my time for bad luck on feed as come

[rancher hicks]

Not just hybrid chickens, ALL chickens.
There are no wild chickens, never have been.
The "chicken" is a man made animal that we bred from at least two types of jungle fowl.

As for vegetables,,, well lets just say that 90% +/- of all vegetables grown today have been genetically modified by man even in non-hybrids, the organic, the heirloom and the "non-GMO".


What a lot of people need to understand is that we have been "genetically modifying" plants (and animals) for thousands of years.

Genetic modification takes place naturally. Which of course gets away from my entire point, S. Cooper.

 

[aoxa]

I have read the studies. I don't think you have.

The studies all regard Neonictonids, not glyphosate. Neonics and glyphosate have nothing to do with each other. It's funny though, the EU banned most of this stuff - and you know what happened to the bees? Colony collapse continued marching on. On the other hand, Australia, uses neonictonids on basically everything - and they have no colony collapse. You know why? Because they don't have Varroa - and they don't have a commercial bee-hive industry that moves bees around all over the place, spreads disease, and forces bees to use fixed comb of an inappropriate size. .

Also, Neonictonids are based on Nicotine, a naturally occuring compound - funny that.
Unless you can show that a human splicing a gene in using a retrovirus is different from a naturally occurring retrovirus splicing it in on it's own, the distinction is meaningless. Horizontal gene transfer happens all the time in the natural world.

Look up the definition

" living GMOs (specifically, "any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology").

How in the world is a hybrid layer made with biotechnology? Seriously?

Did they scientifically alter these birds? If so - please show me proof.

I can make a red sex link layer by using two purebred chickens.

So now you must be against ANY pure heritage chickens then.

 

[CrazyTalk]

Look up the definition

" living GMOs (specifically, "any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology").

How in the world is a hybrid layer made with biotechnology? Seriously?

Did they scientifically alter these birds? If so - please show me proof.

I can make a red sex link layer by using two purebred chickens.

So now you must be against ANY pure heritage chickens then.

Why is it that we can't have this conversation without people like you making absurd, hyperbolic, and untrue claims like "you must be against ANY pure heritage chicken". Stop trying to put words in our mouths. Stop trying to build strawmen to fight.

Commercial laying strains are tightly controlled - the breeding pools are continually genetically tested. Alleles are tightly controlled by testing the animals and culling the ones that don't have the correct makeup. All of this is biotech. Chickens don't have genes spliced in because there's no need at this point - it's cheaper to raise ten thousand chicks and cull the ones that don't have the traits you need.

Again, unless you've got some evidence showing that a gene inserted by a retrovirus created by a human being functions differently than the same gene brought about by mating, you're not really talking about anything relevant.

 

[rancher hicks]

Look up the definition

" living GMOs (specifically, "any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology").

How in the world is a hybrid layer made with biotechnology? Seriously?

Did they scientifically alter these birds? If so - please show me proof.

I can make a red sex link layer by using two purebred chickens.

So now you must be against ANY pure heritage chickens then.

In my effort to tone things down a bit, though I suspect there is not as much heat here as appears.......

Meyers Lemons, Tangeloes etc. would be GMO. Nothing is altering the genetic make up of the two fruits. In chickens yes your crosses are GMO.

In my opinion Bio Technology is not that complex. Many Roses and flowers are developed in the greenhouse, but using like related plants. Many things are Genetically modified in nature.

Now if you were to take, genes of non related things then it would be Genetical Engineering. Another term is Biological Engineering.

The entire point of my original comment was referring to the confusion between the two and using the term " Genetically Modified Organism"
too loosely.

As for science? Science is happening around us all the time. Hatching chicks is science. Pollinating vegetables by hand is science. Things don't have to take place in a laboratory to be science.

The result of your crossing two birds is a Bird that is Genetically Modified. We are all GMO people.

On second thought just forget the whole thing.

 

[aoxa]

Why is it that we can't have this conversation without people like you making absurd, hyperbolic, and untrue claims like "you must be against ANY pure heritage chicken". Stop trying to put words in our mouths. Stop trying to build strawmen to fight.

Commercial laying strains are tightly controlled - the breeding pools are continually genetically tested. Alleles are tightly controlled by testing the animals and culling the ones that don't have the correct makeup. All of this is biotech. Chickens don't have genes spliced in because there's no need at this point - it's cheaper to raise ten thousand chicks and cull the ones that don't have the traits you need.

Again, unless you've got some evidence showing that a gene inserted by a retrovirus created by a human being functions differently than the same gene brought about by mating, you're not really talking about anything relevant.

How is tightly controlled genetically modified?

My breeding flock of Barred Rocks is closely monitored by myself. I cull for poor growers, layers, improper traits for the breed, etc. They are not genetically modified.

For thousands of years, humans have been genetically enhancing other organisms through the practice of selective breeding. Look around you: the sweet corn and seedless watermelons at the supermarket, the purebred dogs at the park, and your neighbor's prize rosebush are all examples of how humans have selectively enhanced desirable traits in other living things.
The type of genetic enhancement that generates the most concern goes a step beyond selective breeding, however. Technology now allows us to transfer genes between organisms. For example, the tomato plant's beetle resistance relies on a gene from a bacterium (Bacillus thuringiensis), which scientists inserted into the tomato plant's genome. This gene, called cry1Ac, encodes a protein that is poisonous to certain types of insects, including the beetle.
How is this done? Gene transfer technology is simply a sophisticated version of a cut-and-paste operation. Once the desired gene is identified in the native organism's genome, it can be cut out, transferred to the target plant, and pasted into its genome. (The illustration to the right describes the "gene-gun" approach, which is one of several gene transfer methods.) Once the new gene has been introduced, the plant can be bred to create a new strain that passes the gene from generation to generation.

 

[CrazyTalk]

The type of genetic enhancement that generates the most concern goes a step beyond selective breeding, however. Technology now allows us to transfer genes between organisms. For example, the tomato plant's beetle resistance relies on a gene from a bacterium (Bacillus thuringiensis), which scientists inserted into the tomato plant's genome. This gene, called cry1Ac, encodes a protein that is poisonous to certain types of insects, including the beetle.

Yeah, I know how it works - that's not in question here. The question is "is it more dangerous than conventional breeding" and as of right now, there's no evidence of that. What we do know is that GMO plants are more heavily tested than non-GMO plants, and we know more about their genomes. Conventional breeding can produce some really unpredictable results - GMO doesn't - it produces what we expect it to - and then we test to make sure it did.

As to "natural" - animals have been swapping DNA for as long as their have been animals. Roughly 10% of our genome is endogenous retroviral DNA - DNA that viruses have inserted into us. Horizontal gene transfer is no less natural than vertical gene transfer - and artificial horizontal gene transfer (GMO) is no different than artificial vertical gene transfer (AI, etc) as far as 'natural' goes.

The only difference is the mainstream public understand one and don't understand the other. Ignorance leads to fear.

 

[aoxa]

Yeah, I know how it works - that's not in question here. The question is "is it more dangerous than conventional breeding" and as of right now, there's no evidence of that. What we do know is that GMO plants are more heavily tested than non-GMO plants, and we know more about their genomes. Conventional breeding can produce some really unpredictable results - GMO doesn't - it produces what we expect it to - and then we test to make sure it did.

As to "natural" - animals have been swapping DNA for as long as their have been animals. Roughly 10% of our genome is endogenous retroviral DNA - DNA that viruses have inserted into us. Horizontal gene transfer is no less natural than vertical gene transfer - and artificial horizontal gene transfer (GMO) is no different than artificial vertical gene transfer (AI, etc) as far as 'natural' goes.

The only difference is the mainstream public understand one and don't understand the other. Ignorance leads to fear.

I think we just had a miscommunication - as it was terminology that is confusing people. You'd be surprised how many people believe that the meat king or Cornish cross has had their DNA genetically altered (ie: another species added).

I am not arguing that they are genetically enhanced by humans. I'm trying to state that what they are doing to vegetables like corn and soy and genetically enhancing animals through selective breeding is an entirely different thing.

I for one can't afford organic feed - though I would love to. It's triple the price here in Eastern Canada. So I do my best with what I have. I haven't noticed any bees dying here. On the contrary - we have a whole lot of bees. Knowing quite a few bee keepers - they did exceptionally well this year as well.

 

[CrazyTalk]

Feral honey bees are doing fine (there are no wild honeybees in North America - they're invasive) - it's the bee industry that pollinates orchards (mostly in california) that is getting killed. They move their hives on a weekly basis from crop-to-crop, which is rough on the hive to start with, they use foundation frames with cells that are too large for brood cells (everything is honey cells) which increases mite density (the mites pupate inside the cells with the bee larvae) because they're easier to harvest honey from, they overharvest, etc. Every aspect of the industry is at odds with what the bees need.

That, and when their hives get anything, they spread it to every hive within hundreds of miles because they keep moving the hives around. The modern pollination industry is basically a study in how to not do biosecurity.


As to the "I'm trying to state that what they are doing to vegetables like corn and soy and genetically enhancing animals through selective breeding is an entirely different thing" - it's a different process, but there's no difference in the results. DNA is DNA is DNA - it doesn't matter if a gene was placed in a specific location during sexual reproduction, spliced in there by a retrovirus, or done doing gene insertion (which is typically done with plant viruses, and the virus does the actual splicing) - if we've got the same gene in the same location, it's going to code for the same proteins.

 

[Chris09]

My breeding flock of Barred Rocks is closely monitored by myself. I cull for poor growers, layers, improper traits for the breed, etc. They are not genetically modified.

Believe it or not you are genetically modifying your flock.

You are selecting for traits that you want, (growth, production, looks, etc.) in doing so you are changing or modifying them genetically.

 

[rancher hicks]

Ya know If I could genetically engineer some things, I'd genetically engineer a chicken and dog, that way the chickens could chase predators away and lay pooched eggs for breakfast.

What would you genetically engineer, and don't say Rancher Hicks and a brain!