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

[MadGardener]

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.

Agreed. Humans are really bad at predicting, associating, and controlling second (and later) stage consequences. Add to that the "unknown unknowns" and we're really running in the dark as our technology advances our capabilities beyond our knowledge.

I remember reading a few years ago that studies found the mutations from BT corn had passed to bovine gut flora via genetic drift. I've tried to find it, but there were many more recent studies and I guess my keywords need adjustment.

Lately I've been thinking a lot about microplastics, PFAS, and the toxic slick we'll leave in the earth. It seems that there is really no avoiding exposure entirely, from just the known harms. What about the unknown?

I do love the idea of growing more for yourself, and it's definitely some degree of harm reduction.

I'm not sure how effective it would be, and would def take a long time, but would silvopasture help alleviate cross pollination?

 

[saysfaa]

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...

Yes, this.

Even when genes aren't pulled from other organisms, they tend to work in concert with other genes ... indicating at least the possibility of buffering effects.

 

[saysfaa]

... I not sure how effective it would be, and would def take a long time, but would silvopasture help alleviate cross pollination?

Yes, definitely, for both wind and insect pollination and, maybe, microclimates that could be used to shift bloom times.

 

[Krugerrand]

Things to keep in mind. Scientific studies deemed asbestos safe. Scientific studies deemed cigarettes safe.

We have a flawed system of testing for safety. Very often scientists find what they are looking for. So, when companies test for safety, they find their products safe.

The governing agencies that people rely on to oversee the process are riddled with bias and corruption. While it is understandable that we would want industry expertise involved in those governing so that the governing body is not clueless as to what is going on - we've ended up with governing bodies beholden to corporate interests.

Add to that, it is VERY difficult to trace the cause of problems that develop over time or effect people differently.

 

[Battlepants]

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.

The thing is "adaptation" is just a little word that means "the weak died off and didn't reproduce" in terms of species survival. I would argue the reason that we are seeing a rise in gluten sensitivities is because scientific advancement (in terms of treatment and alternative foods) has made the condition survivable. If someone was born 2000 years ago with gluten sensitivities and the staple crop in the area was wheat, they probably wouldn't have lived very long.

A comparison can be made to diabetes and the creation of insulin as a drug. Just 100 years ago, if someone had diabetes, they would go into various organ failures and then die. Now, we have people living very full lives despite their condition. Said people can also go on to reproduce. Effectively, due to the creation of insulin, we have a rise in diabetes. But this is simply because you don't count your dead your total number of people with a condition.

Another comparison that I find to be a likely cause of the rise in conditions is simply our ability to detect them. Celiac disease was discovered in the early 1900s. Prior to this, it's hard to say what the diagnosis would be - perhaps your humors are imbalanced, perhaps it's demons? Medical science has come a LOOOONG way in 1000 years.

 

[Lazy J Farms Feed & Hay]

The thing with gmo is the fact that when you save seeds from that plant you won't get the same plant. You won't get consistent results. Gmo veggies are like cornish cross chickens. And then changing course here, there are huge businesses that own these seeds and rights to them.

You are confusing hybridism with gmo.

 

[Krugerrand]

The thing is "adaptation" is just a little word that means "the weak died off and didn't reproduce" in terms of species survival. I would argue the reason that we are seeing a rise in gluten sensitivities is because scientific advancement (in terms of treatment and alternative foods) has made the condition survivable. If someone was born 2000 years ago with gluten sensitivities and the staple crop in the area was wheat, they probably wouldn't have lived very long.

A comparison can be made to diabetes and the creation of insulin as a drug. Just 100 years ago, if someone had diabetes, they would go into various organ failures and then die. Now, we have people living very full lives despite their condition. Said people can also go on to reproduce. Effectively, due to the creation of insulin, we have a rise in diabetes. But this is simply because you don't count your dead your total number of people with a condition.

Another comparison that I find to be a likely cause of the rise in conditions is simply our ability to detect them. Celiac disease was discovered in the early 1900s. Prior to this, it's hard to say what the diagnosis would be - perhaps your humors are imbalanced, perhaps it's demons? Medical science has come a LOOOONG way in 1000 years.

Those are very real possibilities.

Diabetes is a tricky one, as Type 1 and Type 2 should not get lumped together. It's pretty indisputable that we have a massive increase in Type 2 diabetes because of what we eat.

Generally speaking, it can be worth considering 'we're seeing it more because we're testing more for it, or we're surviving it better.' However, when there is an increase in conditions and issues, it is worth evaluating other possibilities to be certain of that.

I would hazard that we can alter the grains faster than we can alter the human evolution. So, from a practical standpoint, I would think it more reasonable to investigate the grains first.

 

[saysfaa]

The thing is "adaptation" is just a little word that means "the weak died off and didn't reproduce" in terms of species survival....

Not necessarily. If the change as a small enough effect in any given generation then the vulnerable to a change may be less severely affected- not dying any earlier than they otherwise would or having fewer children but not feeling as well. This spurs them or their healers or their cooks to look for treatments or maybe to recognize a treatment that happened incidentally.

Cooking soybeans, for example, deactivates the anti nutrients. If all the anti nutrients happened in a single mutation, then maybe they would kill everyone except a few who had enough tolerance to survive long enough to have children. But, if the anti nutrients happened a little at a time over many generations of people, people may have figured out they didn't get sick if they cooked the soybeans. Concept here; the example isn't the best.

 

[saysfaa]

On to Iodine.
After poking around a while, I realized I am not trying to survive an apocalypse. I can add iodized salt. Duh.

some if it was interesting and I learned a new word - goitrogenic.

"...Certain plants may produce goiter when ingested in sufficient amounts, especially in the absence of adequate iodine intake. Soybeans are most notable, but cabbage, rape, kale, and turnips all contain less potent goitrogens. Cooking or heating (and the usual processing of soybean meal) destroys the goitrogenic substance in these plants. In addition to the goitrogenic substances found in some plants, organochlorides such as DDT and related compounds and lithium may cause goiter. All of the goitrogenic substances act by interfering with production of thyroid hormone...."
merckvetmanual.com endocrine-system/the-thyroid-gland/goiter-in-animals

"...In chickens, avian goiter [and many other issues] is most often caused by excessive eating of goitrogenic agents, such as kale, broccoli, turnips, cabbage, flax rapeseed, and soybeans...."
http://www.poultrydvm.com/condition/avian-goiter

More support for the general idea of eating a wide variety of foods - for me, I mean. I probably would for the chickens too, in an apocalypse.

Edit to add: white clover came up on some lists of goitrogenic plants. Then I found this “...Feeds containing goitrogens are brassicas like turnips, rapeseed, or kale. Parts of other feeds (such as white clover, carrots, linseed, cassava, sweet potatoes, lima beans, millets, peanuts, cottonseed, soybeans, and sugar beet pulp) also have the ability to decrease iodine uptake.” From https://www.agriculture.com/livesto...s-whys-of-supplementing-iodine-to_280-ar48275

 

[saysfaa]

I will send soil samples in this week. When I get the results, I will return to minerals.

Moving on in the meantime.

I am not worried about the amount of fat. I think that will be relatively easy to adjust. I am researching the other aspects ... this paper on omega 3 and omega 6 in chicken nutrition is a good start. https://www.backyardchickens.com/threads/feeding-sunflower-seeds.1526831/

I found in when I saw here https://poultry.extension.org/articles/feeds-and-feeding-of-poultry/basic-poultry-nutrition/

that chickens have only one essential fatty acid (people have at least two)... linoleic acid. Which is (or results in) omega 6.