I may be growing my own food for the chickens after all, due to genetic editing

[Dakota8472]

alternative is pesticides and crop loss. and i bet pesticides cant be good for humans in the long run. or bees lol.

Humans have been selectively breeding plants and animals for advantageous traits for thousands of years. We keep pushing for more product with less waste in less time. GMOs (or whatever we are calling them now) are just the next step in this. If we can force 1000 years of cross breeding by just modifying the genetics of a seed and result in a bigger, better and faster plant with no side effects from their consumption, why shouldn't we?

GMOs have been the big scary thing for some time as the enemy to "healthy eating", but the reality of the situation is that the alternative is starvation. With this absolutely ridiculous population we are trying to support on this rock, we NEED the ability to pump out even more food from our limited farms just to keep people fed.

 

[MildlyOffensiveChicken]

Humans have been selectively breeding plants and animals for advantageous traits for thousands of years. We keep pushing for more product with less waste in less time. GMOs (or whatever we are calling them now) are just the next step in this. If we can force 1000 years of cross breeding by just modifying the genetics of a seed and result in a bigger, better and faster plant with no side effects from their consumption, why shouldn't we?

GMOs have been the big scary thing for some time as the enemy to "healthy eating", but the reality of the situation is that the alternative is starvation. With this absolutely ridiculous population we are trying to support on this rock, we NEED the ability to pump out even more food from our limited farms just to keep people fed.

Our system is great at efficiency, but I sure don’t like the fact that we have ready access to only a few types of each fruit or vegetable.

So many great tomatoes ands cukes and radishes and carrots and potatos ... that aren’t around because people want cheap.

 

[Bobmc914]

I am mostly a big fan on GMOs. It's hard to impossible to match the yields otherwise.

I do have concerns with the amount of glyphosate sprayed on "Roundup Ready" crops, but on the other hand, it is usually less total herbicide used than spraying several different kinds of more specific weed killers.

But look into golden rice. Even significant known risks are acceptable to prevent millions of people going blind from vitamin deficiencies.

 

[saysfaa]

Maybe so. I've leaned that way also... that the benefit outweighs the risk. I'm not as sure as many of you are that it is the only way or the best way to feed our current population and more or prevent blindness but it is a lot of benefit and an unknown amount of risk. Unknown could mean maybe none, maybe only a little.

However, GMO is currently approved to:

• change flower color in carnations and roses
• modify the fat of safflower - I'm still looking for how the fat is modified.
• Increase antibiotic resistance in tobacco
• Others - I didn't look through all

Most aren't currently available but these are enough to show this already isn't limited to avoiding starvation and blindness.

 

[rjmyooper]

I mentioned this in another thread, however to avoid a controversial topic, I simply said "there are other reasons to ferment feed naturally than just money".
The gov isn't here to help anyone other than themselves.

 

[Bobmc914]

Quite correct, and as with most things, we humans are likely to take it too far, and too fast.

It's not yet the only way to feed everyone. A great deal of starvation today is more due to corruption and distribution problems.

For some things the benefits outweigh the risks, like golden rice. For others, not so much. If someone has a cure for blindness but my children are going blind because I can't get it because the Sierra Club doesn't like GMOs, that's evil.

 

[saysfaa]

Back to growing chicken feed myself.
My best options for the meat portion are venison or fish. I would prefer venison because the deer are overpopulated despite all the family holding the hunting lease can take. They are destroying the understory of the woods besides making most crops impossible without a deer fence (my dad stopped planting corn because they ate so many of the tassels)

If I make 1/3 of the ration be venison, I think I won't have to worry about protein or fat. Well, actually, I'd probably have to at least check each for too much. Venison is usually lean but I processed these - they had inches of cover fat.

Alternatively, I could stock the pond and feed the fish to the chickens.

The other 2/3 will need some more research but with the meat to cover most parts, I think there will be lots of choices for all the macronutrients.

 

[saysfaa]

The micronutrient that worries me the most is selenium. I know this region has selenium deficient soil.

I know selenium accumulates in some plant species... but does it accumulate in deficient soil?

Really???
Among the first info I found is https://u.osu.edu/beef/2016/02/24/selenium-in-beef-cattle-nutrition/
talks about the difference in gene expression
"...Se is usually added to the feed in inorganic forms as sodium selenite or selenate. Se is usually found in plants combined with amino acids – selenomethionine and selenocysteine so it is logical to wonder if these “organic” forms of Se might not be more available to the animal than the “inorganic” (like sodium selenite) form...

Researchers at the Kentucky station conducted a trial with individually-fed beef heifers which received no Se, inorganic Se (sodium selenite) or organic Se (Sel-Plex®) at the 3 mg/hd/day rate....

Analyses of liver tissue gene expression revealed that the content of at least 80 mRNA was affected by the form of Se. Three Se supplement-dependent gene groups were identified: ISe-dependent, OSe-dependent and Se form-independent. Since the form of Se affects genetic expression differently, it made sense to look at a mixture of the two forms – with 50% of the 3 mg per day coming from each source. Also, all forms of Se were associated with unique liver gene expression profiles...."

Bolding is by me... the more I learn about genetics, the more complicated and interconnected with more things I find them.

 

[saysfaa]

Bad news, the easy way to get enough selenium without getting too much is not practical on the scale I need. That way is to add it to the feed.

Good news. The selenium levels in my county are in the marginal range rather than the deficient range. With this much to work with, it becomes figuring out how to make it available which is much easier (safer, anyway - more buffered, more biofeedback loops, etc) than trying to top dress it within the narrow range between deficient and toxic.

This seems a fairly comprehensive overview and in line with most of the rest of what I've found so far.
https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijaas.20170301.11.pdf#:~:text=Selenium concentration in the soil generally ranges from,natural processes increasing Se levels in the environment.

I'd come across differential uptake before, and that pH contributes to the bioavailability of selenium before.

I know my soil tends to lower pH. I think it will be enough to adjust the pH (which I need to do anyway for better yields - healthier crop plants and less weed pressure). Possibly that and paying attention to this when selecting crops.

I still have a lot of research to do to get the specifics ironed out but I no longer think it is impossible.

Next, is iodine. I know my region is in the "goiter belt." Or one of the goiter belts. Ironically, maybe, that both selenium and iodine have such a huge role in how the immune system works - both chickens and people.

 

[Krugerrand]

Humans have been selectively breeding plants and animals for advantageous traits for thousands of years. We keep pushing for more product with less waste in less time. GMOs (or whatever we are calling them now) are just the next step in this. If we can force 1000 years of cross breeding by just modifying the genetics of a seed and result in a bigger, better and faster plant with no side effects from their consumption, why shouldn't we?

GMOs have been the big scary thing for some time as the enemy to "healthy eating", but the reality of the situation is that the alternative is starvation. With this absolutely ridiculous population we are trying to support on this rock, we NEED the ability to pump out even more food from our limited farms just to keep people fed.

Keep in mind, that a 1,000 years of cross breeding allowed humans a 1,000 years of adaptation. Consider the accelerated development of wheat and the increase in gluten sensitivities that are seen now. (and I don't believe that was even GMO) Could there be a correlation? It sure seems plausible.

Then, as another poster pointed out later, many GMO alterations are things that could NEVER happen in nature. They're pulling gene sequences from other plants and animals and putting them in crops that could never pollinate together.

Now, that in and of itself is not necessarily a problem. But, it also has the potential for unforeseen consequences.

My biggest concern with GMOs at the moment is Glyphosate. These crops are modified to survive glyphosate. Then grown in it and have residual glyphosate in the harvested crop. That appears to have significant negative health consequences. So, it's not the GMO per se, but what comes along with it that has my immediate concern.