only get sued because they own & 'control' the fields that Monsanto seeds migrate to.
There's no way in hell any court will ding you for catching something that escaped into international waters.
*SUPER* tuna? (Score:3, Funny)
Damn, and I thought husbands were already whipped.
Sorry Charlie... (Score:4, Funny)
It's a tunami!
very dangerous practice (Score:2, Insightful)
People have been altering the genetics of plants and animals for as long as we have practiced agriculture.
However, doing this with modern techniques can present incredible risks, possibly as large as the risks
we face from environmental damage. There are significant consequences to altering genomes of existing
creatures, and mostly, people would try to be as careful as possible. Most all of the changes we've made
have been exceedingly helpful.
But there are a few unavoidable truths:
1- Humans cannot contain na
Re: (Score:2)
Food availability is the single most important factor that keeps people from starving to death.
FTFY.
If that's how you want to control the population, at least be honest about it.
Re:very dangerous practice (Score:5, Insightful)
Before you get too self-righteous, it's not necessarily quite that simple. First off, scarcity of food may possibly cause people (consciously or unconsciously) to have fewer children. I don't know the science on that one, but it's possible.
Second, it doesn't mean fewer people starving to death so much as it means more people (perhaps temporarily) not-starving to death-- and there's a difference. The whole point of an argument like the one the GP is making is, if you increase the food supply, the population increases to the point where people start starving to death again. If population growth is otherwise unchecked (e.g. by predators), then a population's numbers will grow until the available resources are not sufficient to support further growth. The two possibilities once that happens is (a) there will be some kind of equilibrium reached; or (b) the population will overuse the existing resources to the point where they basically exterminate themselves.
Which path do we want to take?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, scarcity of food may possibly cause people (consciously or unconsciously) to have fewer children. I don't know the science on that one, but it's possible.
It doesn't. Look at the fertility rates in countries where starvation and famine aren't a problem (Western Europe, US, Japan). Then, compare that with the fertility rates in sub-Saharan Africa.
The whole point of an argument like the one the GP is making is, if you increase the food supply, the population increases to the point where people start starving to death again.
So, you're saying that no matter how much (or little) food we produce, we'll always have people starving to death?
If you want mandatory population control, implement a one child policy like China, forced sterilization, or simply shoot the excess people in the head. But seriously, almost anything would be less cruel an
Re:very dangerous practice (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:very dangerous practice (Score:4, Informative)
I completely agree.
Now, having said that, the size of fish (cod definitely, and I would assume tuna as well) has declined due to industrial fishing practices wiping out the larger subspecies entirely and then moving down the chain.
I can't see any objection to reviving a subspecies that would have existed had sane fishing practices existed - say, by using the same technique as for gene therapy and splicing in genes from extinct varieties - provided it is done with caution.
It wouldn't matter too much if such a revived subspecies escaped, as the environment has evolved on the basis that it is present. Creatures further up the food chain might start reviving, for example.
It might also start to deal with "dead zones" (oxygen-free regions in the seas and oceans), which are largely a product of overfishing resulting in excessive algae, the lives, deaths and decaying of which simply eliminates all the oxygen present. Reintroducing a stable, self-sustaining food chain to the oceans would be dangerous but still much safer than the current disaster.
The problem is, this is NOT what is being done. Instead of recreating a subspecies that should have existed but was obliterated due to the stupidity of the seafood industry, they are creating a whole new subspecies according to market tastes. And when the market shifts (as it routinely does), the old stocks will be worthless and dumped into the wild in an uncontrolled way that has nothing to do with restoring the ecology and everything to do with maximizing profit.
They are also not going to make any effort to develop anything further up or down the foodchain, which means you'll have something that throws off whatever balance does exist in the current environment.
Anyone here remember the old ecology computer games, like "foxes and rabbits", where you specify the initial number of each and the available area of grass for the rabbits to feed on? Of those who do, how many of you succeeded in producing stable environments? It turns out that it's damn hard when the number of elements is very small, it's only viable when you've an extremely high level of biodiversity.
Here we have the three elements of the original game, with the food for the tuna replacing the grass, the tuna being the rabbits and the human consumers being the foxes. If, after all this time, you still can't find good starting numbers, what makes you think the fish markets (who don't give a rat's arse about the environment) are going to do any better?
Parent
Re:very dangerous practice (Score:5, Interesting)
I see potential danger. Tuna are already a highly refined predator. What if the cages break and a group escape? Then you have a disease resistant fast growing population of predators loose in the seas. What could this mean for other species? Could this throw the ecological balance way out of whack?
I've worked in population modelling in the past, and predator/prey ecology is complicated, chaotic and inherently unpredictable. Forget Lotke-Volterra models, although they are nice equations, they are not realistic in real world situations where there are many species with many interactions. Super-Tuna would be another apex-predator, as nothing else can catch them except humans because they swim so fast. Messing with apex predators ALWAYS does weird stuff to ecology, and it's never good.
Parent
super yeast (Score:3, Interesting)
Can't we start with something simpler and get some super yeast meant for beer!
Tuna Schmoona (Score:2, Informative)
Even if it lowers the cost, it won't especially matter much, will it? You can't entirely remove tuna from the ecosystem as a consumer, and they get a lot of mercury in their diet, pass it along. Eastern little tuna are lower in mercury according to Wikipedia, but they're specifically mapping and going to be modifying bluefin tuna.
This doesn't terribly seem like the most sensible idea to invest large amounts of time and money in if it's just going to produce more fish that you can't safely consume greater am
Sounds great... (Score:2)
Sounds great, what could possibly go wrong?
AM/FM Tuna? (Score:2)
Which bands does it receive? Is it a superheterodyne tuna?
Cross them?! (Score:2)
Cross them?! Cross them with what? Other tuna species? Piranhas? Cmdr Taco?
Or, make them angry? Why would they be, err... angry, at anything?
oblig. (Score:3, Funny)
Stop having a boring tuna. Stop having a boring life.
-- Vince 'Slap Chop' Offer
I thought (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No, what they mean is: Current tuna tastes excellent. Power tuna will merely taste good.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That last bit is likely not far from the truth. Tuna is already a kind of superfish- they're a red meat fish with fast-twitch muscles that allow them to swim at up to 60 MPH for some breeds.
If the Japanese try to improve on them, we're going to need steel nets to catch them as they end up with southern migration patterns around both S. America and Africa......
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fish Overlords (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
No you may not Re:Tuna Overlords (Score:2, Funny)
May I be the first to welcome our new Tuna overloards...
No you may not [slashdot.org].
May I be the first to say you can tune a filesystem but you can't tuna fish. Oh wait, someone beat [livejournal.com] me to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that anything like We 3 Kings?
(Hint: < yields <)
(Super Hint: &lt; yields <)
Re:We 3 Tuna (Score:5, Funny)
Undoubtedly the first message from the Super Tuna Council will be:
ALL YOUR BAYS ARE BELONG TO US.
Parent
Re:We 3 Tuna (Score:5, Funny)
Parent