Jump to content


body builder trout


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_FirstChAoS_*

Guest_FirstChAoS_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 April 2010 - 12:17 AM

Apparently genetic engineering by supressing the gene myostatin has created a very muscular strain of trout. http://news.national...ed-modified-gm/

I normally have no problem with the idea of genetically modifying food but I find these trout a bit freakish, not only for their monstrous looking body, but also because they remind me of the fish version of the very very inbred breeds of cat and dog who in order to reach a ever strict breed standard become both hideously deformed and riddled with health problems. I know they are genetically altered and not inbred (hopefully) but still the exaggeration of a trait to the point of it being ugly and possibly harmful to the individual is the same in both cases.

#2 Guest_donkeyman876_*

Guest_donkeyman876_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 April 2010 - 07:15 AM

The world record Rainbow was caught in Lake Deifenbaker in Saskatewan. The controverey about this 48lb fish is that years before a number of these 'Super-fish' had escaped when a pond of them had flooded and ended up in Lake Deifenbaker. A few years earlier his twin brother had caught the former world record from the same lake which weighed 43 lbs.

#3 Guest_centrarchid_*

Guest_centrarchid_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 April 2010 - 07:16 AM

Do not get freaked out to quickly.

If you consume an intensively reared chicken (most Americans do), then you already consume a "double muscled" product. Selective breeding was done to create the cornish x white rock cross but end result was same. The genetic manipulation of the two species are not the problem, it is the feeds they are fed and with poultry, the anti-biotics in particular. That is why over time I hope to raise most of the animal protein I consume using organic methods.

#4 Guest_nativeplanter_*

Guest_nativeplanter_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 April 2010 - 02:06 PM

Yes, but the barred x cornish cross is manipulating genetic characteristics that were already present, not adding one from another species. Plus, broiler hens aren't about to escape and start breeding with wild counterparts.

#5 Guest_centrarchid_*

Guest_centrarchid_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 April 2010 - 03:05 PM

First, domesticated poultry about 85% red jungle fowl and 15% grey jungle fowl. Some domesticated lines may also included green jungle fowl. The initial hybrids likely had reduced fertility but that over come likley over multiple generations. The mixing is a form of transgenic manipulation although many genes instead of just a couple likle with trout.

The method used by poultry breeders was done by a lower tech method and no interspecies exchanges made during final developmental stages.

As for the "Plus, broiler hens aren't about to escape and start breeding with wild counterparts", that is total male bovine fecal matter. Poultry lines selected for performance under intensified production in India can and do cross with wild Red Jungle Fowl (wild jungle do not exist in wild of U.S.), although at a rate less than known for less derived breeds. It is to the point that "pure" red jungle fowl stocks are difficult to find. If predator and other natural risks factors were allowed to be expressed, then introgession of domesticated genotypes would likley slow.

Also if you take some mutant barred x cornish cross brids and put them on a an island withou predators, I will bet good money they would be able found a viable population. The cross does set and rear chicks, despite being physically handicapped. Different story if high performance egg-laying breeds used which do not set.

Now that I erroneously proved your point, here is mine.


As for the trout, there will be intermediate stages where they will be able to breed with wild kin, but at some point the domesticated animals will become like domesticated white turkeys that cannot self propogate without lots of culturist's intervention. Then stocks can be raised in close proximity with minimal risks, at least from introgression. That is my goal with broadly related work.

Also the gene products associated with enhanced muscling (those from other species), do they make up a biologically / nutrtionally significant component of the consumed product? I thought most regulatory in nature.

#6 Guest_nativeplanter_*

Guest_nativeplanter_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 April 2010 - 03:41 PM

You are quite right with regards to jungle fowl. I was unfortunately not as clear as I should have been. I was talking about poultry in North America. There are no wild poultry populations for broiler hens to affect here in North America.

Regarding the second point, sure, if you put anything on an isolated island with perfect conditions and no predators, they might be able to establish a viable population. But barring those conditions, I think it is exceptionally unlikely that a self-sustaining population is possible. Broiler fowl are extraordinarily handicapped. I have kept both broilers and layers; layers are much better adapted. The barred x cornish cross as an adult has a difficulty with mobility, as well as general constitution. Even the younger birds have problems - for example, broilers suffer from a conditions called flip-over disease, in which, due to their particular carriage and eating habits, suddenly flip over and die. The condition is also known as acute or sudden death syndrome. Prevention consists of lowered lighting regimes to keep the birds calm, and feed restriction.

My comments aren't intended toward the freaking-out-from-grotesque-musculature issue; we eat all kinds of things that some might consider aesthetically appalling. I merely meant to point out that the trout and broilers weren't quite the same issue here in North America. Their crossing with jungle fowl is my point exactly - wild populations can be affected. I'd hate to see a point in time when we can not find "pure" wild trout populations. I don't quite feel as confident as you that "at some point the domesticated animals will become like domesticated white turkeys that cannot self propogate without lots of culturist's intervention". That future is too difficult to predict in my opinion.

#7 Guest_centrarchid_*

Guest_centrarchid_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 April 2010 - 04:10 PM

Most domesticaton efforts that resulted in hybridization barriers were not intentionally set up to do so, including the turkey example. Many domesticated lines of ornamental species have also been domesticated to the point where they cannot survive outside the aquarium trade. If efforts are intentional, then developing barriers to hybridization should be possible. The future will be diificult to predict if we make no plans for it and act as if we have no control, especially in respect to our food supplies.

#8 Guest_Rtifs_*

Guest_Rtifs_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 April 2010 - 11:56 AM

The article didn't answer the most pressing question. Are they better fighters at the end of a fly line?

#9 Guest_nativeplanter_*

Guest_nativeplanter_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2010 - 12:12 PM

If efforts are intentional, then developing barriers to hybridization should be possible. The future will be diificult to predict if we make no plans for it and act as if we have no control, especially in respect to our food supplies.


Agreed and agreed. Careful planning with all aspects to our existence on this planet is paramount in my opinion. Whether it be food supplies, water availability, temperature (which, in addition to the popular concerns, can greatly affect both food supplies and water availability), energy, biological resources, and on and on. In addition (although I have not done any studying of the matter and could be quite wrong) I am of the opinion that most wars have erupted over resources. We forget that spatial shifts in resource availability can and often lead to war (an always horrible consequence).

My concern is that most agencies/organizations/people tinkering with genetics do not adequately consider the need for hybridization barriers. Issues stemming from pollen drift are an excellent example of this in plants. The inserted genes definetly do move about and unintentionally fertilize nearby plants, and plants don't even move! I would think that animals would be of even greater concern, especially those for which there are wild analogues.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users