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

[saysfaa]

I don't want to try mixing my own feed but I have serious enough reservations about GMOs to be considering it if it becomes impossible to avoid them by calling the changes "genetic editing" instead.

My awareness of "genetically edited" as a legal/regulation/marketing term is too recent for me to be sure of much. I came across it described as a way to avoid the rules for "genetically modified" foods. I don't trust the source of that information but a quick netsearch seems to confirm at least that the term is being used for laboratory changes of genes. And that such changes are not considered GMO by the USDA or the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement. They are considered GMO by the EU.

Anyway, I've seen enough definitions change lately that I wanted a picture of the WHO definition of GMO saved somewhere public.

 

[Battlepants]

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.

 

[saysfaa]

Why do you think there are no side effects?

There is a lot of the genetic code that is thought to not do anything. Or that is thought all it does is understood. What we really do know should caution against such arrogance. Many genes act as switches for other genes, many genes modify other genes. Many of either show up, or don't, depending on what other modifying genes are present or what environmental pressures are present.

Potatoes fed Ireland. Until they didn't.
Kudzu is controlling erosion. I wouldn't call that a complete success though.
The latest example I saw that we may not understand as much as we think we do, is the connection of anti inflammatories to chronic pain later.

Selective breeding hasn't been a complete success either. Note bulldog calves (chondrodysplasia) in Dexters.

 

[Battlepants]

The reason I believe there are no side effects is that DNA is ultimately irrelevant during consumption. All that matters at that point is chemical composition of the thing you are consuming. If you are comparing a tomato that is of the current non-GMO standard vs a GMO tomato and they are chemically identical but the GMO one is bigger, then I can firmly say that anyone who wouldn't have had a reaction to the non-GMO tomato also wouldn't have had a reaction to the GMO one.

We have the tools to break down items and test for chemical composition, so this gives me good confidence that these tests are being done and the GMO items are safe for consumption. Or at least just as safe as their non-GMO counterparts.

To flip your question back to you - why do you believe that GMOs are harmful?

 

[swamphiker]

I disagree that GMOs are inherently dangerous, but if you would like to avoid them in your chicken feed, plenty of brands offer certified non-GMO options. A few examples:

https://www.tractorsupply.com/tsc/p...jehpSzTHT29DQr2g6zCEH0R1QIBTUtC4aAg2jEALw_wcB

https://www.chewy.com/healthy-harve...Nb3lAZcu4gJrAj7TsC9WyheUnMoTSal8aAqPnEALw_wcB

https://www.chewy.com/kalmbach-feed...djwjsC4jyTMs3IPg5R76eyW6CY31yOg8aAi8QEALw_wcB

 

[U_Stormcrow]

The biggest harm of GMOs is that they allow us to support yet more humans upon the planet - and by any reasonable measure, we are better at harming the planet (and one another) more effectively and efficiently than any other species in history. Because we have mastered the use of tools.

Now, that aside, if you wish to avoid GMOs in your feed, and your chicken's feed, there are options - and plenty of resources on how to do so.

@saysfaa I know you've done your research, I'll be very curious to see what you can home brew for your climate, and how successful the project is over the span of a few years. If I can help...

 

[saysfaa]

The reason I believe there are no side effects is that DNA is ultimately irrelevant during consumption. All that matters at that point is chemical composition of the thing you are consuming. If you are comparing a tomato that is of the current non-GMO standard vs a GMO tomato and they are chemically identical but the GMO one is bigger, then I can firmly say that anyone who wouldn't have had a reaction to the non-GMO tomato also wouldn't have had a reaction to the GMO one.

We have the tools to break down items and test for chemical composition, so this gives me good confidence that these tests are being done and the GMO items are safe for consumption. Or at least just as safe as their non-GMO counterparts.

To flip your question back to you - why do you believe that GMOs are harmful?

I agree GMOs are irrelevant during/after consumption. Probably, at least; likely almost certainly.

My concern is doing something that makes our food sources more vulnerable. We get enough of that accidentally - from invasive species of insects, lack of genetic diversity, and such - without adding another way of doing it.

 

[saysfaa]

Now, that aside, if you wish to avoid GMOs in your feed, and your chicken's feed, there are options - and plenty of resources on how to do so.

That is really the point of starting this thread. That will become much harder to do if the definition of Genetically Modified Organisms is changed to mean only certain kinds of modifications are included.

 

[Battlepants]

My concern is doing something that makes our food sources more vulnerable. We get enough of that accidentally - from invasive species of insects, lack of genetic diversity, and such - without adding another way of doing it.

We have GMOs that are built to be more disease resistant as well. And with being able to pump out a new "brand" of a resistant plant, we can quickly replace anything that died off with the new one and avoid a famine.

To the mention of Ireland and the potato famine, we are actually working on a blight resistant potato - https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26189722

So to your argument, I would agree that lack of genetic diversity is a problem, but I don't believe that GMOs are the cause, nor to I believe that non-GMOs are the fix. My solution for this would actually be doubling down on GMOs, but just a greater variety of them.

 

[chickengr]

Why do you think there are no side effects?

There is a lot of the genetic code that is thought to not do anything. Or that is thought all it does is understood. What we really do know should caution against such arrogance. Many genes act as switches for other genes, many genes modify other genes. Many of either show up, or don't, depending on what other modifying genes are present or what environmental pressures are present.

Potatoes fed Ireland. Until they didn't.
Kudzu is controlling erosion. I wouldn't call that a complete success though.
The latest example I saw that we may not understand as much as we think we do, is the connection of anti inflammatories to chronic pain later.

Selective breeding hasn't been a complete success either. Note bulldog calves (chondrodysplasia) in Dexters.

I know nothing about genes, side effects, etc. but I do know I don't want any gmo food, for me and my animals. I am looking for heirloom seeds and will be planting them as much as possible. I like your idea about growing your own food for the chickens.