Welfare applications of genetically engineered animals for use in agriculture

Genetic modifications associated with sustainability aspects for sustainable developments

Sustainable development serves as the foundation for a range of international and national policymaking. Traditional breeding methods have been used to modify plant genomes and production. Genetic engineering is the practice of assisting agricultural systems in adapting to rapidly changing global growth by hastening the breeding of new varieties. On the other hand, the development of genetic engineering has enabled more precise control over the genomic alterations made in recent decades. Genetic changes from one species can now be introduced into a completely unrelated species, increasing agricultural output or making certain elements easier to manufacture. Harvest plants and soil microorganisms are just a few of the more well-known genetically modified creatures. Researchers assess current studies and illustrate the possibility of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from the perspectives of various stakeholders. GMOs increase yields, reduce costs, and reduce agriculture's terrestrial and ecological footprint. Modern technology benefits innovators, farmers, and consumers alike. Agricultural biotechnology has numerous applications, each with its own set of potential consequences. This will be able to reach its full potential if more people have access to technology and excessive regulation is avoided. This paper covers the regulations for genetically modified crops (GMCs) as well as the economic implications. It also includes sections on biodiversity and environmental impact, as well as GMCs applications. This recounts biotechnological interventions for long-term sustainability in the field of GMCs, as well as the challenges and opportunities in this field of research.Abbreviations: GMCs-Genetically modified crops; GMOs- Genetically modified organisms; GE- Genetic engineering; Bt- Bacillus thuringiensisNIH- National Institutes of Health; FDA- Food and Drug Administration; HGT- Horizontal gene transfer; GM- Genetically modified; rDNA- Ribosomal deoxyribonucleic acid; USDA- United States Department of Agriculture; NIH- National Institutes of Health.

Gene Editing for Improved Animal Welfare and Production Traits in Cattle: Will This Technology Be Embraced or Rejected by the Public?

Integrating technology into agricultural systems has gained considerable traction, particularly over the last half century. Agricultural systems that incorporate the public’s concerns regarding farm animal welfare are more likely to be socially accepted in the long term, a key but often forgotten component of sustainability. Gene editing is a tool that has received considerable attention in the last five years, given its potential capacity to improve farm animal health, welfare, and production efficiency. This study aimed to explore the attitudes of Brazilian citizens regarding the applications of gene editing in cattle that generate offspring without horns; are more resistant to heat; and have increased muscle tissue. Using a mixed-methods approach, we surveyed participants via face-to-face, using in-depth interviews (Study 1) and an online questionnaire containing closed-ended questions (Study 2). Overall, the acceptability of gene editing was low and in cases where support was given it was highly dependent on the type and purpose of the application proposed. Using gene editing to improve muscle tissue growth was viewed as less acceptable compared to using gene editing to reduce heat stress or to produce hornless cattle. Support declined when the application was perceived to harm animal welfare, to be profit motivated or to reinforce the status quo of intensive livestock systems. The acceptability of gene editing was reduced when perceptions of risks and benefits were viewed as unevenly or unfairly distributed among consumers, corporations, different types of farmers, and the animals. Interviewees did not consider gene editing a “natural” process, citing dissenting reasons such as the high degree of human interference and the acceleration of natural processes. Our findings raised several issues that may need to be addressed for gene editing to comply with the social pillar of sustainable agriculture.

Welfare assessment in intensive and semi-intensive dairy cattle management system in Sicily

The present study aimed to compare the welfare of dairy cows kept in two traditional husbandry systems (semi-intensive and intensive farming) in south-eastern Sicily. A total of 18 dairy farms (nine semi-intensive and nine intensive) were evaluated with a multicriteria system adapted for Sicilian conditions and obtained simplifying the model of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Values of welfare measures, collected by inspections of the farms (general well-being indicators, ventilation system, resting areas [cubicles or bedding], flooring, milking parlours and waiting area, manger and watering equipment), and those of health categories (cases of abortions, hypocalcemia, displacement of abomasum, acidosis/ketosis, enteritis, hoof problems, and mastitis) obtained through the farm records, were compared using Mann-Whitney and Chi-squared tests, respectively. Data showed significant differences (p ≤ .05) about the variables related to welfare categories such as housing ventilation system, resting area, manger, and water equipment that were better in the semi-intensive system than the intensive system. No significant differences were observed about the variables related to health indicators. The results demonstrated that in Sicily the semi-intensive farm is better than the intensive to satisfy the conditions of animal welfare.

Effects of TLR4 overexpression on sperm quality, seminal plasma biomarkers, sperm DNA methylation and pregnancy rate in sheep

Genetic modification provides a means to enhancing disease resistance in animals. In this study, the first generation of genetically modified (GM) sheep overexpressing TLR4 was produced by microinjection for better disease resistance. To compare semen characteristics including sperm quality, seminal plasma biochemical index, sperm DNA methylation and pregnancy rate of three-year old transgenic sheep with TLR4 overexpressed (toll like receptor 4, TLR4) and non-transgenic ram. Sixteen transgenic ram of F0 generation were produced by microinjection of the TLR4 plasmid into the pronucleus of fertilized ova. Seven transgenic sheep of F1 generation was produced by breeding F0 transgenic founders with non-transgenic sheep of the same breed. There were no significant differences between transgenic and control rams for all semen quality parameters, including semen volume, sperm concentration, sperm viability, and percentages of sperm with an intact plasma membrane, acrosomal integrity, and viable sperm with high mitochondrial membrane potential in both F0 and F1 generation. Furthermore, no significant differences were found for seminal plasma concentrations of zinc, neutral alpha-glucosidase, acid phosphatase or fructose, nor for levels of H19 and IGF2R methylation in sperm DNA. In addition, pregnancy rate was also similar between these two groups. In conclusion, there was no evidence that TLR4 overexpression altered the sperm quality, seminal plasma or sperm DNA of transgenic sheep.

Genetically engineered livestock for agriculture: a generation after the first transgenic animal research conference

At the time of the first Transgenic Animal Research Conference, the lack of knowledge about promoter, enhancer and coding regions of genes of interest greatly hampered our efforts to create transgenes that would express appropriately in livestock. Additionally, we were limited to gene insertion by pronuclear microinjection. As predicted then, widespread genome sequencing efforts and technological advancements have profoundly altered what we can do. There have been many developments in technology to create transgenic animals since we first met at Granlibakken in 1997, including the advent of somatic cell nuclear transfer-based cloning and gene editing. We can now create new transgenes that will express when and where we want and can target precisely in the genome where we want to make a change or insert a transgene. With the large number of sequenced genomes, we have unprecedented access to sequence information including, control regions, coding regions, and known allelic variants. These technological developments have ushered in new and renewed enthusiasm for the production of transgenic animals among scientists and animal agriculturalists around the world, both for the production of more relevant biomedical research models as well as for agricultural applications. However, even though great advancements have been made in our ability to control gene expression and target genetic changes in our animals, there still are no genetically engineered animal products on the market for food. World-wide there has been a failure of the regulatory processes to effectively move forward. Estimates suggest the world will need to increase our current food production 70 % by 2050; that is we will have to produce the total amount of food each year that has been consumed by mankind over the past 500 years. The combination of transgenic animal technology and gene editing will become increasingly more important tools to help feed the world. However, to date the practical benefits of these technologies have not yet reached consumers in any country and in the absence of predictable, science-based regulatory programs it is unlikely that the benefits will be realized in the short to medium term.

Bill E. Kunkle Interdisciplinary Beef Symposium: Practical developments in managing animal welfare in beef cattle: what does the future hold?

Interest in the welfare of cattle in the beef industry has intensified over time because of ethical concerns and varying societal perceptions that exist about the treatment and living conditions of farm animals. The definition of welfare will vary according to an individual's philosophies (how one defines and prioritizes what is "good"), experiences (societal and cultural influences of animal roles and relationships), and involvement in the livestock industry (knowledge of how livestock operations work and why). Many welfare concerns in the beef industry could be mitigated by enhancing traditional husbandry practices that utilize practical improvements to alleviate or eliminate heat stress, pain from routine husbandry procedures, negative cattle handling, and the transitional effects of weaning, dry feeding, transportation, and comingling of calves. Recent concerns about the potential welfare effects of feeding technologies such as β-adrenergic agonists (BAA) have emerged and led to industry-wide effects, including the removal of a single BAA product from the market and the development of BAA-specific welfare audits. Altogether, the beef industry continues to be challenged by welfare issues that question a large range of practices, from traditional husbandry to newer technological advancements. As welfare awareness increases, efforts to improve livestock care and management must focus on scientific investigations, practical solutions, consumer perceptions, and educational tools that advance knowledge and training in livestock welfare. Furthermore, the future of beef cattle welfare must align welfare concerns with other aspects of sustainable beef production such as environmental quality, profitability, food safety, and nutritional quality.

Impacts of human lysozyme transgene on the microflora of pig feces and the surrounding soil

The rapid development of genetic engineering and extensive applications of genetically engineered (GE) animals have provided many research benefits, but concerns have been raised over the potential environmental impact of transgenic animals. We investigated the effects of human lysozyme (hLZ) transgenic pigs which can express hLZ in their mammary glands on the surrounding environment from the angle of the changes of pig feces and the surrounding soil, including the probability of horizontal gene transfer (HGT), the impact on microbial communities in pig gastrointestinal (GI) tracts and soil, and the influence on the total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) content of pig excrement and surrounding soil. Results showed that hLZ gene was not detected by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or quantitative real-time PCR (Q-PCR) in gut microbial DNA extracts of manure or microbial DNA extracts of topsoil. PCR-Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis (PCR-DGGE) analysis and 16S rDNA sequence analysis showed that hLZ gene had no impact on the microflora structure of pig guts or soil. Finally, TN and TP contents were not significantly different in pig manure or soils taken at different distances from the pig site (P>0.25).