- This topic has 3 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Discussion: AquaAdvantage vs. Salmo domesticus and genetic modification
AquaAdvatantage salmon and Salmo domesticus were both created with the same goal in mind; to create a salmon that grows twice as fast while requiring less food. The difference lies within techniques used by each group in order to accomplish this. Salmo domesticus was accomplished through selective breeding, whereas, AquaAdvantage salmon were developed using genetic modification. While both groups had the same goal, the key difference between the two “species’ can be seen through their ability to reproduce. Salmo domesticus, being selected from wild stocks, still has the ability to reproduce fertile offspring. This in result could have the most drastic effect on wild population where not only competition becomes an issue but also the mixing of genetics. AquaAdvantage stocks, however, were created to be only female and sterile. This eliminates the issue of genetic dilution of wild fish with farmed fish, however, competition still remains a factor.
Genetic engineering has been taking place within the agriculture industry for centuries. Therefore, the statement “genetic engineering is the obvious next technological step in the history of human’s cultivating our food,’ may be outdated in my opinion. It could, however, be new to the extent of fishing industries. Whether or not we go down this path with more fish species could be dependent on wild populations. As technologies advance and wild stocks deplete, people are going to find a way to modify stocks into a more viable and economically beneficial option. This could lead society down a dangerous path of “playing god.’Genetic engineering began in the early 90’s for the agriculture industry. I miss typed and put centuries instead of decades.
You make a good point about the problems that can arise with AquaAdvantage, but there can also be some good that arises with a well operated salmon farm. The suggestion in the book about polyculture farms could definitely have major benefits to the farming industry. But yes, it could lead to dangerous outcomes.
Thank you for highlighting the fact genetic engineering has been happening for some time. Another point you make is equally important. The point that as a need or crisis arises people will eventually turn to technology to try and solve it. When it comes to food people will use any and all means to secure their survival. Even if that means “playing god”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.