The NFU backs gene editing. Do you ?

[crashbox]

Better to be a cynic than a sheep!

Cynical sheep.

Once some of us start using it, no doubt the rest will be forced to follow.

I hope organic farming is offered some protection.

 

[Sid]

Cynical sheep.

Once some of us start using it, no doubt the rest will be forced to follow.

I hope organic farming is offered some protection.

Non so far!!

No necessity to label or tag GE plants or animals.

No choice is the scary part!

But having said that , will commercial companies somehow copyright their GE property.

If GE is banned from organic systems it could become very limiting. Can we use GE straw for bedding, a GE bull or a GE grass seed

 

[crashbox]

Non so far!!

No necessity to label or tag GE plants or animals.

No choice is the scary part!

But having said that , will commercial companies somehow copyright their GE property.

If GE is banned from organic systems it could become very limiting. Can we use GE straw for bedding, a GE bull or a GE grass seed

Yes I agree, very worrying.

 

[Will Blackburn]

Yes I agree, very worrying.

Worrying you can use it or worrying you can't use it?

 

[som farmer]

as l was told, it is not possible, to buy cornflower, without GE, or GM.

there is a big difference between GM and GE, gene editing, is basically mixing plants together, which has happened for centuries, just taking the highest yielding plants, and improving them, now, they are making them herbicide resistant, or disease tolerant.

GM, is mixing different animals, or even plants, together, a step to far.

as with all things, nutty professors, don't know when to stop, they keep pushing the boundaries of decency.

 

[Sid]

as l was told, it is not possible, to buy cornflower, without GE, or GM.

there is a big difference between GM and GE, gene editing, is basically mixing plants together, which has happened for centuries, just taking the highest yielding plants, and improving them, now, they are making them herbicide resistant, or disease tolerant.

GM, is mixing different animals, or even plants, together, a step to far.

as with all things, nutty professors, don't know when to stop, they keep pushing the boundaries of decency.

Speeds up the selection process.

Also speeds up the fudging up and mutation process!

 

[lloyd]

GM, is mixing different animals, or even plants, together, a step to far.

But the UK is already cosuming vast quantities of GM either directly
or secondary through animals.

 

[som farmer]

its here, and to late to stop.

best way forward, is to work with them,

however you think of it, its cannot be stopped now. But it has opened up a new world of some pretty awful ideas, and at the same time, some are truly amazing.

r-up resistant crops, must seem fantastic in semi arid, poorer parts of the world, where the difference is a crop, versus no crop.

For the scientists, its a whole new world, for them to explore in, and by nature, they will delve into the murkiest corners of it, they have no boundaries, between decent, and indecent points, there is always 'something' else, just around the corner. And who does know what is just around that corner ? The only way to find that out, is to let those scientists 'explore', and hope nothing absolutely disastrous happens,

experimental labs, and covid, could be an example

 

[NZDan]

Not if the traits are designed and owned by the same multi national corporations that sell GM abroad and the chemicals. It won’t benefit the farmer or consumer.

There is no way that traits from gene editing can be owned and my anyone, since they simply use traits already in the population. It's been well used already, the USA has polled Holstein bulls from gene editing, sons of which are already being used. Brazil has bred slick hair Red Angus bulls for increased heat tolerance, the end result is no different to crossing and breeding back for single genes it's just quicker and simpler.
Other potential uses are gene drivers and sex manipulation, the ability to produce a line of terminal sires that leave only male off spring, or maternal lines of females that leave only daughters.
Eradication of pest is one use for sex linked gene drivers, here in NZ releasing male only rats, ferrets, stoats, rabbits, wild cats, possums etc would all but eliminate those populations to a handful of generations. The Uk could use it to control Grey Squirrels, Mink and other introduced pests.

 

[Sid]

There is no way that traits from gene editing can be owned and my anyone, since they simply use traits already in the population. It's been well used already, the USA has polled Holstein bulls from gene editing, sons of which are already being used. Brazil has bred slick hair Red Angus bulls for increased heat tolerance, the end result is no different to crossing and breeding back for single genes it's just quicker and simpler.
Other potential uses are gene drivers and sex manipulation, the ability to produce a line of terminal sires that leave only male off spring, or maternal lines of females that leave only daughters.
Eradication of pest is one use for sex linked gene drivers, here in NZ releasing male only rats, ferrets, stoats, rabbits, wild cats, possums etc would all but eliminate those populations to a handful of generations. The Uk could use it to control Grey Squirrels, Mink and other introduced pests.

The same way as plant breeders don't own the rights to varieties?

Tenderstem broccoli
Red rooster potatoes
Pink lady apples
I could go on

 

[Vader]

There is no way that traits from gene editing can be owned and my anyone, since they simply use traits already in the population. It's been well used already, the USA has polled Holstein bulls from gene editing, sons of which are already being used. Brazil has bred slick hair Red Angus bulls for increased heat tolerance, the end result is no different to crossing and breeding back for single genes it's just quicker and simpler.
Other potential uses are gene drivers and sex manipulation, the ability to produce a line of terminal sires that leave only male off spring, or maternal lines of females that leave only daughters.
Eradication of pest is one use for sex linked gene drivers, here in NZ releasing male only rats, ferrets, stoats, rabbits, wild cats, possums etc would all but eliminate those populations to a handful of generations. The Uk could use it to control Grey Squirrels, Mink and other introduced pests.

Until a single sex gene animal manages to get to another country and within a few generations, whole species are wiped out...

 

[Andrew_Ni]

We may start stocking up on seed then for future proofing. Anyone got a few tonne of squarehead master lying about ?

 

[NZDan]

Until a single sex gene animal manages to get to another country and within a few generations, whole species are wiped out...

It's pretty simple to build in safe guards to reverse things sharply, and for island nations there is little risk of animals getting to another country. Gene editing is already being used to reduce mosquito numbers successfully.

 

[NZDan]

The same way as plant breeders don't own the rights to varieties?

Tenderstem broccoli
Red rooster potatoes
Pink lady apples
I could go on

It's completely different technology, and there are plenty of trademarked varieties that have been bred using traditional methods as well.
With GM there is a large amount of 'junk' DNA that goes with the trait, that is what they use to track protected varieties, which have been developed at huge cost. Gene editing is simply changing one gene and nothing more, and it can be done easily and relatively cheaply. China has already done it with sheep, they've edited a short tail gene into a long tailed sheep, edited Booroola, Inverdale and GDF9 into three hardy yet lowly fecund breeds, and added Myomax to all three breeds.

 

[NZDan]

Best scrap the BPS and allow US imports then. Good job you're not at the top table any more, they'd kick your shins with talk like that.

But that is not a free market, the USA is heavily subsidized, producing corn for less than the cost of production, if you're gonna scrap the BPS then the US needs to scarp theirs, or you could import from countries that don't subsidize farmers....................

 

[Sid]

It's completely different technology, and there are plenty of trademarked varieties that have been bred using traditional methods as well.
With GM there is a large amount of 'junk' DNA that goes with the trait, that is what they use to track protected varieties, which have been developed at huge cost. Gene editing is simply changing one gene and nothing more, and it can be done easily and relatively cheaply. China has already done it with sheep, they've edited a short tail gene into a long tailed sheep, edited Booroola, Inverdale and GDF9 into three hardy yet lowly fecund breeds, and added Myomax to all three breeds.

It's exactly the same thing, just speeding up the process.

It's producing a new "breed" of something using technology instead of waiting on nature.
100% safe of course. Like all money making schemes are!

 

[NZDan]

It's exactly the same thing, just speeding up the process.

It's producing a new "breed" of something using technology instead of waiting on nature.
100% safe of course. Like all money making schemes are!

Gene editing and gene modification aren't "exactly the same thing" They're very different, it isn't producing a new breed, it isn't even producing a new gene. As an example for the horn/poll edit it's taking two proteins on the genome and swapping them for each other, that's enough to turn a horned animal to a polled animal or a polled animal to horned. There is no way to test an edited animal and tell it from a none edited animal, the slick haired Red Angus bull is a clone, the only gene different to his clone brothers is the slick hair vs normal hair gene. There is little money to be made from editing (that is one of the advantages) but at the same time it's relatively cheap to do.

 

[Sid]

Gene editing and gene modification aren't "exactly the same thing" They're very different, it isn't producing a new breed, it isn't even producing a new gene. As an example for the horn/poll edit it's taking two proteins on the genome and swapping them for each other, that's enough to turn a horned animal to a polled animal or a polled animal to horned. There is no way to test an edited animal and tell it from a none edited animal, the slick haired Red Angus bull is a clone, the only gene different to his clone brothers is the slick hair vs normal hair gene. There is little money to be made from editing (that is one of the advantages) but at the same time it's relatively cheap to do.

I've made no mention of gmo.

GE is engineering a gene within a species.
Just like the brands I mentioned above.
Tenderstem, you have to pay a royalty to use their breeding for sale.
Just imagine all dairy bulls being like that, the opportunity for multinationals is huge!
I could be charged a service fee for a natural service from a purchased animal.

It's already happening with certain breeding companies claiming rights over their breeding within their studs.

There is a way of telling through testing. How do you think they isolate the Gene they want to edit!

Be very aware!!

 

[Andrew_Ni]

I've made no mention of gmo.

GE is engineering a gene within a species.
Just like the brands I mentioned above.
Tenderstem, you have to pay a royalty to use their breeding for sale.
Just imagine all dairy bulls being like that, the opportunity for multinationals is huge!
I could be charged a service fee for a natural service from a purchased animal.

It's already happening with certain breeding companies claiming rights over their breeding within their studs.

There is a way of telling through testing. How do you think they isolate the Gene they want to edit!

Be very aware!!

That’s standard practise with some pig genetics. Pay royalties on the gilts you retain. However you get what you pay for. Pay the extra and you get a superior animal. I think the companies have the right to take random dna samples to ensure your not retaining replacements without paying the royalties. It’s all part of a signed declaration pre using their genetics.

 

[som farmer]

I've made no mention of gmo.

GE is engineering a gene within a species.
Just like the brands I mentioned above.
Tenderstem, you have to pay a royalty to use their breeding for sale.
Just imagine all dairy bulls being like that, the opportunity for multinationals is huge!
I could be charged a service fee for a natural service from a purchased animal.

It's already happening with certain breeding companies claiming rights over their breeding within their studs.

There is a way of telling through testing. How do you think they isolate the Gene they want to edit!

Be very aware!!

somebody has to pay for the research, and l expect for every successful one, several have failed, but still had to be paid for. We might not like paying for it, but such is life, if there wasn't any money in it, companies wouldn't do it.

The problem with GM/GE is the doomsayers have projected both, as something frankenstein, evil, and totally unethical, to a public, that by and large believe them. Yet both are different.

The blame lies with the nutty professors, who don't know when to stop, and push the bounds of decency.
some of the work with GM is indecent.

However, if pigs can be bred to produce human organs, for transplants, is that wrong ?

GE, can do wonders for crops etc, replacing 'natural' selection, as practiced for years, into a short term project, and we will need to produce larger crops, to feed a growing global population.