Bye bye boys

[Perris]

I believe this concerns the part of the poultry industry concerned with producing layers, so the eggs of breeder hens that are going to be incubated to grow the next generation of layers. Based on this bit of the article: ''The next important step is to see whether the hen and the female chicks she produces, who will lay eggs for human consumption, can go through a commercial lifespan without any unexpected welfare issues arising.''
So it's not something to which eggs for sale in a supermarket will be subjected.

 

[JacinLarkwell]

I'm just curious if this will lead to hatcheries just not selling males or st run. I personally do buy a ton of males and st run breeds since I use roosters. I'm not sure I'd be willing to buy only females and then have to source males somewhere else.

 

[ManueB]

The genetic part is new but other technologies to destroy male embryos before hatching already exist. I grant you we french are not very rational but we wouldn't have passed a law (that was delayed twice by our current president although it was an electoral promise) to forbid male chick shredding if this wasn't the case. The main technology that is to be used is German, unsurprisingly as Germany was the first country to ban shredding. Here is an article via Google translate

These machines are extremely expensive and well adapted to the situation in France where the number of hatcheries producing eggs for commercial production units are less than two hand's fingers.

 

[Aunt Angus]

It's worth a look, imo. Even if this isn't the answer, it may be a step in the right direction. This isn't really a new issue. There have been other gene editing experiments done (the one with sea anemones is wild). But there certainly are tons of questions. We will see what transpires as time passes.

 

[BlueBaby]

It is still going to take a rooster to fertilize the egg's for them to produce more chick's. Will the weak rooster's be used for that, or perhap's there wouldn't be enough good rooster's left and therefore create more deformed inbred offspring down the road?

 

[AGeese]

It is still going to take a rooster to fertilize the egg's for them to produce more chick's. Will the weak rooster's be used for that, or perhap's there wouldn't be enough good rooster's left and therefore create more deformed inbred offspring down the road?

We won't want any cross-pollination with that

 

[BlueBaby]

We won't want any cross-pollination with that

I agree.

 

[3KillerBs]

When they shine the blue light on the egg the male eggs die, I don't really see how this solves the problem. They are simply killing the boys before they are born.

That was my first thought too.

Killing the males is killing the males. I'd rather they were useful.

 

[TooCheep]

If that becomes a practice around the world of poultry. I hope they label and identify the chickens with this ability. So hobbyist and breeders can avoid them.

Absolutely. I'm sure hobbyists and breeders would be interested in maintaining heritage and other breeds which don't have this characteristic. This is largely oriented towards commercial use, though there are real risks of this "feature" propagating into our backyard chickens, which I explain below.

It is still going to take a rooster to fertilize the egg's for them to produce more chick's. Will the weak rooster's be used for that, or perhap's there wouldn't be enough good rooster's left and therefore create more deformed inbred offspring down the road?

Good question. Based on the diagram in the article, the genetically modified hens are mated with non-modified roosters. Assuming they follow that process 100%, then the blue-light "death feature" does not inherit in the female chicks which could then lead perfectly normal lives, including being backyard chickens. If they don't follow the process 100%, then any resulting males will inherit the feature and 50% of their male offspring will be vulnerable while female offspring might be carriers of this feature. They don't say if the modified males are vulnerable to blue light after hatching.

That was my first thought too.

Killing the males is killing the males. I'd rather they were useful.

I just saw this article and found this thread, so I figured I'd revive it. Interesting technology, but as everyone else indicates, there still are a lot of questions:

• How early are the male chicks destroyed? If it is very early on, then there is far less objection based on causing pain. I think it is far more likely because killing a blastomere (pre-embryo) should be a lot easier than a largely formed chick that the blue light will have a harder time penetrating. Disposing of the destroyed male eggs should be straightforward by candling to see which ones don't develop. I don't know if those eggs would be usable for feed or otherwise.
• "Killing the males is killing the males". You are 100% correct, but two reasonable factors are at play. #1 is cost/waste, which theoretically is reduced if this is successful on a commercial scale. #2 is if this is more humane, which can be questioned, though I tend to favor it if done at a very early stage before any nerves or other sensory organs develop.
• Is it possible to 100% stop the propagation of this genetic trait into the wider world? In theory, this "feature" can be well controlled and not passed on to any chicks. They genetically modify hatchery-destined females only and this feature is not passed to the female offspring which are then commercially useful.
  In practice, genes are pretty damn good at spreading and making their way out into the wider world. That is why virus labs are supposed to take major precautions to prevent spread (and aren't 100% successful) and why many farmers have had problems with genetically modified corn/soy/wheat infecting their non-GMO crops. If any of these modified males are not killed and eventually breed, then this feature would propagate.
  So, the answer is that this feature will likely eventually make it out and cause problems for breeders that don't want the trait. It will cost-shift from the lab-chicken creators to force everyone else to install blue lights to verify that their chicks are still non-modified, which is exactly what has happened to farmers trying to avoid GMO grains.
• What are the health impacts to the female carriers (and non-terminated males) and are their any health impacts due to consuming them by humans or other animals? Doesn't sound like there is any info on that yet. Will there sufficient testing before this technology is scaled up? Based on what I've seen of modern science practice in the last 2+ years, I'm extremely doubtful.

 

[nicalandia]

Killing the males is killing the males. I'd rather they were useful.

There is a pretty big difference between killing fully developed sentient beings than to interrupt the development of embryos before they start feeling pain.