Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
Breeds Board
Hereford question
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="smnherf" data-source="post: 1398167" data-attributes="member: 3235"><p>Is that your definition or someone else's? I don't want to get into a GMO discussion, but your definition is actually one I see used by the anti GMO crowd. Their definition would encompass pretty much any change to any plant or animal despite the method used to make that change occur. Conventional plant breeding techniques would fall under that definition including hybrid corn, or modification of the protein or milling qualities in wheat. It would actually apply to a red necked Hereford or a red legged Hereford too as they are not true breed character or even a black Simmental, Limmi or Gelbveih. Those advances were made through natural selection without adding genetic material not already in the gene population. </p><p></p><p>The method of the addition or subtraction of the addition part must be considered and the source of that part is important to the definition of GMO. Adding a polled gene from a polled Hereford to a horned Hereford isn't the same as adding a part from a dog to a cow as what some anti GMO people want consumers to think. The want the idea of frankenfood to cloud the consumers judgement. The fact is that I could add the polled gene to that horned cow through natural breeding techniques, but I also could use the gene spicing to remove it and save myself over 30 years of breeding enhancement. The results are the same. Should one be GMO and one not or should they both be GMO??</p><p></p><p>The GMO definition is an important one because there is a huge push to label GMO products. If the definition is too broad it will mean that any food or food product that is changed from where it is today or was 10 or 20 years ago will be a GMO and all of it will be labeled as GMO. It will have a devastating effect on the ability of agriculture to continue improve its production and efficiency.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="smnherf, post: 1398167, member: 3235"] Is that your definition or someone else's? I don't want to get into a GMO discussion, but your definition is actually one I see used by the anti GMO crowd. Their definition would encompass pretty much any change to any plant or animal despite the method used to make that change occur. Conventional plant breeding techniques would fall under that definition including hybrid corn, or modification of the protein or milling qualities in wheat. It would actually apply to a red necked Hereford or a red legged Hereford too as they are not true breed character or even a black Simmental, Limmi or Gelbveih. Those advances were made through natural selection without adding genetic material not already in the gene population. The method of the addition or subtraction of the addition part must be considered and the source of that part is important to the definition of GMO. Adding a polled gene from a polled Hereford to a horned Hereford isn't the same as adding a part from a dog to a cow as what some anti GMO people want consumers to think. The want the idea of frankenfood to cloud the consumers judgement. The fact is that I could add the polled gene to that horned cow through natural breeding techniques, but I also could use the gene spicing to remove it and save myself over 30 years of breeding enhancement. The results are the same. Should one be GMO and one not or should they both be GMO?? The GMO definition is an important one because there is a huge push to label GMO products. If the definition is too broad it will mean that any food or food product that is changed from where it is today or was 10 or 20 years ago will be a GMO and all of it will be labeled as GMO. It will have a devastating effect on the ability of agriculture to continue improve its production and efficiency. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Breeds Board
Hereford question
Top