The choice of which fish to cultivate is far from simple, and clearly some are more suitable than others. Using the criteria described by Sir Francis Galton, discuss why or why not Seabass are a good candidate for aquaculture. If you think Seabass are not a good candidate, discuss why you think so much effort has gone into their production.
Share your thoughts in at least 250 words by the 27th of September, and by the next day weigh in on at least two posts by your peers.
48 thoughts on “FTT Prompt September 27 by 11:59pm”
As described by Sir Francis Galton, the criteria a good candidate for aquaculture must meet are that the fish must be hardy, endowed with an inborn liking for man, comfort-loving, able to breed freely, and needful of only a minimal amount of tending. According to Galton, Seabass is not a good candidate for aquaculture. Seabass is not hardy; they are fragile and are prone to disease and high mortality rates. Seabass do not have an inborn liking for man; their perception of man varies from threat to indifference. Seabass is not comfort-loving; they are averse to containment and domestication. Seabass breeding is somewhat a mystery and difficult to generate in unnatural environments. Seabass is not easy to tend to; they come into the world vulnerable and exposed, prone to disease, and struggling to accumulate adequate nutrition. According to brief internet research, Seabass aquaculture has been somewhat successful in many countries. The fish experience high growth and reproduction rates and are sold for cheaper and in higher quantities. Though I notice this is largely due to feeding additives and sometimes AGPs (antibiotic growth promoters). I think more money and time should be spent trying to protect the wild populations of seabass because, as we discussed previously in class, altering a fish species’ diets, environment, and genetic integrity can result in significant consequences. I understand that farming seabass is [partially] used to combat intensifying food insecurity. Still, if we don’t protect our wild populations, we will soon face the reality that GMOs cannot sustainably replace entire wild populations and species.
I agree with your final statement ten-fold. GMOs pose a dangerous risk, a risk with consequences we may not know of till years later! We’re the guinea-pig stage for many things, I’d hate for food to become a dangerous result of this modern-life experiment we’re living in.
While I agree with the points you made and that if more time and financial aid is allowed they could truly get somewhere with the species. I also appreciated the conservation statements that we should work on the protection of the wild variant. There was such better options for a species to domesticate.
Sir Francis Galton’s criteria, which were used for animals, included the following; that they were “hardy, endowed with an inborn liking for man, comfort-loving, able to breed freely, and needful of only a minimal amount of tending”. Again, bear in mind that these were intended for animals, I think it’s unjust to hold fish to the same expectations as animals. Fish aren’t going to have an inborn liking for man, and fish can do their own tending unless you put them in close containers. I would argue that these factors shouldn’t apply to fish and that fish need their own criteria. Maybe something along the lines of; economically valuable, a preferred fish to consume, adaptable to small containment, etc. But if we were to follow Galton’s criteria for the sea bass, they are bad candidates. They are not hardy (most of them die off), they don’t like humans (because they are fish), they are not comfort-loving (they don’t like containment), they have difficulties breeding freely (super small eggs), and lastly they are difficult to tend too (especially when they are young and developing).
The sea bass were never just about feeding whatever country, the major driving factor was the economic value. How much money could you make by producing and selling these sea bass? Sea bass are one of the many prized fish for what the book described as “Holiday” food, something of a staple. Many fish farmers recognized this and wanted to benefit from this. Especially those in Greece whose country has been struggling economically. After many years and many different experiments performed across the world, successful sea bass farming occurred off the coast of a Greece island. Sense then, sea bass farming has only flourished but their economic value has decreased with the ease and abundance of production.
I agree that fish should be held to different standards than organisms that meet Galton’s criteria. Do you have any ideas for criteria we should hold fish against when determining whether they should be used in aquaculture? I appreciate you using Greece as a real-world example of sea bass being farmed, this helps to put this discussion into perspective.
I like your question Elle, and I’d be interested to know the answer to that as well!
I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who thought it was odd for Greenberg to use Galton’s strict standards for fish aquaculture. I also thought it was interesting you mentioned how their value declined as they were produced more abundantly, it seems counterintuitive to continue farming them if their economic gain from doing so is falling.
I liked your quick, few suggestions on possible criteria for holding fish to different standards when being considered for domestication. Economic value, their demand, and ability to be raised in containment are all great considerations. It seems that the first two were considered when sea bass was originally selected, but not the third criteria. I would have to agree that sea bass were not selected for cultivation solely based on their potential to feed the population but driven heavily by their economic value and marketability in being a delicacy and special fish.
I had not considered holding fish to a different standard than animals, but it would make sense to do this. However, I do think that even if you did still hold them to a different standard I do think sea bass would still make a bad candidate for domestication. The complex reproduction process should alone enough to dissuade from attempting to domesticate.
The terms set by Sir Francis Galton when evaluating the worth in domesticating a particular animal are as follows: they must be hardy, endowed with an inborn liking for man, comfort-loving, able to breed freely, and needful of only a minimal amount of tending. If going by Francis Galton’s criteria, seabass shouldn’t even have been in consideration as a candidate for aquaculture. In regard to hardiness, only around two of the over a million eggs a seabass lays will hatch, and the larval stages of seabass development are fraught with diseases. They have no preference or particular “liking” for human beings, the same going for literally any other fish (I’m not even sure if this is a viable criterion for the evaluation of fish). Seabass aren’t particularly “comfort-loving” as they often dislike containment. Speaking of containment, marine perciforms such as seabass will completely shut down their reproductive activity when placed in a captive environment, meaning they most certainly do not breed freely. Seabass don’t even fulfill the tenant of being “easy to tend” needing human intervention basically from the embryonic stage upwards (at this point in the reading it really makes you wonder if it was even possible to pick a worse fish to domesticate). Despite the 0/5 record using Galton’s criteria, these fish are still bred and act as a large component in the global fish market. I think the reason for this is because it would take too much time, effort, and money to switch to a better option. Seabass were picked at a time when there weren’t that many resources (or even that much care) to make an informed decision about what fish would be the most efficient to work with, and by the time people realized that seabass weren’t very good at being a domesticated product, the fish was already a cornerstone of the global economy. Attempting to upend it now would most likely result in some economic turmoil, which leads to the question: would it be worth it to face the consequences of moving away from seabass if it meant that a more efficient fish could see more use, or is it better to accept the shortcomings of seabass and avoid taking that risk?
Good point highlighting the cost, time, and effort of switching from seabass aquaculture to another species of fish as well as the lack of necessary information understood when identifying and utilizing seabass in fish farming. Due to the importance of seabass economically [among other reasons], we cannot effectively remove seabass from aquaculture entirely without facing significant consequences. If we want to decrease seabass aquaculture, it would need to be done slowly, over time. What are your ideas?
Sir Francis Galton had five specific criteria for animals to meet in order to be good candidates for domestication. They should be hardy, have an inborn liking for man, should be comfort-loving, should breed freely, and finally they should be easy to tend. Sea bass are in fact, the opposite of an animal that should be domesticated if following Sir Francis Galton’s criteria. First, sea bass are not hardy, only one or two out of millions of eggs become viable adults. Second, sea bass do not have an innate love for man, they are indifferent. Third, sea bass particularly hate containment. Fourth, when brought into captivity sea bass are able the shut down reproductive activity completely. Fifth, sea bass are not particularly prepared for life once hatched, and a specific artificial habitat must be create when in captivity. With all of this essentially making sea bass the worst animal chosen to be domesticated, a large amount of effort was still poured into these fish. And this is because of the treatment of this fish as a delicacy by many European countries. Before the sea bass was domesticated it was in high demand, and it was a result of this high demand that it was domesticated.
Fish in general are difficult to care for in captivity and require constant care and attention. For example salmonid’s are born with a yolk sack attached to them providing nutrients for the first couple weeks of it’s life. Sea bass are not like this and are on their own from the second they emerge from their eggs. This makes it even more difficult to raise these fish. There’s so many variants that make sea bass seem like a bad idea. However it is a high demand and is another reason why the domestication of this fish was needed.
After learning about how Europeans have made Seabass such a delicacy, I wonder what would happen if Seabass were no longer a delicacy. Would they just be dismissed from the global market and fisheries? I wonder if there is another part of the world that also enjoys these fish and hold them with such high marks.
I was actually surprised at how seabass are the complete opposite of the domesticity criteria made by Galton. But its cool that they have great production, I really wonder why seabass are indifferent. I wonder if other fishes have the same thing as the seabass.
In the beginning of the chapter on sea bass, Greenberg makes it blatantly obvious that sea bass have historically been a terrible candidate for aquaculture and should’ve never been selected for such endeavors.
Francis Galton had a theory that an animal should have five defining traits and characteristics if being considered for the possibility of domestication. These traits include being a hearty and resilient species, have a liking for humans, be comfort-loving creatures, breed freely, and to require minimal tending to from humans. Greenberg explains, using the criteria listed, the ways in which sea bass oppose these traits in every way, making them a decidedly poor choice for aquaculture purposes. Sea bass are extremely fragile and prone to disease in its egg and larval stages, causing high mortality rates. They are indifferent to man and hate containment, making them ill suited to be reared in a fish culture environment. Galton believed an aquaculture candidate should breed freely, but sea bass’ microscopic eggs and tendency to cease reproduction when in containment make them poor contenders. Minimal and easy tending to sea bass would be unlikely given their defenseless nature when born, needing as much assistance for survival and success in a contained environment as possible, making them fairly high maintenance to cultivate.
Sea bass was well-known, liked, and sought after by Europeans during this time, deeming it a suitable fish for aquaculture based solely on its status as a valuable commodity. Because it was viewed as a popular commodity, it essentially marketed itself and was seen as a worthy species to stock in aquaculture settings. Had proper planning with rearing in mind been utilized, a different fisheries resource might have been considered for aquaculture purposes.
I agree that sea bass were a horrible choice of fish to try and grow domestically. With that being said, it was interesting to read how scientists overcame these struggles. I loved how it took multiple people across multiple countries studying different aspects of sea bass to solve the sea bass rearing problem.
I agree that sea bass were an especially bad choice for domestication. Not only do they have a very low survival rate from egg to adult, but they also have many other logistical problems. I also agree that so much effort was put into sea bass solely because they were a valuable commodity.
Seabass are not good for aquaculture at all one they are very prone to so many different diseases and aren’t hardy at all nor do sea bass like containment nut who does. seabass lay so many eggs how do they keep track of them all? But that also means their would be so many more seabass. Seabass when put in a tank will shut down their reproductive habits. So that means less farm based seabass.
According to the criteria and description in the book, sea bass are not a good candidate for farming. In fact, the author says that they are a perfect example of an animal that shouldn’t be domesticated. When hatched they are completely helpless, and only one or two out of a million eggs become “viable” adults. They don’t respond well to containment and require a lot of care to make them survive in captivity. Yet they were the first species of fish that Europeans tried to domesticate. The simple reason for this is that people are unoriginal; they knew they liked to eat sea bass, so they decided to start with them instead of trying something new. This is unfortunate, but there are also other reasons for it. According to the book the first major farming of sea bass occurred in Israel, where food was often in short supply due to neighboring countries constantly trying to invade. They also had limited fresh water but they had a coastline where they could farm fish, so they turned to farming sea bass because it utilized the resources they had available. Then, after another attempted invasion in 1967 ended in Israel gaining control of the Sinai Peninsula, they acquired another resource that helped with the farming of sea bass: the extremely salty Lake Bardawil. Warm, salty water is very useful for sea bass farming, so this led to further development of the industry. Another reason that they chose sea bass in the first place was that because it was worth a lot as a “holiday fish,” if they had an efficient way of farming it they could feed their country while also selling the fish to other countries. This is why there has been so much effort put into farming a suboptimal fish.
I’m glad you touched on Israel’s part in sea bass rearing. I found it fascinating that the whole sea bass research started in Israel, although I was sad for the scientist when he couldn’t continue his research in the lake intended.
Yeah, I thought it was an interesting bit of history and also kind of the answer to the question of why so much effort and money has been put into farming sea bass. Its also a bit strange that no one else has even mentioned Israel despite it being a huge part of the answer to the question.
It was interesting to hear that despite Francis Galton’s claims against sea bass as an ideal aquaculture species, Israel was able to succeed in the rearing of this species. They did indeed have an efficient way of cultivating sea bass and had many circumstances working in their favor to utilize this species in an aquaculture setting.
If we strictly follow Galton’s criteria of domesticity, seabass are a poorly rated species. Their proneness to disease and short odds of reaching maturity does not make them hardy. They do not have any inherent liking or disliking of humans (as an aside, I find this criterion to be a bit outdated. How do you measure the “liking” an animal can exhibit, especially a fish?). They are not comfortable in contained spaces for raising. Their breeding patterns are a bit of a crap shoot, a mass fertilization in the hopes that some juveniles out of many may reach maturity. They are not easy to tend, for most of these preceding reasons.
Their raising and aquacultural use, then, appears to stem largely from their cultural and related economic value. Seabass has a long history of being a cultural food staple, and even a “status” fish, in European diets. It’s interesting to me personally because I have Italian-American family members, and fish (branzino among them) is prominent around holidays or during Lent. I had no idea how poorly suited Greenberg describes them as being to cultivation, and yet I have my own memories of associating branzino with special events or important celebrations. The cultural value that they have been given over time is likely to motivate fish-farmers to overcome their natural handicaps to capitalize on their cultural affinities.
I agree, their proneness to disease and difficulty to reach adulthood don’t make them hardy or a reliable source. I was also wondering how do we, as people, determine how much an animal likes humans? It’s not really a measurable factor. When I think of candidates for aquaculture, seabass don’t come to mind, especially after reading this chapter and learning more about them.
I really wonder why have an inherent liking and disliking to humans. The fact that they are not comfortable in contained spaces for raising is interesting. I really want to see how seabass at birth interact in a fish tank with other fishes.
Sir Francis Galton deemed the following five traits to be favorable criteria for domestication: hardy, possess an inborn liking for man, comfort-loving, possess the ability to breed freely, and be low maintenance/ easy to take care of. Greenberg explains how sea bass are a failure in all five of Galton’s requirements. They are not sturdy because they are fragile perciforms with low birth rates. Greenberg explains how no one has ever come home with a sea bass for a pet. Fish typically either avoid humans or are indifferent to them, so they possess no inborn liking for man. He also explains that sea bass hate containment despite being responsive to conveniently placed food. In addition, Greenberg states that most marine fish shut down their reproductive functions when put into captive environments, making them unable to breed freely. They are also not easy to take care of, especially because of how fragile and complex their eggs are; therefore they are not low maintenance.
I would argue that sea bass are not the most optimal candidate for aquaculture. Based on the information provided by Greenberg and the little information I have picked up about sea bass, they are oftentimes marketed and thought of as a delicacy. People tend to be drawn towards “rare” and “unique” things that are oftentimes difficult to find. With these attachments, it can be sold at high prices and marketed in ways that make people to buy it.
The last point you made about humans having an obsession with rare and unique things resonated with me, as this is a pattern in most instances of natural resource exploitation. We always want more of good things, and put pressure on society to sacrifice quality to generate more of a wanted product.
That is a good point about peoples’ desire for rare and unique things leading to exploitation. In this case it seems like it is part of the reason for the economic value of the fish, but not the cause that led to them being one of the first fish to be farmed.
I wonder how much of the “appeal” of rarity is lost when a fish like seabass is more widespread in the market. Is seabass any more exotic if you have a better chance of buying it? Makes me wonder what other factors go into the value that we place on certain fish over others.
You made a good point at the end, I think the economic value the sea bass has is something that could possibly outweigh the fact that they are not a good candidate for aquaculture. I would be interested to see if there was any sea bass aquacultures that are doing well despite them having low offspring survival rates.
The criteria that Sir Francis Galton used was to choose what wild game would be beneficial for humans to eat and domesticate. Galton believed that the food should be hardy, endowed with an inborn liking for man, comfort-loving, be able to breed freely, and needful of only a minimal amount of tending. Using the criteria discussed by Galton the sea bass would not be considered a good candidate for aquaculture because it fails in every category. The sea bass has a variety of issues such as low survival rate of offspring, not many fish maturing to adulthood, and they are susceptible to disease when in the larval stages. Sea Bass also do not have an inborn liking to man, do not breed freely when in a captive environment, and are not easy to tend to due to the complications that they have when they are young. All of these reasons highlight why they would not make a good candidate for aquaculture based off of Galtons criteria. I do believe Galtons criteria alone should not be the main reason they are not considered because it was meant for wild game not fish. If we were to look at another fish there it would most likely fail in a few of the categories as well. I believe that so much effort has gone into their production because of the economic value more so than the success of the fish farms. They can be used as a good food security in some places but I think people should be more focused on protecting wild populations of sea bass rather than creating new ones.
I believe Seabass is a fine candidate for aquaculture. There’s obviously a market for it, so economically speaking, it’s a decent commodity to fund as long as there will be a steady audience to purchase it. Plus, there’s a culture around it: “It’s European” was a consistent quote seen in the early pages of the Seabass chapter. People also compare it to perch, giving it a species-to-species resonance that would inspire the purchase and eating of the Seabass ‘brand’.
On a separate note, any fish that is neutral to great in terms of taste, and is relatively cheap/easy to raise in high numbers, should be done to ease the overuse of natural schools of any/all wild species. Fish will always be needed, wanted, bred, and eaten; we may as well make good use of what’s already being done to keep up with current demand and rising numbers of humans.
While I obviously have my views on the logical route of Seabass production and marketing, I will continue to maintain my overall opinion that the overuse of fish is degrading the quality and purpose of fish even being around, wild or domesticated. Hatcheries provide a pressure-relief on natural fish that are a food source for us. I know this may not entirely go against my above statements, but it does show one thing: I do believe in breeding between wild and domesticated species, something I never spoke on regarding the Seabass. I would need to do more research to weigh the pros and cons of my pending thoughts on such a controversial action, one with possibly dire consequences or an abundance of rewards.
I hadn’t considered the culture surrounding fish such as seabass before, and feel that that was an important point to make. Societal factors such as how a certain part of the world views any given fish have just as much relevance and are in many ways linked to the economic and scientific components of these animals. In order to come to a satisfying conclusion to the question posed, all of these ideas should be given some thought.
Kerra, I think you have an interesting perspective on sea bass and aquaculture. I also appreciate your point about how hatcheries provide a pressure relief on wild fish that is needed in order to sustain our resources and sustain the fish.
Do you believe there is too much sea bass though?
Of Sir Frances Garlton’s criteria for easily domesticated animals, sea bass don’t really seem to check any of the boxes. The five criteria that Garlton mentioned are that the animal must be hardy, have an affinity for humans, adapt easily to and be able to breed in captivity, and be easy to care for in all stages of life. The first criteria for a species to be optimally domesticable is to be hardy, which sea bass are not particularly, as there is a ninety nine percent mortality rate from egg to adult. Additionally they are fairly sensitive to environmental fluctuations making them a not so hardy species. Sea bass tend toward ignoring humans. They certainly would not go out of their way to see or entertain humans such as dolphins or dogs. When sea bass have been placed in captivity, it has not ended well, although one pro for their domestication would be that they will eat when fed. Similar species in the perciform order of fish have been put in enclosures and more often than not end up causing their own demise by trying to get out. Unfortunately, sea bass fecundity is even more questionable when placed in captivity, as they tend to completely halt reproduction. Finally, sea bass would not be considered ideal for domestication even in the last criteria of being easy to care for, as there are high mortality rates not lessened by natural resilience in any parts of a sea bass’s life cycle. Sea bass as a favorite fish despite not being at all an optimal domesticable species emphasizes their hold on the global culinary palate.
Sir Francis Galton explained that for an animal to be domesticated they must contain the following. They must be Hardy, Endowed with an inborn liking for man, Comfort-loving, Able to breed freely, and Needful of only a minimal amount of tending. Sea bass fit none of these qualities and make us question why the Europeans chose them. Any fish in the first place doesn’t fit the bill and yet here we are. To start, these fish are not hardy and can be sensitive and picky to their environments. Their habitat has to be just right for them to be comfortable and thrive. Second, how does a fish like man kind? It’s a fish and doesn’t have feelings or emotions like normal pets do. Most fish are scared away by the presence of a human. Next is comfort loving and while these fish may be a delicious cultural tradition, no fish is comforting and loving like a cat or dog that’s excited to see you at the end of a day. Then, the fourth requirement is for them to breed freely, and while they are quite easy with just a mix of sperm and eggs, it isn’t like the breeding of most mammals, where you can assure they’re fertilized and watch the birth to make sure it goes well. Finally the last requirement is for them to need minimal tending to. With fish, especially saltwater species, they can be exceptionally difficult. You have to make sure the salinity of the water and water temperatures are properly adjusted. If the oxygen levels and rate of flow in their tank isn’t proper, it could be the difference between healthy fish and no fish at all. All of these shortcomings combined prove the point that sea bass were not a wise choice in a species to domesticate. The sea bass simply does not meet the requirements set by Galton. So I think the only reason why Europeans decided to domesticate the sea bass is because it is a staple of their culture and without that fish they would lose many traditions. The sea bass is a part of who they are and therefore is too important to lose.
In my option, most fish meet Galton’s criteria. This is because (also in my option) most marine creatures have to opt out of two of these criterions: an inborn liking for man and an ability to be comfort-loving. ‘Comfort-loving’ brings to mind an image of sheep lazing in fields like decorative pillows, or a happy hog dozing in sunlight. These are animals we have domesticated. Fish, as far as we know, cannot be domesticated, nor can we relate to their fishy-fishy little brains, or them to our own. Bass don’t want to be static. They want to be cold and dashing around in the sea somewhere. They’re also not particularly hardy (being especially prone to disease) nor experience much reproductive success under environmental pressures – until you get it right, at least. Googling reveals fisheries in both hemispheres have at least had some luck (notably in Turkey and Greece) with research and trial and error. So, perhaps to expand on Galton’s criteria, we need to consider fishes have different benchmarks for comfort and easy breeding, whether it be simulated currents or raising eggs to the fry and fingerling stages in a protected environment. However, it’s difficult to each such stages of growth in a sensitive without a little help, which unfortunately may very well mean cutting corners, costing us both the quality of flesh and quality of life for the fish, not to mention our own health when we consume it. My answer might be ambiguous, but I feel like it’s an ambitious situation – risk a possible cultural and environmental upheaval, or instead take the lower road for however long we have to.
I agree with your idea that some of Galton’s criteria don’t really work within the context of evaluating fish, and for this reason don’t really think that Galton’s criteria hold the best basis for deciding whether a not a fish is worth using for human consumption. Like you said, fish don’t really have the same intelligence level as other animals we consider domesticated, which sort of invalidates 2/5ths of Galton’s conditions. I think it would be worth considering other possible metrics that can be used to judge any possible candidates for efficient aquaculture.
I agree with what you said in the beginning, if all fish were compared to this criteria they would fail in those two categories. There should be different criteria for fish because they are different than the wild that it was originally based off of.
When utilizing the concept presented by Sir Francis Galton about the Neolithic Peoples domestication criteria and standard, the Sea Bass stand out as a sore spot. Historically Seabass have been caught and became almost a luxury do to its difficulty to catch. I feel that he actually leaves out a key criterion which could easily include the Sea Bass and other species. Human kind worldwide experiences the mental mindset of a need for power. That power can come from leading, riches, mindset, or wherever people find it. I believe that when referencing fishing, those who fish are able to capture a difficult fish such as a sea bass feels a superiority to those who have yet to obtain them. Due to this “competitive spirit” the fish begin to lose their sustainability, nutrients, and overall respect from the world. The ideology of supply and demand results in the species becoming a poor choice for aquaculture. We see this occur with many reintroduced species or within the material world of off brand products. Once nature perfects a species there is no way to accurately recreate how it was made so with our current commercial fishing standards Sea Bass have been transitioned mainly into large net fishing and farming losing much of its quality. The seabass aren’t particularly nutrient rich or to barely any of Sir Francis Galton criteria so it really became a representation of how human kind feels the need to just have things. The main standard of farming the Sea Bass includes net farming which has many environmental impacts. Any species that encounters the netting may become stuck and not survive or if the net breaks it could release the sea bass creating an imbalance in the ecosystem. Sea bass also consume a large amount in order to grow to a farmers ideal sizing resulting in the net amount of fish required for feeding the carnivorous species to be greater than the amount produced. Sea Bass are a poor candidate now that we have the technology to understand more about the fish, but I feel the social impact from the beginning still created a ripple that affects the marine life today.
I appreciate you bringing up that when sea bass do end up in aquaculture situations, they have even more impact on their surrounding environment than easily domesticable fish. This is caused by the sea bass not fitting the ideal criteria and thus creating a higher demand on the human end for their care, food, attention, and reproduction. This makes their aquaculture less economically feasible and much more environmentally impactful.
Sir Francis Galton had five characteristics and traits in order to be considered for domestication. The criteria were that animals must be “hardy, endowed with an inborn liking for man, comfort-loving, able to breed freely, and needful of only a minimal amount of tending.” These were expected of animals, standards for fish specifically would be quite a bit different. It is extremely unlikely and unnatural for fish to enjoy mankind and be ‘comfort-loving’. Fish should have their own set of criteria and expectations. Following Sir Francis Galton’s criteria for a good aquaculture candidate, Seabass do not make good aquaculture candidates. Seabass are not particularly hardy, most of them often die off. They do not have a natural liking for mankind, they are wild fish. They are not comfort-loving, once again they are wild and do not like confinement. Seabass are not able to breed freely easily, they lay wicked small eggs. Lastly, they require more than minimal tending, when they are young and developing they are difficult to attend to. Regardless of their poor score on Sir Francis Galton’s criteria, Seabass are still bred and are an important part of the global fish market. The book describes Seabass as a “holiday” food, something that is consumed for special occasions and is considered to be a staple food. For that reason, Seabass are still a part of the mass fishing industry and will continue to be. Seabass are not good candidates for aquaculture, especially according to Sir Francis Galton’s five criteria.
How do you feel this comfort living might effect other fish population?
Francis Galton believed that the domesticate animals are 1) hardy, 2) endowed with an inborn liking for men, 3) comfort-loving, 4) able to breed freely, and 5) needful of only a minimal amount of tending. But these 5 things were for animals and not fish.
The part of them needing to be hardy says that they are not but they lay over a million eggs. “It is very difficult to make a long term investment in a species welfare if the natural state of things is to have more than 99% of a population die.” (91) The airplane, telephone, incandescent lightbulb, and other great technological leap of modern history example on page 93 is a good example for this.
Seabass are farmed in seawater ponds and lagoons, the bulk of production comes from sea cage farming. The traditional extensive method of lagoon management places special barriers in appropriate lagoon sites to capture fish during their autumn migration to the open sea. The seabass doesn’t fall on the domesticity criteria given by Francis Galton.
Seabass are generally not comfort-loving but are responsive to easily available food. The fact that seabass at birth are distinctly unprepared for life shocks me because it seems like they already know what is going on but in reality they don’t. I didn’t know that most freshwater fish like trout, salmon, catfish and carp are better than seabass at birth. I don’t think they are a great candidate for aquaculture because of how they don’t fall with the 5 things about domestication Francis Galton pointed out.
Jaden, I was also shocked that sea bass are distinctly unprepared for life. I guess I assumed that such a plentiful fish was well adapted and sturdier than the fragile sea bass egg. I agree that they aren’t necessarily a great candidate for aquaculture when considering Galton’s five criteria.
Seabass is not a good canidate as they are far to plentiful. Seabass are just everywhere and it is better to show the effects with a lower populated fish. Seabass control groups are too large to properly gauge the effects in the long term as it is more likely to be breed out due to it not being needed. However seabass can be used if you do a smaller consentrated population and slowly build off of that and slowly introduce them back into the poplus over the corse of hundreds of years and force them to confinded into your own ways. However I just don’t think seabass are good enough, the large population and the over essance of them can just lead to confusion and inaccurate studdies. A fish I do recomend is a far cry from the sea bass but still around enough for it to be effective. That would be the rock fish, it is very out there and with many different species it can exists well and show off the proper studies while not having too many inconsistances due to an average population and not being as abundant as the sea bass.