Bye bye boys

[Aunt Angus]

It's done instantly and humanely.

Yeah, I'm actually against using animals for food due to religious reasons, but I know that I'm in a super minority and don't expect anyone to adopt my views. Even I can see that this is pretty humane even though it sounds horrific. I appreciate, though, that folks are trying to find alternatives.

 

[LaurenRitz]

On the unintended consequences angle. Understand that I am going from memory here, but some time back millions of gene edited female mosquitos were released in Florida, with the idea that they would mate with the wild males and thus eventually reduce the population to nothing, as their offspring would be sterile without the application of certain hormones.

A small percentage of the offspring turned out to be fertile, and because of changes made were even more virulent than the wild populations.

The scientists make changes, possibly with good intentions, but their understanding is still incredibly basic, like a child with a Lincoln Log set being commissioned to build a bridge.

Every time humanity starts playing around with biological systems we make a mess, but without the knowledge of how to clean it up afterward.

This will be no different.

 

[I Love Feather Babies]

Mixed feelings/thoughts. I’m not against gene editing on moral grounds. I don’t believe its playing God. “Playing God” would be creating life from non-life. Modifying the life that already exists has been around for as long as humans have been domesticating other species of plants and animals.

I am concerned about unintended consequences.

Not to mention only selling females in TSC, RK and other stores but not telling the consumer so they won’t have any roosters for breeding thus controlling backyard chicken keepers.

 

[JacinLarkwell]

Not to mention only selling females in TSC, RK and other stores but not telling the consumer so they won’t have any roosters for breeding thus controlling backyard chicken keepers.

They won't be sold as st run if they're only females.

 

[Aunt Angus]

Not to mention only selling females in TSC, RK and other stores but not telling the consumer so they won’t have any roosters for breeding thus controlling backyard chicken keepers.

They're not getting rid of all males. Goodness. It's an attempt to prevent having to kill the already discarded cockerels. If they wanted to do that, they already could: just shred ALL the males.

 

[I Love Feather Babies]

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.


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.


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.

Even if there were consequences to humans eating the eggs/chickens from these GMOs, we would never hear about it. I am convinced that the reason cancer has so rampant over the last several decades is the hormones/preservatives in our food and the chemicals in our water. Our children are dying of cancer and now our babies are born with it. I have a great nephew that is just over a year old, was born with cancer and had to have his arm amputated. I personally think the cancer was caused by his mom getting the Covid vaccine while she was pregnant but who knows. Something caused it though.

 

[I Love Feather Babies]

They're not getting rid of all males. Goodness. It's an attempt to prevent having to kill the already discarded cockerels. If they wanted to do that, they already could: just shared ALL the males.

But, if all a consumer can purchase is female chickens, then they will never be able to hatch their own.

 

[JacinLarkwell]

But, if all a consumer can purchase is female chickens, then they will never be able to hatch their own.

Then they buy from someone else. Small and show breeders ain't gonna be part of this change if it even catches on here

 

[3KillerBs]

Not to mention only selling females in TSC, RK and other stores but not telling the consumer so they won’t have any roosters for breeding thus controlling backyard chicken keepers.

The usual conspiracy theory is the TSC straight-run birds are all male, not all female.

 

[Aunt Angus]

But, if all a consumer can purchase is female chickens, then they will never be able to hatch their own.

Right, but if the hatcheries wanted to do that, they could already just sell pullets. And shred all the cockerels. They could do that easily. And they don't. So your point is kinda moot.