The NFU backs gene editing. Do you ?

[kiwi pom]

This is all genetic engineering howsoever you want to dress it up. The first question from anyone on this forum should be: 'does the marketplace want this?'.

As we have seen with the rise of GM crops in America it has been nothing but a vehicle that allows big agribusiness to corner yet more of the foodchain.

Some people will want it some wont, CRISPR is a new tech that is creating new research, why not do it and see where it goes?
You were/are an agronomist did you never do any research involving plant breeding? That's genetic engineering too.
How research is eventually used has nothing to do with the science behind it. Should medical research stop because drug companies eventually make money out of drugs?

 

[turbo]

These 'old' varieties would just perish in the face of new strains of disease. You can't make a plant totally immune to disease using genetic engineering- the diseases are mutating all the time as well.

Rubbish,if the old variety had the problem gene taken away it wouldn’t perish at all

 

[neilo]

So, timeframe aside, anything that is going to be achieved via GE, could be achieved via traditional breeding techniques ?
I'm prepared to buy that, if it's true, but it doesn't address the issue that people keep coming back to. Control. What happens when one patented sheep is all that Tesco want to sell, for marketing reasons (lets say it burps less methane) and they own the patent. The farmer is no more than a Tesco employee then ?

Absolutely. In most countries around the world, the distinction they make between GE and GM is indeed whether the same difference could be made through traditional breeding techniques.

On your second point, if the same genetic mix can be created through traditional cross breeding techniques, I fail to see how anyone can patent such genetics. Given the time and the will, anyone could set about creating the same genetic mix themselves.

Should your favourite retailer choose to only buy animals bred a certain way, it’s already happening, without GE being involved.
Years back, ASDA made the decision to not buy BBx cattle, because their genetic selection through traditional breeding meant that their was a higher incidence of C sections in the purebred population. Just now, Waitrose have a scheme running with their dedicated supplier group whereby those suppliers buy into premium priced Focus Prime rams from Innovis, and they then receive a premium on the resultant lambs. Focus Primes are, again, the result of traditional selection techniques, albeit using CT scanning to determine imf% alongside normal performance recording.

 

[unlacedgecko]

So, timeframe aside, anything that is going to be achieved via GE, could be achieved via traditional breeding techniques ?
I'm prepared to buy that, if it's true, but it doesn't address the issue that people keep coming back to. Control. What happens when one patented sheep is all that Tesco want to sell, for marketing reasons (lets say it burps less methane) and they own the patent. The farmer is no more than a Tesco employee then ?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. And/or the breeding company will only sell you females which have been modified to solely produce male offspring (as per the CRISPR calf).

 

[unlacedgecko]

Absolutely. In most countries around the world, the distinction they make between GE and GM is indeed whether the same difference could be made through traditional breeding techniques.

On your second point, if the same genetic mix can be created through traditional cross breeding techniques, I fail to see how anyone can patent such genetics. Given the time and the will, anyone could set about creating the same genetic mix themselves.

Should your favourite retailer choose to only buy animals bred a certain way, it’s already happening, without GE being involved.
Years back, ASDA made the decision to not buy BBx cattle, because their genetic selection through traditional breeding meant that their was a higher incidence of C sections in the purebred population. Just now, Waitrose have a scheme running with their dedicated supplier group whereby those suppliers buy into premium priced Focus Prime rams from Innovis, and they then receive a premium on the resultant lambs. Focus Primes are, again, the result of traditional selection techniques, albeit using CT scanning to determine imf% alongside normal performance recording.

That's not correct.

Selective breeding will never produce this result.

 

[neilo]

That's not correct.

View attachment 983787

Selective breeding will never produce this result.

Without googling your link…. Selective breeding, and indeed random breeding, throws up plenty of anomalies/freaks on occasion too. Nature’s a funny thing sometimes.

 

[unlacedgecko]

Without googling your link…. Selective breeding, and indeed random breeding, throws up plenty of anomalies/freaks on occasion too. Nature’s a funny thing sometimes.

A Crispr Calf Is Born. It’s Definitely a Boy

UC Davis scientists spent years editing a sex-determining gene into bovine embryos. In April, Cosmo arrived—and his DNA reveals how far the field has to go.

www.google.com

There's the link.

 

[delilah]

On your second point, if the same genetic mix can be created through traditional cross breeding techniques, I fail to see how anyone can patent such genetics.

So, accepting your earlier point that any GE crop or animal will be nothing more than speeded up cross breeding, you are saying that no GE crop or animal will be patented ?

 

[ollie989898]

Introducing Angus genetics to Holsteins to get polled Holsteins is genetic manipulation too. It doesn’t tie anyone to big pharma though.

Come along now, these methods are not comparable and you know it.

These new technologies will be vehicles that just allow big business to commercialise more of the food chain.

 

[ollie989898]

Some people will want it some wont, CRISPR is a new tech that is creating new research, why not do it and see where it goes?
You were/are an agronomist did you never do any research involving plant breeding? That's genetic engineering too.
How research is eventually used has nothing to do with the science behind it. Should medical research stop because drug companies eventually make money out of drugs?

Maybe I have confused people with my prose for which I apologise and will now clarify: I am not opposed to the use of this technology nor any other. I'm all in favour of progress- it is how mankind has risen through the ages. I've no ethical or moral issue with these kinds of technology and believe they will bring a huge amount of benefit to the human race in time. But these are powerful tools and if past performance is anything to go by, big companies will use them within the food chain and the consumer and the producer won't be the main beneficiaries when they do.

Neither conventional plant nor animal breeding are anything like as powerful as these new technologies and people who are using these examples are either being disingenuous or do not understand the science involved. It is all genetic engineering howsoever you wish to dress it up and it will be used to create products that are patented. If companies cannot develop a product that can be patented or otherwise protected in the marketplace, they won't see any commercial interest in it. We have seen a peek at this kind of marketing strategy in action- you buy our posh hybrid variety and you sign up to use our bespoke chemistry as well. Don't say I didn't warn you.

 

[kiwi pom]

Maybe I have confused people with my prose for which I apologise and will now clarify: I am not opposed to the use of this technology nor any other. I'm all in favour of progress- it is how mankind has risen through the ages. I've no ethical or moral issue with these kinds of technology and believe they will bring a huge amount of benefit to the human race in time. But these are powerful tools and if past performance is anything to go by, big companies will use them within the food chain and the consumer and the producer won't be the main beneficiaries when they do.

Neither conventional plant nor animal breeding are anything like as powerful as these new technologies and people who are using these examples are either being disingenuous or do not understand the science involved. It is all genetic engineering howsoever you wish to dress it up and it will be used to create products that are patented. If companies cannot develop a product that can be patented or otherwise protected in the marketplace, they won't see any commercial interest in it. We have seen a peek at this kind of marketing strategy in action- you buy our posh hybrid variety and you sign up to use our bespoke chemistry as well. Don't say I didn't warn you.

What about Golden Rice? No big companies making money out of that, it is GM though not gene editing.
If science comes up with a blight resistant spud or drought resistant wheat, it will be a benefit to the planet. Farmers might not make any more money from it and the companies who have invested the money in the research will certainly get their investment back but so what? Its still a gain.
Farmers using GM are still making money now, if they didn't they wouldn't do it.
Feeding the planet in the future is a bigger problem than just worrying whether farmers will make bigger profits or not. We need to do the research and see where it leads.

 

[ollie989898]

What about Golden Rice? No big companies making money out of that, it is GM though not gene editing.
If science comes up with a blight resistant spud or drought resistant wheat, it will be a benefit to the planet. Farmers might not make any more money from it and the companies who have invested the money in the research will certainly get their investment back but so what? Its still a gain.
Farmers using GM are still making money now, if they didn't they wouldn't do it.
Feeding the planet in the future is a bigger problem than just worrying whether farmers will make bigger profits or not. We need to do the research and see where it leads.

Creating blight resistant potatoes or drought resistant wheat is fine, I have no issue with that, but again it is genetic modification and the consumer will need to agree to buy and consume it.

 

[neilo]

So, accepting your earlier point that any GE crop or animal will be nothing more than speeded up cross breeding, you are saying that no GE crop or animal will be patented ?

Who knows. But why ban the technology, when it could also be used for the greater good too? Govts could equally as easily fund research into blight resistant spuds, etc.

 

[Cheesehead]

So, accepting your earlier point that any GE crop or animal will be nothing more than speeded up cross breeding, you are saying that no GE crop or animal will be patented ?

But you are also forgetting a lot already are that are conventionally bred, don't know if it is still true but talking to a family friend even back in the 40s and 50s you still had to pay for farm saved seed I presume given that on a Germinal site that state that NZ farmers have brought more than 10,000 tons of proprietary seed developed at IBERS that would tend to suggest that they are patented or somehow are otherwise protected.

Nither conventional plant nor animal breeding are anything like as powerful as these new technologies and people who are using these examples are either being disingenuous or do not understand the science involved. It is all genetic engineering howsoever you wish to dress it up and it will be used to create products that are patented. If companies cannot develop a product that can be patented or otherwise protected in the marketplace, they won't see any commercial interest in it. We have seen a peek at this kind of marketing strategy in action- you buy our posh hybrid variety and you sign up to use our bespoke chemistry as well. Don't say I didn't warn you.

So you're saying that KWS wouldn't go after farmers if the all planted 30 acres of wheat of their latest and greatest variety so that didn't have to buy any to plant 300acre the following year without paying anything?

Hybrid that are developed conventionally are no different, looking at posts, videos, blogs and farmers from US farmers there is little of buy our seed and you must by our sprays their biggest gripe is that of smaller agronomist services being brought up by the main fertiliser companies where it is want our services you have to buy our products and vice versa. Which you see more of here now anyway what with few independent small animal vets with a lot now Medi-Vets even the Organic sectors is pretty my run and dictated to by 2 certification companies.

 

[ollie989898]

But you are also forgetting a lot already are that are conventionally bred, don't know if it is still true but talking to a family friend even back in the 40s and 50s you still had to pay for farm saved seed I presume given that on a Germinal site that state that NZ farmers have brought more than 10,000 tons of proprietary seed developed at IBERS that would tend to suggest that they are patented or somehow are otherwise protected.



So you're saying that KWS wouldn't go after farmers if the all planted 30 acres of wheat of their latest and greatest variety so that didn't have to buy any to plant 300acre the following year without paying anything?

Hybrid that are developed conventionally are no different, looking at posts, videos, blogs and farmers from US farmers there is little of buy our seed and you must by our sprays their biggest gripe is that of smaller agronomist services being brought up by the main fertiliser companies where it is want our services you have to buy our products and vice versa. Which you see more of here now anyway what with few independent small animal vets with a lot now Medi-Vets even the Organic sectors is pretty my run and dictated to by 2 certification companies.

The whole hybrid/GM and associated chemical package is just a way for big agricultural companies to solidify their grip on the marketplace. The UK sector is already consolidated into a few big key players with the smaller companies now long since gone or absorbed. It is of no use complaining that these little players are gone in 30 years time.

 

[Cheesehead]

The whole hybrid/GM and associated chemical package is just a way for big agricultural companies to solidify their grip on the marketplace. The UK sector is already consolidated into a few big key players with the smaller companies now long since gone or absorbed. It is of no use complaining that these little players are gone in 30 years time.

But you have said they have already gone so how is GE going to resurrect them then kill them off again. Surely by the same logic given that we have only conventional seed by that arguement it should be dominated by small companies rather than a few 3 or 4 companies with independent distributors?

 

[ollie989898]

But you have said they have already gone so how is GE going to resurrect them then kill them off again. Surely by the same logic given that we have only conventional seed by that arguement it should be dominated by small companies rather than a few 3 or 4 companies with independent distributors?

I'm confused with what you are saying I'm afraid. I could foresee a future where there is no conventional seed ever planted in the UK actually.

These ideas and products are all grand but I have come to realise that perhaps not all of these innovations are actually that beneficial in the long term for the industry? I mean are farmers better off than they were 40-50 years ago? They get more product from less time and effort, I agree but has it helped their bottom lines in real terms?

 

[neilo]

I'm confused with what you are saying I'm afraid. I could foresee a future where there is no conventional seed ever planted in the UK actually.

These ideas and products are all grand but I have come to realise that perhaps not all of these innovations are actually that beneficial in the long term for the industry? I mean are farmers better off than they were 40-50 years ago? They get more product from less time and effort, I agree but has it helped their bottom lines in real terms?

Why so? Just on here there are many posters that say they are growing conventional cereal varieties in preference to hybrids, and plenty that have tried hybrids and come back to conventional.
Hybrids, or another ‘patented’ varieties, will only be adopted if they give real advantages. They’ll certainly have to do better than they are now, as conventional breeding is keeping pace.

 

[Cheesehead]

I'm confused with what you are saying I'm afraid. I could foresee a future where there is no conventional seed ever planted in the UK actually.

These ideas and products are all grand but I have come to realise that perhaps not all of these innovations are actually that beneficial in the long term for the industry? I mean are farmers better off than they were 40-50 years ago? They get more product from less time and effort, I agree but has it helped their bottom lines in real terms?

In the second sentence you said all the small companies had already long since gone then in the last sentence you state there will be complaints they have gone and it will be down to GE contradicting you statement that they have already gone implying they are still about.

Bottom line could be argued to be down multiple things form devaluation of food in the public purse as priorities have change, subsidies artificially affecting the the price as well as cost, grants inflating costs products, regional over production, global markets or just the price of produce not rising at the same rate of inflation. If by what you are implying that it is solely down to cost of inputs then surely seed that is more resistant to pests or drought or flooding would surely then increase bottom line as you are using less inputs on the crop.

 

[ollie989898]

In the second sentence you said all the small companies had already long since gone then in the last sentence you state there will be complaints they have gone and it will be down to GE contradicting you statement that they have already gone implying they are still about.

Bottom line could be argued to be down multiple things form devaluation of food in the public purse as priorities have change, subsidies artificially affecting the the price as well as cost, grants inflating costs products, regional over production, global markets or just the price of produce not rising at the same rate of inflation. If by what you are implying that it is solely down to cost of inputs then surely seed that is more resistant to pests or drought or flooding would surely then increase bottom line as you are using less inputs on the crop.

Lots of companies in agriculture have disappeared or been bought up or amalgamated. In fact, a fair few larger companies have shared the same fate as well. As I have said, the few remaining small companies involved in seed breeding will not be able to develop GE products are the cost of patenting and then making a safety case will not be small- such regulatory barriers to entry suit multinationals which is why the lobby the EU for such controls in the first place.

You are discussing hugely diverse impacts and effects in your second paragraph. Subsidies, grants and the like should simply never have been imposed.

There are people out there growing these crops with 'less inputs' already.