GMO Salmon - A Different Slant

rambler · #41 12/26/12, 03:50 PM

I hate to start another thread on this type of topic, so hope you don't mind piggybacking a different idea on to this thread.

In vitro meat.

Basically, growing meat in a lab, exersizing it with electricity, and grinding it up into hamburger.

http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2012/08/17/...in-vitro-meat/

Someone from Europe was talking about it on a farm forum.

Lot of discussion if folks would accept this at all.

It is not GMO at least in the view we have here. It's manipulating stem cells tho in some way to grow mucle in the lab.

Interesting concept, it appears it's fairly close to being available for actual use.

--->Paul

CaliannG · #42 12/26/12, 04:08 PM

They are working on that here, as well. One of the university labs I was visiting had a petri dish that contained a bit of chicken muscle, faithfully fed nutrient solution by the students, and "worked" using electrodes. That chunk of meat in the petri dish was 3 years old at the time.

In some ways, I am tentatively *for* such things becoming mainstream. It can't be any mushier and unhealthy that the medicated stuff we get in the grocery store, and at least with "meat" grown in this fashion...it has no brain. It cannot experience suffering. Ethically, it is better than the "factory farms" where they grow the stuff that is currently for sale.

There is less waste, both in production and processing. No feather, guts, etc., to get rid of. No mass amounts of chicken manure to smell up the county.

The "muscles" would not need antibiotics, steroids, etc., because there is little to get infected. And from a purely "humane treatment" point of view, no brain = no pain.

So for all of those very valid reasons, it is a good idea.

But I'll be honest, a part of me goes, "Eeeewwwww! Chicken meat from a petri dish? Yuck!"

rambler · #43 12/26/12, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliannG

The "muscles" would not need antibiotics, steroids, etc., because there is little to get infected.

In the discussion on the farm forum, they took the opposite view. With no real animal around it with no immune system protecting it, these vats of muscle would be a perfect medium for growing bad bacteria. fungus, and other pathogens, needing some system to keep those at bay?

I donno, just discussing.

--->Paul

CaliannG · #44 12/26/12, 05:00 PM

You would need some biosecurity to keep stuff from being infected with junk, just like you need it at any other place that has big vats of things people will consume.

What comes to mind is wine, where you have to be careful that "wild" airborne yeasts don't infect your product during the fermentation process, and then out-compete your "domesticated" yeast, providing an inferior product.

If wine producers can profitably practice biosecurity in their production facilities; I see no reason why a "meat growing" factory cannot do the same.

The "Muscle vats" may not have an animal around them to protect it with an immune system, but it also doesn't have an animal around it to provide a vector to be infected....like a digestive system or a respiratory system.

And the nutrient fluids in the "vats" can be protected in the same way they keep bacterium, fungi, and yeasts from growing in the nutrient solution in an aeroponics system: Just have the solution on a circulating pump that runs through an ultra-violet filter. ZAP! Critters dead!

You will need a pump system ANYWAY in order to be able to infuse the solution with soluble oxygen, so putting in an inline, ultraviolet filter is not going to be a large investment.

So, the muscles in the vats will not need the medications and such. No antibiotics, because they will be living in sterile nutrient solutions. No steroids, because they will actually be LIVING in nutrients.

salmonslayer · #45 12/26/12, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geo in mi

Well, not from Chinese fishermen per se, but this article was very interesting. http://www.alaskaseafood.org/fishing...y11/china.html

"Exports of salmon (mostly wild) out of China increased from 65,400 MT in 2007 to 90,400 in 2010. Exports jumped 23 percent in 2010, which is a direct result of a larger volume of imported salmon hitting China in 2009. Europe and the U.S. are the biggest markets for re-processed salmon, each imported over 40,000 MT of finished product. The vast majority of this salmon is in the form of frozen fillets. In Japan, roe and other preserved product forms accounts for the majority of salmon imported from China"

(From the same article....I'm sure you already know this,,,,)

geo

The wife and I had a fishing boat in Alaska for 10 years until we sold it in 2010 when we retired (you might have noticed my forum name?) so yes I am well aware of our exports to China that and its why I am urging caution about posting misleading information. There are no Chinese trawlers catching salmon and selling them to the US as wild caught salmon however as your link pointed out, they do import a lot of salmon (and other fish) from our fisheries and export them as reprocessed fish products. The USDA now requires labeling of all seafood from country of origin and to label wild caught or farm raised but like a lot of things there is cheating (particularly claiming farmed salmon is wild caught) so you have to use some common sense.

The best advice is to know your fish monger or buy direct from US value added producers. You buy frozen fish fillets or shrimp in a plastic bag at WalMart then you are taking your chances but start talking about how the salmon you buy in this country is from China and people will latch on to yet another conspiracy theory that negatively impacts the economy.

But people will believe what they want to believe and its getting increasingly clear that people are living in fear of just about everything and have conspiracy theories about everything. I have my own pet peccadillos myself so I am no different.

For me I dont eat farmed raised salmon because it just tastes bad and has a texture that I dislike and my concern over their accidental release, I really have no health concern over how they are raised or if they are contaminated. I pay good money (incredibly pricey in the Ozarks) for wild caught gulf coast shrimp because they taste great (the bags of shrimp from Asia at Walmart have little flavor) but the gulf coast shrimp probably have as many contacts with contaminants as the Asian farmed shrimp. So again, one of my thoughts is that if GMO salmon and other species become widespread and a cost effective source of protein then the have nots will be the ones mostly consuming them and assuming the health risks while those who can afford to will avoid them for the most part.

naturelover · #46 12/26/12, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

There is just something creepy feeling about this and as I said, my concern is the potential environmental impact as it pertains to potentially harming the wild stock. As for the labeling I noticed that too and am wondering if this will be a requirement for any new GMOs approved by the FDA.

We have friends and family that send us wild Alaska caught salmon now that we dont live there anymore and I cant stand farmed salmon ...totally different taste (as in it hasnt any) and texture so I can only imagine what a super fast growing farmed salmon would be like. I think there will be more things like this popping up in the name of feeding the masses.

That link you posted locked up on me so I couldn't read it, but I'm assuming they're talking about the salmon that has been engineered with the DNA from both Pacific Chinook salmon and eels. No way can that be called an Atlantic salmon.

http://www.nationofchange.org/fda-pu...ent-1356193056

Quote:

The genetically modified salmon contains both a gene from the Pacific Chinook salmon that causes the fish to produce growth hormone 24/7, as well as a gene derived from an eel-like fish that triggers the hormone production. This causes the fish to reach around 6.6 pounds instead of the average 2.8 pounds. It also reaches 24 inches instead of 13.

I'd like to know what kind of eels they're using, since some kinds of eels can change their gender I'd be concerned about a GMO fish like that getting loose in the environment and altering the food chain. Who can guarantee that it would only be sterile females if they're using eels that can change their gender - who's to guarantee that they wouldn't be able to interbreed with other salmon or eels and produce some kind of monstrous offspring?

Anyway, I wouldn't eat them. And I don't like eel.

.

salmonslayer · #47 12/26/12, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturelover

That link you posted locked up on me so I couldn't read it, but I'm assuming they're talking about the salmon that has been engineered with the DNA from both Pacific Chinook salmon and eels. No way can that be called an Atlantic salmon.

http://www.nationofchange.org/fda-pu...ent-1356193056

I'd like to know what kind of eels they're using, since some kinds of eels can change their gender I'd be concerned about a GMO fish like that getting loose in the environment and altering the food chain. Who can guarantee that it would only be sterile females if they're using eels that can change their gender - who's to guarantee that they wouldn't be able to interbreed with other salmon or eels and produce some kind of monstrous offspring?

Anyway, I wouldn't eat them. And I don't like eel.

.

Thats the one Naturelover and I share the same concerns. I think to some degree is also like the GMO corn and soybean debate...I personally dont know if its harmful or not and I dont have the anti big AG conspiracy bent that so many have about the issue but deep down it just feels wrong in a way thats hard to explain. Its one thing to breed certain traits in a singular species but inter species gene manipulation like this is particularly unsettling.

Paquebot · #48 12/26/12, 11:28 PM

I would think that crossing with other salmon would be the least worry. Much of the bass family will cross and produce hybrids and always sterile. Some trout and salmon will also easily cross and those are accepted by everyone. As far as I know, they also are all sterile. If these fish do cross with an Atlantic salmon and produce a hybrid bigger than either parent, would that be a good thing or a bad thing to a fish monger?

Martin

CaliannG · #49 12/27/12, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paquebot

If these fish do cross with an Atlantic salmon and produce a hybrid bigger than either parent, would that be a good thing or a bad thing to a fish monger?

Martin

A bad thing. Nowadays, they are a fairly niche market. If these fish got loose, with their excessive growth, they could outstrip the resources needed to sustain the native salmon culture. If they interbred with the wild, Atlantic salmon, they will no longer be able to sell "Wild Caught Atlantic Salmon", they will be crossbreeds instead. Once THAT got out, that the salmon schools in the Atlantic were crossbred with GMO farm salmon, they would experience a market dive. It would damage their industry.

Size of the fish, if that even bred true, would not make up for the damage to their industry. The biggest allure, which helps to drive the price tag up and keep fishermen in business, is that "wild caught" is about as organic as you can get in seafood. Damage that, and their market goes away.

Paquebot · #50 12/27/12, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliannG

A bad thing. Nowadays, they are a fairly niche market. If these fish got loose, with their excessive growth, they could outstrip the resources needed to sustain the native salmon culture. If they interbred with the wild, Atlantic salmon, they will no longer be able to sell "Wild Caught Atlantic Salmon", they will be crossbreeds instead. Once THAT got out, that the salmon schools in the Atlantic were crossbred with GMO farm salmon, they would experience a market dive. It would damage their industry.

Size of the fish, if that even bred true, would not make up for the damage to their industry. The biggest allure, which helps to drive the price tag up and keep fishermen in business, is that "wild caught" is about as organic as you can get in seafood. Damage that, and their market goes away.

A lot of money for few is more important than food for many? That somehow doesn't sound right but better than no reason at all.

Martin

CaliannG · #51 12/27/12, 01:07 AM

~laughs~ Martin, when it comes to corn, you seem to think that the MONEY that growing GMO's give farmers is important....more important than any concerns anyone might have, or anything else. It is farmers in the industry making money farming that is important.

But NOW, when a GMO could HURT an industry, it is suddenly NOT important? Sweetheart, you can't have it both ways.

These fish haven't even been *approved* yet for the commercial market, the trials on them that are required before they can be released for commercial purposes have not been completed yet. They aren't even sure, yet, if these fish will perform as hoped....yet already, before the very company who made them has even given them the go ahead as safe, before ANYTHING is proven about them, you are arguing that they will be okay and are just fine? That if they outcross with the wild population, it's no big deal?

Aren't you jumping the gun here, Martin?

I think that you simply approve of GMOs, no matter what. Sight unseen, hasn't-even-been-deemed-safe-by-the-company-that-made-it, if it has "GMO" in the label, you are all for it being massed produced everywhere.

Jeez, Martin, rein yourself in a bit. Go have some rotisserie, vat-grown chicken and calm down, okay?

Paquebot · #52 12/27/12, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliannG

~laughs~ Martin, when it comes to corn, you seem to think that the MONEY that growing GMO's give farmers is important....more important than any concerns anyone might have, or anything else. It is farmers in the industry making money farming that is important.

You've got threads back to 2004 to back up that claim if you wish. Go for it! I believe that you've already gone on record as saying that farmers don't belong on a homesteading forum so you sort of calling the kettle black?

Quote:

But NOW, when a GMO could HURT an industry, it is suddenly NOT important? Sweetheart, you can't have it both ways.

What industry? Where is the US Atlantic salmon fisheries fleet based? I've been in every East Coast port from Boston to Norfolk and didn't see any.

Quote:

These fish haven't even been *approved* yet for the commercial market, the trials on them that are required before they can be released for commercial purposes have not been completed yet. They aren't even sure, yet, if these fish will perform as hoped....yet already, before the very company who made them has even given them the go ahead as safe, before ANYTHING is proven about them, you are arguing that they will be okay and are just fine? That if they outcross with the wild population, it's no big deal?

That's why I'm asking questions and offering up facts.

Quote:

Aren't you jumping the gun here, Martin?

Whoever started this thread would be the one jumping the gun. Ain't happened yet and this discussion is to find out who really knows anything about salmon or just having a Luddite agenda.

Quote:

I think that you simply approve of GMOs, no matter what. Sight unseen, hasn't-even-been-deemed-safe-by-the-company-that-made-it, if it has "GMO" in the label, you are all for it being massed produced everywhere.

That's your opinion which you are entitled to. Again, you're welcome to refer back to all previous threads which I have replied to and perhaps diagram exactly how you came to that conclusion.

Quote:

Jeez, Martin, rein yourself in a bit. Go have some rotisserie, vat-grown chicken and calm down, okay?

Had chicken for Christmas dinner and same as leftovers tonight. Inasmuch as I don't raise my own, I trust someone else to grow them for me. I just eat them!

Martin

CaliannG · #53 12/27/12, 02:26 AM

Му́рманск.

naturelover · #54 12/27/12, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paquebot

I would think that crossing with other salmon would be the least worry. Much of the bass family will cross and produce hybrids and always sterile. Some trout and salmon will also easily cross and those are accepted by everyone. As far as I know, they also are all sterile. If these fish do cross with an Atlantic salmon and produce a hybrid bigger than either parent, would that be a good thing or a bad thing to a fish monger?

Martin

It might be a good thing for a fish monger - for a very short while, until they were all gone and all their prey food was also gone. Their prey food would also include other species of salmon so that could reduce other salmon.

Salmon and trout are in the salmonidae family, and female Atlantic salmon in particular are promiscuous things that will commonly interbreed with brown trout, most especially if there aren't enough male Atlantic salmon to choose from at spawning time. About 13% of the hybrid offspring from such breeding are fertile, the majority are female and capable of interbreeding again with other salmon or other brown trout. Hybrid interbreeding between trout and salmon also reduces the numbers and the physical sizes of salmon and increases the number of trout.

These are things that can happen naturally in nature and fortunately they don't happen often enough in nature (yet) for it to create a serious imbalance in any sub-species within the salmonidae family. But neither salmon or trout can naturally breed with eels. Eels are a completely different species of fish with different habits in all ways, plus they are extremely intelligent, sneaky and voracious predators. The idea of humans creating a new species of salmon with the DNA of both Pacific and Atlantic salmon and eel DNA included in it, and the possibility of that new species getting into the wild and breeding with other salmon or trout and producing fertile hybrid offspring that would have the eel DNA in them, and then that eel DNA getting passed on to other future generations of salmon and trout ..... that would be a nightmare in the long term that could mean the extinction of many other species of fish, including the extinction of salmon and trout as we know them today.

Not a good idea at all, and not a good idea to be messing around playing at being God.

.

Paquebot · #55 12/27/12, 11:19 AM

One does have to admit that there's a lot of "what ifs" associated with anything new. Quack grass, carp, starlings, dandelions, brown trout, English sparrows, and many other things were supposed good things that can't be controlled. Even earthworms can fall into that category. With ocean fish, if we are capable of reducing fish species to near extinction by over harvesting, I can't foresee the same not happening with an introduced species. Atlantic striped bass were deliberately stocked in the Pacific and apparently have not been a problem. Thus there is precedence for stocking oceans.

Martin

salmonslayer · #56 12/27/12, 11:49 AM

Martin, as you pointed out, there is no commercial Atlantic salmon fleet anymore and we would like to preserve an increasingly fragile Pacific fishery that has been depleted through over fishing, degradation of spawning areas (pollution, damming etc), the unknown effects of the Japanese Tsunami disaster and a currently unknown reason for failing salmon runs in many areas.

The north Atlantic fishery should be an example of what can happen through over fishing and habitat loss. And Martin, we already stock oceans; there would be little salmon fishery as it is without the prolific salmon hatcheries already in existence but that isnt what this thread is about.

We arent talking about an introduced species; we are talking about a completely new species potentially being introduced to a fragile ecosystem where they may either interbreed or compete for already scarce habitat. If you actually read my first post on this thread (since I started it) it was hardly a luddite agenda and I have tried to point out both sides of the issue.

You point out the chicken you had for dinner that was purchased and you are satisfied with that and I have no doubt you would be perfectly happy with farm raised salmon that is as tasteless as your store bought chicken. The whole point of this thread is the "what ifs" because once it happens it potentially becomes the "Oh ----".

Fast growing super sized farm raised salmon may in fact be a good cheap source of healthy protein as I previously stated but I posed several questions and concerns that are of interest to me personally since in a previous life I owned a fishing boat, had a 6 pack license and a personal use gill net permit in the very fishery that would be most impacted.

Its clear that consumers and retailers arent interested in GMO salmon yet I have no doubt it will be coming to stores in the near future and to me its worthy of discussion.

Paquebot · #57 12/27/12, 12:00 PM

What if a new species does become established and fills a niche which does not interfere with any existing species? And what if that new species then becomes a major source of human food? None of us here are qualified to do more than just think about such things with no scientific data to back up any claims, either real or imagined. House finches were released in New York years ago and have been slowly working their way back to their original home in the West. Wherever they have gone, they have not been a bother to any indigenous species.

Martin

notbutanapron · #58 12/27/12, 12:13 PM

How to turn me off food in two words. "Muscle vats".

CaliannG · #59 12/27/12, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notbutanapron

How to turn me off food in two words. "Muscle vats".

I wonder if I could incorporate that into a diet plan?

PrettyPaisley · #60 12/31/12, 09:28 PM

You don't say. Gov't funny business when dealing with the "science" of GMO salmon. I would have never thought it possible.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentin...salmon-fiasco/