5 ms·

Taming the Wild Tuna - Why farmed fish are taking over dinner plates

49 points by kitcar 12y ago

sdrothrock 12y ago
This is a great article and I feel like the headline doesn't even do it justice. I'd love to read something more in-depth (a book, even) on the trial-and-error approach the researchers went through to find everything affecting the tuna in captivity. I was amazed that this species is even alive, especially with this quote: "in the wild, only one in tens of millions becomes an adult." One thing that did bother me, though, was the WSJ's presentation of the pictures -- I had huge white gaps between all of the pictures and kept wondering if I was missing content.
techrat 12y ago
>It was more than that. The moment the researchers grabbed a few juvenile fish out of a net, the skin started to disintegrate, killing them. It took four years just to perfect delicate fast-releasing hooks for capturing juveniles and moving them into pens. Can anyone explain why this is? Seems odd that a wild animal's skin would be so easily ruptured when it has to survive the rigors of the ocean.
- sdrothrock 12y ago
  I don't know for sure, but I had a few guesses. 1. Juvenile, so immature? Softer/more vulnerable scales? 2. The scales may be optimized for speeding along quickly through water and the net basically tore the scales apart? 3. The scales may not be durable since the tuna's primary mode of defense is probably speeding away. 4. The end of the article does say that "only one in tens of millions becomes an adult," so it could just be a weakness that was never changed in the course of evolution because it's not detrimental or common enough to force selection.
- Ryel 12y ago
  Most (if not all) fish have a mucous-like slime that protects their skin from things like disease, flesh wounds, and some parasites. Primary concerns with typical angling will be in the handling of the fish, and exposure to outside elements that could dry out this layer of slime. FWIW, Disintegrate may not be the best word here but I'm not a scientist... just a fly-fisherman.
kristopolous 12y ago
thank god. industrialized hunting at a global scale is probably the least sustainable activity we are doing.
wtbob 12y ago
I'd love to know why, but the article doesn't load with NoScript.
- sehr 12y ago
  because it's 2014, and lobotomizing your browser may have harmful effects.
  - Nux 12y ago
    Would you install and run random applications that you have no idea what they are doing from random sites? No? Interesting. If in 2014 you need to run code in my PC to display some fucking text or to let me scroll, then we're pretty much doomed.
  - wtbob 12y ago
    You know, I'd prefer not to be forced to enable remote code execution in order to read an article.
- rwmj 12y ago
  It loads fine for me with Javascript completely disabled.
IndianAstronaut 12y ago
This is an immense step from salmon fishing, where the animals are under 20lbs.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  It's kind of a step backwards, one of the considerations for farming animals is how efficiently they convert feed into protein ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio ), and salmon are probably more efficient at this than tuna.
sfrank2147 12y ago
The one in 30 million statistic is crazy to me! That means that the surviving fish need to average 30 million children in their lifetime to sustain the current population - if they stay adults for 2 years, that's 41,000 children per day! Can someone shed light on how that's possible? Note also that it's 1 in 30 million babies that actually hatch that survive, not just 1 in 30 million eggs.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  Wikipedia looks like it makes sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_bluefin_tuna#Life_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_bluefin_tuna#Life_histo... They are reproductive for more than 2 years and lay millions of eggs in each breeding season.
vinhboy 12y ago
It's kind of funny to me that it's easier to conquer nature, than it is to change human behavior.

49 points by kitcar 12y ago

This is a great article and I feel like the headline doesn't even do it justice. I'd love to read something more in-depth (a book, even) on the trial-and-error approach the researchers went through to find everything affecting the tuna in captivity. I was amazed that this species is even alive, especially with this quote: "in the wild, only one in tens of millions becomes an adult." One thing that did bother me, though, was the WSJ's presentation of the pictures -- I had huge white gaps between all of the pictures and kept wondering if I was missing content.

techrat 12y ago

>It was more than that. The moment the researchers grabbed a few juvenile fish out of a net, the skin started to disintegrate, killing them. It took four years just to perfect delicate fast-releasing hooks for capturing juveniles and moving them into pens. Can anyone explain why this is? Seems odd that a wild animal's skin would be so easily ruptured when it has to survive the rigors of the ocean.

sdrothrock 12y ago
I don't know for sure, but I had a few guesses. 1. Juvenile, so immature? Softer/more vulnerable scales? 2. The scales may be optimized for speeding along quickly through water and the net basically tore the scales apart? 3. The scales may not be durable since the tuna's primary mode of defense is probably speeding away. 4. The end of the article does say that "only one in tens of millions becomes an adult," so it could just be a weakness that was never changed in the course of evolution because it's not detrimental or common enough to force selection.
Ryel 12y ago
Most (if not all) fish have a mucous-like slime that protects their skin from things like disease, flesh wounds, and some parasites. Primary concerns with typical angling will be in the handling of the fish, and exposure to outside elements that could dry out this layer of slime. FWIW, Disintegrate may not be the best word here but I'm not a scientist... just a fly-fisherman.

kristopolous 12y ago

thank god. industrialized hunting at a global scale is probably the least sustainable activity we are doing.

wtbob 12y ago

I'd love to know why, but the article doesn't load with NoScript.

sehr 12y ago
because it's 2014, and lobotomizing your browser may have harmful effects.
- Nux 12y ago
  Would you install and run random applications that you have no idea what they are doing from random sites? No? Interesting. If in 2014 you need to run code in my PC to display some fucking text or to let me scroll, then we're pretty much doomed.
- wtbob 12y ago
  You know, I'd prefer not to be forced to enable remote code execution in order to read an article.
rwmj 12y ago
It loads fine for me with Javascript completely disabled.

IndianAstronaut 12y ago

This is an immense step from salmon fishing, where the animals are under 20lbs.

maxerickson 12y ago
It's kind of a step backwards, one of the considerations for farming animals is how efficiently they convert feed into protein ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio ), and salmon are probably more efficient at this than tuna.

sfrank2147 12y ago

The one in 30 million statistic is crazy to me! That means that the surviving fish need to average 30 million children in their lifetime to sustain the current population - if they stay adults for 2 years, that's 41,000 children per day! Can someone shed light on how that's possible? Note also that it's 1 in 30 million babies that actually hatch that survive, not just 1 in 30 million eggs.

maxerickson 12y ago
Wikipedia looks like it makes sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_bluefin_tuna#Life_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_bluefin_tuna#Life_histo... They are reproductive for more than 2 years and lay millions of eggs in each breeding season.

vinhboy 12y ago

It's kind of funny to me that it's easier to conquer nature, than it is to change human behavior.