BIOTECH-ROOM2-L Archives

Moderated conference on GMOs in the pipeline, hosted by the FAO Biotechnology Forum in 2012

Biotech-Room2-L@LISTSERV.FAO.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date:
Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:54:53 +0100
Reply-To:
Biotech-Mod2 <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Message-ID:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Sender:
"Moderated conference on GMOs in the pipeline, hosted by the FAO Biotechnology Forum" <[log in to unmask]>
From:
Biotech-Mod2 <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
Jim Murray here to respond to Professor Chávez (message 7), in which he asked two questions.

In Message 1, I listed four potential genetically engineered (GE) animals that are currently available and might be useful in developing countries and he wanted to know what are the productive/reproductive differences between the GE animals I listed related to the conventional ones. The AquaAdvantage salmon grow faster, reaching market weight in about 50% of the time needed for conventional salmon. They are more feed efficient. Reproduction would be controlled by the company. The EnviroPig can utilize phosphate from the plant material in the diet and thus does not need to supplemented with phosphate, and produces feces with significantly reduced phosphate, thus reducing the potential impact on surface water. This would also have to be taken into account if using the feces for fertilizing crops. Otherwise the pigs appear normal for growth, reproduction, meat quality, etc. The Illinois alpha-lactalbumin pigs show normal growth and reproduction, the impact is in weaning healthier, larger, and presumably more baby pigs per litter, thus increasing efficiency of production. Finally the lysozyme transgenic goats show normal, growth, reproduction, and lactation.

For Professor Chávez's second question, I do not know if there is a demand in developing countries for any of these animals. In the absence of regulatory approval and companies interested in marketing these animals I am not sure if the people in most developing countries are even aware that such animals exist and if there would be benefits in their countries. I would argue that lack of regulatory approval is at least one major limiting factor for the commercial development of these animals. 

I would also speculate that the failure of animals like these to move forward probably limits individuals, scientists and companies in the developing world from actively considering if these animals would be useful, or more importantly to begin thinking about what types of new GE animals might be most useful in various regions of the world. Given some of the recent breakthroughs in the technology for developing GE animals, the timeframe to make new animals targeted to specific problems in specific regions of the world should not take as long as it did to develop these initial animals. 

James D. Murray
Professor
Department of Animal Science
Department of Population Health and Reproduction
University of California
One Shields Avenue
Davis CA 95616
United States
Phone: (530) 752-3179
Fax: (530) 752-0175
Email: jdmurray (at) ucdavis.edu

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to [log in to unmask] For further information on this FAO Biotechnology Forum, see http://www.fao.org/biotech/biotech-forum/ ]

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the Biotech-Room2-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=Biotech-Room2-L&A=1

ATOM RSS1 RSS2