Scientists Develop Fish With Six-Pack Abs That Could Benefit Aquaculture Industry

Mother Nature Network:

The trout are bizarrely muscular, with rippling abdomens that resemble six-pack abs and dorsal humps that give the impression of bulked-up shoulders. It's all part of a goal to grow larger trout in commercial fisheries without increasing the amount of food they're given, and Professor Terry Bradley believes he's finally obtained results that could be a huge boost to the aquaculture industry.

Read the whole story: Mother Nature Network

Comments

[rf dude]

01:59 AM on 03/18/2010

'
That particular trout looks like it needs to get off the sofa and go outside for some fresh air...

[N0NDescript0]

04:02 PM on 03/18/2010

fresh air...never good for a fish. ; ) & : P

[rf dude]

01:34 AM on 03/19/2010

'
WHAT? Well, at least he should eat his veggies...

[Philip123]

04:42 AM on 03/17/2010

There is an interesting article at the Skeptic’s Health Journal Club about a former Pfizer microbiologist who claims she was infected during research by a genetically modified virus and is suing Pfizer. If you are interested there is more on it here,

http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/

[jsarets]

04:27 AM on 03/17/2010

Rainbow trout are raised in closed tanks or man-made ponds, so the odds of escaping into the wild are essentially non-existent. It's nothing like the ridiculous Atlantic salmon, which are raised in raceway channels that feed from and drain to parallel rivers.

[Drumbeato]

12:22 AM on 03/17/2010

Who's idea was this? Nothing about this seems like a good idea, everything about this has disaster written all over it. Historically, whenever man has decided to introduce a non native species in order to control something defined as a pest, it has turned out badly, & the thing introduced becomes far worse of a pest than what it was introduced to counter. The logical extension of this is genetically engineered plants & animals. We never seem to learn the lessons of history! Frankenfish is a frighteningly bad idea. You better hope these things don't get loose into the environment!

[N0NDescript0]

09:56 AM on 03/17/2010

The fish was not engineered to "control something defined as a pest", nor will it be "introduced" to an environment. Did you even bother to read the article? No? Well here the gist of it: the transgenic rainbow trout produces more muscle mass while consuming the same amount of food. The purpose is to create a more efficient food source. See what a little reading can do?

[Drumbeato]

02:31 AM on 03/18/2010

NoNDescripto: I read the article but apparently you didn't. They talked about the dangers of these fish getting out into open waters & wreaking havoc on the native species. They then mentioned fish farms that are land locked to prevent an accidental escape. That was clearly in the article, but I guess you didn't see it because you were too busy accusing me of not reading it to thoroughly, to have read it yourself.

Secondly, my point of humans introducing non native species to control pests, that result in the cure being worse than the problem is a real one & we have countless examples going back hundreds of years. I was simply making a nuanced point of comparison on the dangers of interfering with nature. I guess it was over your head.

If you don't think fish farms can cause environmental damage by escaping fish, you are wrong. Just ask about Atlantic farm raised Salmon escaping into the Pacific Ocean via fish farms. They are more aggressive & they kill the Pacific native salmon. This is a real issue, & if some of those super trout get loose, it will not be a good thing & it will be next to impossible to reverse.

[fuzzychickens]

03:53 PM on 03/16/2010

I'm attending pharmacy school (I'm a P2). I'm also a member of the academic honor society for pharmacy - Rho Chi - my local chapter requires members to be in the top 10% of their class. So, I'm not stating my position as some fool who belives in creationism or any other absurdity. I've proven I understand the science behind my chosen profession.

If there is one thing I've learned in pharmacy school, it's that science eventually wins out, but the desire for profit may trump science early on. There are many wonderful drugs that have improved patients lives, but one doesn't have to look hard to see where the desire for profit has delayed action on some drugs when serious side effects become apparent - I don't even need to get into this because we've all seen this played out over the years.

GMOs in our food supply is more serious than drug safety issues - drugs are for the most part therapy for when you get sick. Currently, we don't have the right to know what foods have GMO ingredients in them - so we are effectively Phase 4 subjects, but there is no accountability because we don't even know when we are consuming GMO foods.

At the very least, we need strict GMO labeling laws. You absolutely should have the right to know what is in your food. Anyone who suggests otherwise while claiming to have science on their side is being absurd. They are supporting someone

[fuzzychickens]

03:57 PM on 03/16/2010

Apparently that last part of my post was cut off.

Should read:

At the very least, we need strict GMO labeling laws. You absolutely should have the right to know what is in your food. Anyone who suggests otherwise while claiming to have science on their side is being absurd. They are supporting someone else's profit motive OVER science.

[tjconkster]

01:09 PM on 03/16/2010

Nothing has changed since yesterday, that trout still creeps me out!

[JScott]

02:27 AM on 03/16/2010

Corporate Ag at work

Yup may be more 'efficient' but probably tastes YECCCHHH!!!!

Just like Flavr Savr GMO tomatos

AKA Cardboard.

[Whatevah]

07:46 AM on 03/16/2010

That particular product was indeed pretty bad. However, it's very hard to find an out-of-season tomato that is worth eating. The vast majority of cardboard produce is the old fashioned kind.

In general, GMO food tastes exactly the same as non-GMO. In taste tests, people can't tell the difference.

[pharmmajor]

09:40 AM on 03/16/2010

And some have even revealed that the testers found the GMOs to taste better.

[fuzzychickens]

04:24 PM on 03/16/2010

Yup, and a dog still eats anti-freeze because it tastes so sweet.

Taste isn't what matters when accessing safety.

If you think it's perfectly safe to eat a crop that has a gene coding for proteins found in pesticides - then you need to bone up on some science courses.

And if you buy the idea that proteases in your stomach will protect you from any protein produced from GMOs - then you might as well eat some of the thousands of varieties of known posionous plants whose proteins contribute to their toxicity.

We need at the very least, strict GMO labeling laws - consumers have the right to know what is in their food.

[N0NDescript0]

09:59 AM on 03/17/2010

I was thinking about this too: I would bet the texture and flavor is probably pretty similar to normal rainbow trout. If you look at the cross section of the fish in the paper (there is a link in one of my posts below), the muscle is not more dense, there simply more of it. If the extra muscle is the same density and composition, then it will probably taste the same. Unlike the tomatoes, this fish is not made to last longer in the fridge, there is just more fish to refrigerate.

[plooger]

01:16 AM on 03/16/2010

That's just creepy.

[Yeah-Me]

09:24 PM on 03/15/2010

You know... sometimes its quite disturbing what people are will to frack with.

[darkpragmatist]

06:24 PM on 03/15/2010

that's one sexy fish. when does the calendar come out?

[fuzzychickens]

05:32 PM on 03/15/2010

As long you label this food so I know to avoid it, if not - expect to be sued.

[N0NDescript0]

06:15 PM on 03/15/2010

Just curious, but what exactly are you going to sue for, and who do you plan on suing?

[fuzzychickens]

04:31 PM on 03/16/2010

I'm not personally suing anyone. I've made the effort to avoid GMOs in my food.

[JaxReader]

02:51 PM on 03/15/2010

This is definitely the most scary thing I have seen, or heard of in a while.

[billshut]

02:22 PM on 03/15/2010

That picture ... yuck.

[pharmmajor]

02:04 PM on 03/15/2010

It's amazing how many supposedly "enlightened" people here on HuffPo are opposed to scientific breakthroughs like vaccines and GM foods that offer significant benefits to those in need.

[Farm2table]

02:31 PM on 03/15/2010

With adverse consequences. For every action there is a reaction.

[JaxReader]

02:54 PM on 03/15/2010

Yea like we all get to have genetically altered six packs without ever working out! I don't see how this could possibly have ANY adverse consequences. You are clearly not very enlightened or else you wouldn't be questioning anything you read about science. Grow up, you pro-beerbelly loser...

[tjconkster]

02:44 PM on 03/15/2010

And if a few of these fish escape into the wild?

[Farm2table]

03:14 PM on 03/15/2010

Exactly! They can decimate the population through reproduction. Even more troubling is the fact that natural parasites will continue to change with the host and create more problems down the road. It's all about NOW and leave the concerns for someone else to deal with.

[Palaver]

01:38 PM on 03/15/2010

Gross