Dairy Genetics

USDA Oversight of Gene-Edited Livestock: A Seismic Shift for Agriculture

Mon, 21 Dec 2020 21:01:23 GMT

USDA announced its intention on Monday to have primary oversight over gene-edited livestock. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said this would be a significant step in modernizing regulations of agricultural animals modified or produced by genetic engineering.

“This would be a seismic shift for agriculture,” Greg Ibach, USDA undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs, told AgriTalk’s host Chip Flory on Monday. “This provides an opportunity for U.S. animal agriculture to catch up with our competitors worldwide, since Canada, Argentina, Brazil and China all have paths forward for animal biotechnology that improve animal health and animal welfare and we do not. This will help our producers be able to use less antibiotics, treat fewer sick animals, and be able to eliminate traits that like horns that cause animal stress in the production cycle.”

Last year, President Trump ordered federal agencies to streamline the approval process for biotechnology products used in farming. Secretary Perdue announced that USDA will move forward with an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit public input and feedback on a contemplated regulatory framework that would modernize our system into a scientifically-sound, risk-based, and predictable process that facilitates the development and use of these technologies for U.S. farmers and ranchers under USDA’s authorities.

“Earlier this year we moved forward with the secure rule which paved the way for the first update for plant biotechnology regulation in 30 years. We’ve continued to work and using APHIS’ animal health authorities and FSIS’ food safety authorities, we now have a proposal that we would like to take comments on where we would use those authorities to be able to provide a safe, seamless, predictable, science-based way forward to approve animal biotechnology trade,” Ibach explained.

The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) already has a review process in place for gene editing in plants, which can serve as a model for livestock.

“FDA has taken a look at the food animal biotechnology trade and has attempted to regulate them under their drug authority,” Ibach said. “As we know, these don’t represent drugs, they are alternations that enhance health, enhance animal welfare – traits like the hornless Holstein cow that was developed by Alison Van Eenennaam. Working with FDA to identify a path forward using our animal health and food safety regulatory authority for food animals is progress.”

FDA would still maintain authority over animals that have biotechnology traits that allow for biomedical or pharmaceutical uses, he added.

“It seems like common sense to have this at USDA rather than FDA. But that’s from a farm boy’s perspective,” Flory said.

So, how do you explain this to a consumer?

“Each and every day and for the past 30 years, USDA has regulated plant biotechnology and we’ve identified traits and advances in plants that have improved the availability of food for consumers across the world and lessened the amount of herbicides and pesticides used to produce crops,” Ibach said. “And we’ve done that successfully without any adverse side effects.”

USDA plans to use the same food safety and animal health statutes where they have authority to regulate animals and apply them to animal biotechnology.

A Quantum Leap Forward
The U.S. has long been a leader in livestock genetics. Unfortunately, without a clear path forward, researchers are going to Canada, Brazil, Argentina and China to be able to commercialize these technologies because we do not have a clear path forward in the U.S., Ibach said.

“This will help us be able to put American farmers and ranchers first – put them in the driver’s seat – if we can develop a predictable regulatory authority that will give them access to these traits and not their foreign competitors,” Ibach added.

Without this change, it will become continually harder for the U.S. to compete. Moving oversight to USDA will make the process better to advance technology to develop immunities that would reduce the use of antibiotics, develop traits that would ensure continued humane treatment and maybe even enhance humane treatment on our farms, and decrease animal suffering and all those things would be good for consumers, he said.

The Federal Register will publish this posting on Dec. 28, beginning a 60-day comment period. Ibach encouraged all interested parties to give input about what they would like to see and what the advantages they see to USDA moving forward with a rulemaking and what factors would be important in a proposed rule from USDA.

“We think this is something that is very good for agriculture, and that it’s not administration-driven. It will be just as good for agriculture today as it will be in 3060 or 360 days from today. We believe that we’ll see a strong response from agriculture and animal agriculture especially. We anticipate that the comments that we will receive will be used by the next administration as they contemplate moving forward with a rule,” Ibach said.

More from Farm Journal:

Trade, ASF Prevention, Proposition 12 Top NPPC’s 2021 Priorities

NPPC Campaign Broadens Awareness of Gene Editing’s Promise

Ag Needs White House Support on Gene-Edited Livestock Oversight

EU Puts the Brakes on Gene Editing

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:13:54 GMT

Genomic editing technologies such as CRISPR/Cas9 offer tremendous potential for accelerating genetic progress in crop plants and livestock, but a new ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) appears likely to stifle research and development in the European Union.

The ECJ ruling mandates that genomic-editing technology should be regulated similarly to genetic engineering methods using DNA from other species to create genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Europe currently enforces tight restrictions on planting and sales of GM crops.

Proponents of genomic editing maintain that the techniques modify an organism’s existing DNA to encourage expression of desirable genetic traits, or discourage undesirable traits, without introducing DNA from other species. The results are similar to those from conventional selection-based breeding, but can occur much faster – in a single generation rather than many generations over years of time.

In a recent example, scientists in Scotland used genomic editing to create a line of pigs with genetic resistance to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS), one of the most destructive viral diseases in pigs worldwide.

The ECJ ruling to classify organisms developed using genomic editing as GMO’s removes financial incentives for companies to research the process for use in the European Union. According to news reports , Europe-based genetics companies such as Bayer, BASF and Syngenta likely will focus their genomic-editing research on other regions, such as North and South America.

Activists Set Sights on 4-H and FFA Despite Fewer Fairs

Wed, 11 Nov 2020 05:20:48 GMT

By Hannah Thompson-Weeman

Usually this time of year the Animal Agriculture Alliance is providing resources to county and state fairs on preparing for animal rights activism. Activist groups see any large gathering as an opportunity to get attention for their messages against animal agriculture, and they see fairs and expos as the perfect place with livestock and poultry on site. We advise any event to have a plan in place and be prepared for protests or disruptions from groups like Direct Action Everywhere, The Save Movement or PETA.

Fairs are looking quite a bit different this year with many going virtual or being held with very few spectators. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean we can take a break from the threat of activism. Many activists have taken the current circumstances and lack of public events as an opportunity to ramp up their online efforts, including ones targeting 4-H and FFA. While it seems counterintuitive for anyone who claims to care about animal welfare to be opposed to groups who help teach kids responsibility and how to care for livestock and poultry, it’s important to realize that animal welfare really is not the goal for animal rights activists. If we’re using animals for any purpose – whether for entertainment, food or anything else – they do not believe it’s possible to be done humanely and responsibly. Activists believe that 4-H and FFA along with fairs and livestock auctions “are teaching young people to exchange their compassion for money.”

If you are involved with a livestock project, either as an exhibitor, parent or event organizer, here are some steps to take to help mitigate the influence of activist groups.

• Avoid the urge to engage. As a 4-H and FFA alum myself, I know how passionate we are about these programs and how strongly we want to defend them when we see them being attacked. However, every time we engage with activist content online – even if we are expressing our disagreement – we are helping it get more attention. Let the activists remain in their echo chamber and resist the impulse to comment or share. You will not change their minds and your energy is much more wisely invested in sharing positive stories about your experiences and what you’ve learned from showing livestock.

• Understand their real intentions. Some activist groups are trying to encourage youth to give them their project animals in order to spare them from being sold in auctions. It’s important to understand (and especially help younger members understand) that considering doing this will give them credibility and more content they can try to use against 4-H, FFA and fairs. Make sure you are having conversations with kids throughout the process of raising project animals about their important role in providing food for a hungry world and our important responsibility in raising them ethically.

• Be prepared for online attacks. Posting anything on social about showing livestock or animals being used for food might bring out the trolls, either on your personal page, your club/chapter’s page or your fair’s page. Have a comment policy already in place and be empowered to delete inappropriate comments and ban harassers.

The Alliance has many additional resources on understanding and preparing for activism on our website: www.animalagalliance.org . If you are dealing with a situation involving activists and could use our assistance, don’t hesitate to reach out to us at info@animalagalliance.org. We’re wishing you a safe, educational and fun summer fair season, regardless of how it ends up looking!

Shows canceled in your area? Join us online for Farm Journal Field Days on August 25-27. Sign up now for this one-of-a-kind event where you’ll receive access to nearly 100 sessions of live and on-demand learning, networking and discussion. Discover exclusive insights into trends affecting your operation as well as the opportunity to schedule 1:1 virtual meetings with suppliers and sponsors. Register now!

Read more on Farm Journal’s PORK:

A Conflicted Mom’s Take on Showing Livestock During COVID

Burger King Tells A Whopper!

State Fair Canceled? Machinery Pete to Showcase Youth Tractors

A One of a Kind Animal Germplasm Collection Reaches a Major Milestone

Wed, 11 Nov 2020 05:04:35 GMT

By Dennis O’Brien

When the sample of semen from the Duroc boar—a breed of domestic pig—arrived in Fort Collins, Colo., this spring, it went largely unnoticed. But the scientists and staff at the Agricultural Research Service’s National Animal Germplasm Collection knew they had reached a milestone. The boar semen was the one millionth sample of animal germplasm to arrive at the facility, which began operating in 1999. “It was a pretty big moment for us,” says geneticist Harvey Blackburn , who leads the ARS National Animal Germplasm Program , based in Fort Collins.

The ARS collection is the largest of its kind in the world and it’s designed to ensure that there is enough genetic diversity available for breeders to meet the changing needs of the farmers and ranchers who provide much of our food supply. Only with such a diverse collection of genetic stock, available for breeding, can farmers and ranchers address the potential threats posed by emerging diseases, invasive pests, illnesses and fertility problems. Producers and breeders also need to be able to respond to changing consumer demands.

The collection is made up of samples of sperm, embryos, and tissues (e.g., ovaries and blood) of 167 breeds (36 species) of domesticated animals, such as cattle, pigs, chickens and sheep, along with farmed aquatic species, such as catfish, trout, salmon, and oysters. It also includes less common domesticated species like bison, elk, and even yaks. The million samples have been sent to Fort Collins voluntarily over the years by approximately 3,500 animal breeders, universities and in some cases, private companies that market genetic resources for cattle, swine, poultry, and trout, Blackburn said. Most of the cattle semen samples come cryogenically preserved. Semen from pigs, rams, goats, and fish often arrives fresh and is packaged and cryopreserved at the laboratory.

Why build such a collection?

It’s a valuable tool for exploring animal genomes and, when appropriate, it’s used to reintroduce livestock and aquatic species into living populations, Blackburn said. It’s also less expensive to store animal germplasm than to maintain live populations. The samples of semen and embryos, some of which predate the collection, have been stored in liquid nitrogen since the 1950s, at minus 300° F, a temperature cold enough to stop all biological processes, essentially putting them in “suspended animation,” Blackburn added.

Research scientists say the collection is vital to their work."Our project would not have been possible without the collection,” said Chad Dechow, an associate professor of dairy cattle genetics at Penn State University. He used the collection to produce Holstein offspring from 1950 era bulls with genetic variability no longer found in the living populations.

Holsteins are critical to the nation’s dairy industry, but breeding for specific traits, such as milk production, that began in earnest in the 1950s have limited the breed’s genetic diversity, which makes it difficult to address more recent problems, such as infertility. Breeding Holsteins with DNA from older lines, that were stored in the collection, should replenish the genetic diversity of Holsteins and give breeders better genetic tools to address modern day challenges, Dechow said.

“When we started artificially inseminating cattle in the 1950s and 60s, certain traits didn’t appear to be valuable, but our selection goals will always change with time. The collection ensures that we have the genetic resources we need to meet those goals,” he said.

Blackburn estimates that he and his colleagues have sent out about 6,000 samples to scientists, researchers and breeders in the past 10 years. Along with Dechow’s Holstein project, scientists have used samples in a variety of efforts, including studying the meat quality in pigs and addressing a lethal genetic mutation that can cripple and kill Angus beef cattle.

There are 128 animal gene banks in the world, but the USDA collection is by far the largest, according to the United Nation ‘s Food and Agriculture Organization . Collections kept by the Dutch and French are the next closest in size, with each of them having about half a million animal germplasm samples.

“It’s a comprehensive resource and it provides a critical backup for the nation’s food security,” Blackburn added.