The NFU backs gene editing. Do you ?

delilah

Member
no way to conventionally breed resistance into bananas

Is that because all the commercially grown bananas are one variety (cavendish ?) so there's no diversity to cross breed with ? (May have that wrong there was something on the radio about it ages ago) . If that's the case then isn't it an argument against GE, as it has the potential to further erode genetic diversity if, say, one firm develops the perfect sheep/ apple/ whatever, it corners the market, then faults appear ?
 

Cheesehead

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Kent
Is that because all the commercially grown bananas are one variety (cavendish ?) so there's no diversity to cross breed with ? (May have that wrong there was something on the radio about it ages ago) . If that's the case then isn't it an argument against GE, as it has the potential to further erode genetic diversity if, say, one firm develops the perfect sheep/ apple/ whatever, it corners the market, then faults appear ?
No it is due to the fact they are pretty much a sterile hybrid herb, there are also around a 1000 varieties but not all are desert bananas and a lot don't travel well or have a long shelf life and a lot are still susceptible to fungal disease either TR1 in the case of the Gros Michel which was the banana to be exported which was larger, sweeter and more succulent or TR4 which is hitting the Cavendish which was resistant to the first or BXW that are hitting none export varieties in Africa.

That can happen with conventional breeding just as easily as was seen with the desire for belt high cattle and then the sharp switch to continental breeds. It can also be argued that breeding is responsible for issues that have affected the Suffolk and from what I understand the Beltex on the continent where it is common for c-sections to be needed.
 

DENNING

Member
With the banana and orange crops getting shorter and no way to conventionally breed resistance into bananas I'm hoping they soon turn their attention to that as I love banana on my cereal in the morning with good British whole milk.

I believe there already has work going on with the Cavendish for a while.
 

unlacedgecko

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Fife
I would take that with a grain of salt unless it was directly spoken about by the firm in which case I very much doubt they would be in business for long given that you can already get sexed semen.

I've not got any experience in cattle bar showing a couple of nutty heifers but sheep wise I'd rather have females with good growth etc than males in both flocks A) for female replacements as we prefer to buy in most rams for fresh blood other than a few home ones to follow on afterwards. B) due to the fact that the more males the more chance of rigs that you can't castrate with out slicing from a vet which then leads to docking at market in the price we get for them either as stores as it means they need to be separate from any ewes lambs that maybe already brought or fattening on or due to 'taint' of the meat.

With the banana and orange crops getting shorter and no way to conventionally breed resistance into bananas I'm hoping they soon turn their attention to that as I love banana on my cereal in the morning with good British whole milk.
 

Hjcarter

Member
No, I don't support it for two reasons.

1) This will be snapped up by a few corporations that will end up controlling the market. First step - buy it because its resistant/ higher yield/ whatever. Second step - buy it because everyone else has and you can't compete otherwise. Third step - buy our inputs/ activator/ whatever because it doesn't work without it (we twiddled with another gene). At this point you have some faceless corporations controlling your costs and margins as well as the wider supply.

2) I hold a personal view that nature is ambivalent to humans and nature pretty much knows best. Cross/ selective breeding is one thing but transplanting parts from one species to another or switching one gene on or off when you don't fully understand what the others do seems like asking for trouble.

I may seem like a Luddite and conspiracist but personally, when I lift my head and look at the world around me I believe that pretty much all the woes and ills originate with humans so for that reason I think the less we meddle the better.
 

unlacedgecko

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Fife
Given as I say that you can sex semen and the fact that there are other programs that have progressed further seems rather futile

Read the article in detail. It's about creating a female line that will only have calves which are physiologically male, even if the are XX chromosomes.

Not much opportunity to use sexed semen on an extensive grazing cow calf operation.
 

neilo

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Montgomeryshire
No, I don't support it for two reasons.

1) This will be snapped up by a few corporations that will end up controlling the market. First step - buy it because its resistant/ higher yield/ whatever. Second step - buy it because everyone else has and you can't compete otherwise. Third step - buy our inputs/ activator/ whatever because it doesn't work without it (we twiddled with another gene). At this point you have some faceless corporations controlling your costs and margins as well as the wider supply.

2) I hold a personal view that nature is ambivalent to humans and nature pretty much knows best. Cross/ selective breeding is one thing but transplanting parts from one species to another or switching one gene on or off when you don't fully understand what the others do seems like asking for trouble.

I may seem like a Luddite and conspiracist but personally, when I lift my head and look at the world around me I believe that pretty much all the woes and ills originate with humans so for that reason I think the less we meddle the better.

I think you’re confusing Gene Editing with Genetic Modification.

No genes are introduced from another species with GE, the gene is simply edited, to remove undesirable traits. This is exactly what happens, albeit in a more blunt and long winded manner, with selective breeding and culling.

GM involves the introduction of genetic material from another species, whether that be resistance to glyphosate or the development of a COVID vaccine.
 

Cheesehead

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Kent
Read the article in detail. It's about creating a female line that will only have calves which are physiologically male, even if the are XX chromosomes.

Not much opportunity to use sexed semen on an extensive grazing cow calf operation.

I still can't see how that is going to stop farms from producing their own replacements as I can not think of many farms unless already only finishing farms that would give that up other than if they are all ready having to buy in replacements like those sheep farmers with mules. I believe when it first started Innovis tried to keep control of the movement of female replacements but ultimately relaxed a lot of the rules as it involved too much work. I believe the company that also produced the Primera and Highlander breeds had something similar before Innovis took over in this country.


No, I don't support it for two reasons.

1) This will be snapped up by a few corporations that will end up controlling the market. First step - buy it because its resistant/ higher yield/ whatever. Second step - buy it because everyone else has and you can't compete otherwise. Third step - buy our inputs/ activator/ whatever because it doesn't work without it (we twiddled with another gene). At this point you have some faceless corporations controlling your costs and margins as well as the wider supply.



I may seem like a Luddite and conspiracist but personally, when I lift my head and look at the world around me I believe that pretty much all the woes and ills originate with humans so for that reason I think the less we meddle the better.
But what is the difference between that and conventional seed houses like DFL, Germinal, KWS or Limagrain.

I don't think you're a luddite everyone has their own views and thoughts as well as the right to have them. I too have some reservations and believe their should be safeguards but when the technology has already been help millions like those with diabetes I just believe ignoring it completely seems pointless just as some dictating what others may do seems more akin to those like Animal Rebellion etc.
 
Neither is turning the clock back to trying to farm like yesteryear but just think about all the old varieties that only needed one fungicide or better still non at all with the yield of a modern variety,that is possible with gene editing

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.
 
Yep looks well worth the research to me.

I'm too thick to completely understand it but GE tech like CRISPR seems like a game changer for all kinds of things, not just a bit of wheat.

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.
 
No it is due to the fact they are pretty much a sterile hybrid herb, there are also around a 1000 varieties but not all are desert bananas and a lot don't travel well or have a long shelf life and a lot are still susceptible to fungal disease either TR1 in the case of the Gros Michel which was the banana to be exported which was larger, sweeter and more succulent or TR4 which is hitting the Cavendish which was resistant to the first or BXW that are hitting none export varieties in Africa.

That can happen with conventional breeding just as easily as was seen with the desire for belt high cattle and then the sharp switch to continental breeds. It can also be argued that breeding is responsible for issues that have affected the Suffolk and from what I understand the Beltex on the continent where it is common for c-sections to be needed.

My understanding was that commercial banana crops were propagated largely by cuttings and therefore the population/variety used had very low levels of genetic diversity?
 

neilo

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Montgomeryshire
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.

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

delilah

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

Not sure it's relevant to describe cross breeding as genetic manipulation for the purposes of this debate ? Fundamental differences, surely ?
 

neilo

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Montgomeryshire
Not sure it's relevant to describe cross breeding as genetic manipulation for the purposes of this debate ? Fundamental differences, surely ?

Not at all. The AA was used to introduce a poll gene, then backcrossed to remove the less desirable traits of the Angus (from a dairy perspective). In a long winded manner, a desirable gene from another animal of the same species was introduced. All Gene Editing does is replicate that process, but faster and with less animal wasteage (culling of those cross animals that didn’t carry the required genetics).

It’s a totally different technology to Genetic Modification, both technically and ethically.
 

delilah

Member
Not at all. The AA was used to introduce a poll gene, then backcrossed to remove the less desirable traits of the Angus (from a dairy perspective). In a long winded manner, a desirable gene from another animal of the same species was introduced. All Gene Editing does is replicate that process, but faster and with less animal wasteage (culling of those cross animals that didn’t carry the required genetics).

It’s a totally different technology to Genetic Modification, both technically and ethically.

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 ?
 

delilah

Member
That FW article has befuddled me. They are growing GM crops on a field scale? The last para:

The plants to be used at the start of the trial all have one or two of the additional genes removed but retain at least one, so for now are genetically modified (GM).
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 77 43.5%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 62 35.0%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 28 15.8%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 4 2.3%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,285
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top