Talk:Tuna

Endangered Species

This article makes absolutely no mention of the fact that some Tuna species are considered to be endangered. I am amazed that a topic of such importance has been completely overlooked.

http://www.ffa.int/mcs/node/715

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/22/news/tuna.php

I second that I was a bit surprised I came here seeking information on just that and found nothing. I feel it is worth some mention. Wonx2150 (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll "third" this idea here. There is, at least as of this posting, mention of overfishing, and I wouldn't want a general topic on tuna fish in general to end up being a conservationist article, but I think a good case can be made for an exploration of the politics involved in tuna fishing and quotas. It might also be good, in conjunction with that, to explore what species of tuna are endangered and where one is likely to find them for sale. In other words, enable the conscientious diner to know whether the tuna in cans of tuna fish are endangered or which ones on restaurant menus are, and so forth.

Here's the latest I happened to come across. Go Sea Shepherd!

http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/editorial-091127-1.html

the_paccagnellan (talk) 10:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Endothermy

I can guarantee that they are not "warm-blooded." Won't be sending my biology students here... fllt

Actually they are endothermic, see p. 424 of Fishes of the World or any recent book on fish biology, Bond for instance. It does need more detail, the story is interesting. Stan 13:56, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, they are warm blooded in that their core body temperature is warmer than the surrounding water, and this is maintained by heat-exchange systems in blood vessels that reach the skin (so warm blood moving to the skin is cooled down by, and warms up, blood moving from the skin back to the heart. As far as I know, the difference is not great, but it is there. Unfortunately I don't have enough expertise in the details to be able to produce a good page edit - MPF 18:01, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, these guys think tuna are endothermic (warm-blooded) and it looks to me they ought to know!

[1]

I had no idea that ANY fish were endothermic. Until today I was sure the only endotherms were birds and mammals. This sheds an interesting evolutionary light on things... If you believe in that sort of thing.

I seem to recall that there is at least one reptilian that is warm-blooded. I have no idea what it is, but I'm pretty confident there is a living, warm-blooded, reptilian. --JJLatWiki 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes the species you are referring to is the Leatherback turtleViridiflavus (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As to warm-blooded reptiles: the dinosaurs (or at least many of them) were just that (as long as you consider them as reptiles, at least).

As to the endothermy of tuna: this is of necessity somewhat limited. Fish have to extract their oxygen from the water in their keels. Water being much more dense than air, this means that the blood passing through their keels can not be hotter than the surrounding water. Otherwise the animal would lose heat far too fast. So there are "temperature valves" within the tuna's body, which ensure that part of the blood is relatively cool, and another part is relatively hot, in order to permit a very intensive muscular activity.

Lignomontanus 10:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Lignomontanus, I don't think you mean "keels", I think you mean "gills". Only a few fish have keels (see second picture in Fish anatomy which I added recently) and keels have nothing to do with oxygen, or contain water. GrahamBould 12:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I ment "gills". I was about to correct my text and found out you had already noticed my mistake.

Lignomontanus (not logged on)

Lignomontanus, at the risk of getting bogged down in detail, when you said "Water being much more dense than air,..." I don't see where air comes into it. It's not a flying fish  :-) GrahamBould 11:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that a water animal, in order to absorb a certain quantity of oxygen, has to let about 1.000 times more mass (in the form of water) through its gills than a land animal has to let mass (in the form of air) through its lungs. For land animals the loss of heat is acceptable, for water animals it would not be.

Lignomontanus 15:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a very good point that blood will be cooled again passing through the gills. The point you are making is very strong. Did you do any calculations on the temperature loss from breathing versus the gain made by the reaction heat from the oxygen taken up by the gills. It seems to me that the warmbloodedness could be a temporary thing too. The tuna stores large amounts of oxygen in the flesh and sudden bursts of speed could be producing heat that is conserved as much as possible. Maybe a large proportion of the blood is then diverted in the gills, so that it does get into contact with the surrounding water. The rise in temperature would allow the tuna to gain in speed and catch prey or avoid predation. Probably freshly caught tuna would be very warm attempting to escape the fishing nets.

I have done some rough calculating. Suppose the heat loss in the gills is complete. Fish is 26 degr cent. and water 16. Oxygen uptake 90 percent efficiënt means about 5 mg/l of the oxygen is taken up from the water. 5 mg of oxygen will be able to raise the temperature about 25 degrees (burning 5 mg of carbohydrates at 20 kJ/g) , which is more then enough to compensate for the heat loss of 10 degrees. (Mass of feedstuff and oxygen for burning are about equal). It is illustrative however, because mammals wouldn't be able to maintain their body temperature even if they had efficient gills like fish. Viridiflavus (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Another point is that also in the gills the countercurrent exchange principle is predominant. This works both ways. The oxygen uptake of fish is 90% effective and in my calculations I have assumed that the blood leaving the gills will be at ambient temperature, so the heat exchange is is 100% effective. In the skin the countercurrent principle works the other way effectively isolating the body core from the surroundings. Viridiflavus (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Mercury

Correct me if i'm wrong, but mercury levels in Tuna is relatively low compared to most fish. I think there's a problem with the front page.

Albacore tuna ("white" tuna) has higher levels of mercury than canned light tuna, and should only be eaten once a week for at-risk groups. See the FDA/EPA advice at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/advice.html#tuna

I have no idea wtf "canned light tuna" is. The article mentions this phrase as well. Bihal 01:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that Albacore has higher mercury content then skipjack or tongol.

jan 23 2008 article from nytimes :http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/dining/23sushi.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5087&em&en=29d66eccf8117970&ex=1201150800

bluefin tuna have dangerously high levels sometimes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.14.122 (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that Tuna has a relatively high mercury content http://www.gotmercury.org/english/advanced.htm 70.5.215.214 (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)GMM

The NYT article has a correction at the end which seems to say that mercury levels were actually seven times lower than recommended maximum doses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.155.222.59 (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - well according to this report even adults should only eat tuna once a week. Sounds pretty dangerous to me. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/babies-kids/child-safety/food/mercury-in-tuna/tuna-safety/overview/0607_tuna_ov.htm --Dilaudid (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Footnote 46 linking to the NYT article leads you to their login page. This is the correct link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/dining/23sushi.html I do not know how to edit the footnotes page because when I click on it, it comes up blank. Someone, update the link with the one I posted (above). Thanks. I don't even know how to sign this comment. ??? W/E —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.212.171 (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Tongkol

In reference to Tongkol, I believe it would be better to note that Tongkol (and deriviates) is the Bahasa Indonesia word for a cetain species of Tuna. Looking at the Indonesian Department of Fisheries website, there is a rather complete listing of the various tongkol that are being fished. As "Tongkol" is hyperlinked in this article, I feel it should be better referenced - if not in English Wikipedia, then at least Bahasa Indonesia Tongkol

Might be in english : Tongol or Longtail tuna Latin: Thunnus Tonggol It is a very seasonal fish caught in the waters along the Malay and Burmese coast. The meat is tender and has an almost white color. It has not too much taste. It is by some more appreciated as a canned product then the somewhat drier albacore meat.

222.124.209.36 13:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Skipjack or Slender?

The skipjack tuna is referred to in the article as Allothunnus fallai, which, according to the species list below (as well as the linked articles), is the latin name of the slender tuna, the skipjack being Katsuwonus pelamis.

38.117.238.82 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Size

It doesn't say how big they get. I would like to know, personally.--Nashaii 02:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't see it, but I know Tuna are huge and see factual average adult size would be nicetotally --67.180.28.234 06:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a chart on how much the largest tuna weighs in each species. Maybe you were looking for length? --Billy Nair (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It still doesn't say the size in pounds and inches... could somebody please change or add to the size in inches and pounds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.75.100.47 (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Karasick tuna?

I cannot find a mention of "Karasick tuna" or "Thunnus karasicus" outside of Wikipedia (or its clone army). Is this a hoax? —Pengo 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Split: Thunnus / Tuna

I've split this article into Tuna and Thunnus as the article has been getting confused. Anyone interested might like to check which bits refer only to the Thunnus genus and which are more generally about tuna, as the split might not be so clean. —Pengo 04:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Diet

There is nothing about what Tuna eat, not even an indication of whether they are carnivores, omnivores, herbivores, etc... What are their hunting habits? What are their social habits?

I noticed the same thing. The article essentially treats tuna as food. That's useful, but it's really noticeable that there's nothing about tuna as tuna, apart from the statement that they are "warm-blooded" which could use some major qualification. What is the lifespan of a tuna? How frequently do they reproduce? What do they eat? Checking a couple of the articles on individual species, there's not mcuh help there either.24.136.6.69 (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is not much on ecology, but that is kind of hard because of different species all having different ecological niches. Ecological information is more useful at species level I think. This article can't really go into that, except referring on special trait, or extinction dangers referring to a species page. In wikipedia the species level is nevertheless not much appreciated. It is easier writing about the living habits or protection status of a skipjack tuna, then about tuna as a group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridiflavus (talk • contribs) 12:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

eating/health benifits

can someone please add health benefits to eating tuna in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.131.162 (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

The article suggests that canned tuna is a good source of Omega3 fatty acids but the Food Standards Agency in the UK in its advice regarding the consumption of oily fish states that while fresh tuna is an oily fish canned tuna is not since the canning process removes most of the active ingredients, strangely it does not make the same comment regarding fresh and canned sardine Paul 62.3.75.49 (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Further to above http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2004/jun/oilyfishfaq sorry about repeat edit don't do this very often. Paul 62.3.75.49 (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Inlined references

The two book references needs to be inlined. Is anyone familiar enough with the article to know which statements they are actually backing up? --Remy Suen 12:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Bold text

Stop Vandalising Noobs.

Sushi anyone

I'm surprised that there is no mention of here of tuna's popularity as a sushi fish. This is especially in light of claims by activists that overfishing to supply the sushi industry is threatening the species as a whole, and has certainly raised tuna prices significantly. Also, we should probably mention the different grades of tuna meat used in sushi (akamai, chutoro, toro [depending on whom you ask], otoro, and sunazuri).NeverWorker (Drop me a line) 08:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

out of date info

The section on conservation references a conference that should have taken place 10 months ago, could someone look up what happened & update? -User hirebrand (android phones do not have tilde or square brackets on the keyboard :) ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirebrand (talk • contribs) 18:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Vegetable Broth" Added to Canned Tuna

In the USA nearly all of the canned tuna contains an added ingredient that is usually described as "vegetable broth". Could we find out what this means and what is in it? Lloyd Ewing (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Tongol Tuna

The article mentions tongol tuna, but does not define it. Canned tuna labeled as "tongol" from Thailand is sometimes sold in the USA. Could this be Thunnus tonggol, Auxis tongolis, or is it really tuna at all? Lloyd Ewing (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Mercury / Link to Court ruling broken

The link to the California Court ruling seems to be broken. Perhaps they moved the page? A quick search didn't find it anymore, though. --Cyberman TM (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Recommendation to merge some sections on Bluefin Tuna species pages with the Tuna genus page.

There is a lot of overlap between the Thermoregulation, Conservation Status, Environmental Issues, and Farming sections for the Pacific bluefin tuna, Northern bluefin tuna, and Southern bluefin tuna. Some of this information is also repeated on the Tuna page. Since most of the information is general and not specifically related to the individual species I propose that this information should be discussed at the genus level (i.e. merge with the Tuna page). An alternate proposal might be to create new pages geared to the specific topics like Thermoregulation in Tuna and Conservation Status, Environmental Issues, and Farming of Bluefin Tuna.

• • Note: I have copied and pasted this talking point on each of the pages listed above. XXVII (talk) 07:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge Thunnus page with Tuna page

In Favor I recommend that the Thunnus page be merged with the Tuna page and then to delete the former. It doesn't appear that there is any benefit to having the Thunnus page as most of the information is already contained on the Tuna. XXVII (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: "Tuna" belong to the Scombridae family and include the genus Thunnus. All Thunnus but not all Scombridae are tuna. Thunnus is part of a formal taxonomy, whereas tuna is a commonly recognized but informal grouping of fishes. In short Thunnus and tuna belong in different logical categories and many tuna species are not Thunnus. Thunnus needs its own article. The section on "Biology" in Tuna could be transferred to Thunnus, and rewritten for Tuna, explaining the difference between tuna and other Scombridae, such as mackerel and bonito. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, you make a very good point. But the fact is that there is nothing unique about the Thunnus page that is not already on this ::page. Unless that page goes into more depth about that genus, then we should not have duplicate pages. ~~

What is the subject of this article?

I visited this page to learn more about the tuna but to my surprise there was hardly any information on it about the fish itself. After reading this page I know that they're fast swimmers, that they can raise their blood temperature and that their flesh is red because of the unusual high amount of myoglobin in their body but that's about it. The word "school" is mentioned for the first time in a section about their association with dolphins.

Here's the current index:

   * 1 Taxonomy
   * 2 Biology
   * 3 Commercial fishing
         o 3.1 Fishing methods
         o 3.2 Association with whaling
         o 3.3 Association with dolphins
   * 4 Recreational fishing
   * 5 Management and conservation
   * 6 Aquaculture
   * 7 Canned tuna
   * 8 Nutrition and health
         o 8.1 Mercury levels
   * 9 Footnotes
   * 10 References

The introduction and the first two sections are about the fish but the rest is about something else. I'm not saying those things shouldn't be mentioned but there's too much emphasis on them right now and there's hardly any information on the tuna itself.

Apologies to everyone that contributed to the current page. It's not about the individual items or the information within them, I just happen to think that the focus is wrong. The larger part of this page is not about the fish itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bioy Cassares (talk • contribs) 18:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely correct! This is a very poor article. Most of it is about mercury, dolphins, environmental effects, and commercial fishing. Very little is about the tuna fish. Sadly typical for Wikipedia - politics overwhelms fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.177.44 (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

sounds fishy to me - advertisement?

this link in the "References" section, "Health and nutrition information for small West Coast Albacore Tuna" says that "'canned light tuna'" have less mercury and more omega 3 in them. This wikipedia page claims the exact opposite under the mercury section, "These findings suggest that choosing to consume a type of tuna that has a relatively higher natural fat content may help reduce the amount of mercury intake, compared to consuming tuna with a low fat content," and cites this article, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6R-4SBY4YP-1&_user=10&_coverDate=12/01/2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1274914421&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=47ba5949faf1e1a3fc0e071896f6eeb7 so, who's right? also, that first link had a lot of talk about how their fish is better than other types and so forth, so then is this essentially an advertisement? ~makeswell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs) 17:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Also of note are the paragraphs about mercury levels, the writer seems biased and presents information in a semi-journalistic fashion. Not in line with wiki standards in my opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.108.77 (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

seeing how that site is just simply a storefront, plain and simple, I am going to delete that link for now and then if anybody sees any reason why it is not a store website promoting their own product (which it openly is) then feel free to reply and put the link back up :P makeswell 17:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Makeswell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs)

Celebrity Tuna??? Wtf?

What is with the celebrity tuna section which shows only the link of a scottish television personality? Is this from someone vandalising the article? I dont understand why this is here and how its relavent in ANY way... Remove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.133.245 (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Etymology section

Resolved: PEBKAC.

The etymology section isn't very informative, it doesn't tell you what any of those words meant in their original languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.9.166 (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, they meant "tuna". That is, they were names for the fish. Let's not be silly. If there were a deeper etymology that went back to some Proto-Indo-European root or something, that might be interesting, but it would require reliable sourcing, and not having it isn't actually a flaw in the article, since etymologies going back to the dawn of civilization aren't required. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 11:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"Tuna fish" dispute

FYI: Pointer to centralized discussion.

Summary: I have to dispute the claim that the phrase "tuna fish" is consistently used by any identifiable subset of people to exclusively mean tuna as food, especially canned. That a dictionary once recorded this usage (without recording anything about it) means that it has been reliably sourced only as having been observed somewhere, some time, not that it is current, that it is any dialect or jargon or special contextual usage, or anything else. Current evidence suggests that it is simply a personal or familial quirk at this point, like saying "tin foil" for "aluminum foil" or "kitty cat" for "cat", and that for some the usage is entirely opposite the one suggested here, when the phrase occurs at all, as cases of "tuna fish" referring to the live fish, not to food, are trivially easy to find.

Discussion: I've detailed this at Talk:Pleonasm#"Tuna fish" dispute to centralize the discussion, since it affects both articles, but affects the other article in two different ways, so it has to be discussed there. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 11:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)