Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I definitely agree with you that implementing genetic engineering is essential to feeding the global population. There’s just no way that wild stocks can support the number of humans on earth now.
Though domesticated salmon were the result of increased demand, and it could be beneficial if farming methods are changed, the way that domestic salmon are raised today is having a negative effect on wild salmon stocks in my opinion. I think that domestically raised salmon is a good option, but only if problems such as their food source (which is typically wild caught fish, the same that wild salmon eat), as well as disease and escapement are sorted out.
I definitely agree about how lack of genetic diversity can have negative impacts on species. Without variation, the potential for mass die-offs due to disease increases which can be extremely devastating for wild species.
I agree with you that recent changes in habitat have had a negative effect on fish stocks. It makes sense that as a species’ habitat degrades, then the population will also decrease because they wont be able to withstand major changes. With climate change and warming oceans becoming more prevalent, it seems that fish stock health will continue to decline.
You bring up the important point of fish being more abundant in certain places. It’s easy to fall into the trap of believing that stocks are healthy based on data from one area, where in reality that may not be the case as that place may just be an anomaly. Therefore, it is important to consider data from a range of places, but this gives way to further complications such as a massive amount of data needing to be processed. It’s very complicated.
