Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:40:16.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

GM technology: a tool to benefit livestock production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

R.H. Phipps  and
A. Cockburn
R.H. Phipps
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, The University of Reading, PO Box 237, Reading RG6 6AR, UK
A. Cockburn
Affiliation:
Monsanto Company, Maris Lane, Cambridge CB2 2LQ, UK
Get access

Extract

The limitations to livestock production are numerous and varied but are applicable to a greater or lesser extent in both developed and developing countries. Crop factors that limit livestock production include inadequate quality (e.g. crop residues such as maize stover) and quantity of feed resources with an inconsistent supply due to extremes of climate (e.g. low rainfall and high temperatures), the presence of anti-nutritional factors and toxins (e.g. trypsin inhibitors, glucosinolates, gossypol, mycotoxins), and deficiencies of specific nutrients (e.g. amino acids and minerals).

Type
Research Article
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 33: Responding to the Livestock Revolution , 2004 , pp. 247 - 258
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abebe, A.C., Guenzi, A.C., Martin, B. and Cushman, J.C. (2003). Tolerance of mannitol-accumulating transgenic wheat to water stress and salinity. Plant Physiology 131: 1748–1755.Google Scholar
Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe (2003). Future developments in biotechnology. Issue Paper 6. pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
American Soybean Association (2001). Homepage, accessed: 2003, ASA. http://www.asa-europe.org/index.shtml Google Scholar
Barnes, R.L. (2000). Why the American Soybean Association supports transgenic soybean. Pest Management Science 56:580–583.3.0.CO;2-4>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canola Council of Canada (2001). Impact of transgenic Canola on growers, industry and environment. http://www.canolacouncil.org Google Scholar
Carpenter, J.E., Felsot, A., Goode, T. Hammig, M., Onstad, D., and Sankula, S. (2002). Comparative environmental impacts of biotechnology-derived and traditional soybean, corn and cotton crops. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames Iowa, USA. http://www.cast-science.org Google Scholar
Coyette, B., Tencalla, F., Brants, I., Fichet, Y. and Rouchouze, D. (2002). Effect of introducing glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet on pesticide usage in Europe. Pesticide Outlook October, 219: 219–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J.H., Ipharraguerre, I.R. (2000). Livestock performance: feeding biotech crops. Journal of Dairy Science 84 (E. Suppl.):E9–18.Google Scholar
Cunningham, E.P. (2003). Sustainable breeding objectives in developing countries. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science 2003, pp. 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delgado, C., Rosegrant, M.W. and Meijer, S. (2001). Livestock to 2020. The revolution continues. Annual Meeting International Trade Consortium, Auckland, New Zealand, 38 pp.Google Scholar
Falco, S., Guida, T., Locke, M., Mauvais, J., Saunders, C., Ward, T., and Weber, P. (1995). Transgenic canola and soybean seeds with increased lysine. Bio/Technology 13: 577–582.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), FAOSTAT DATABASE 1967–1994. http://www.faostat.fao.org Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. (1993). Field measurement of soil erosion and runoff. Report by Hudson, N. W., Silsoe Associates Ampthill, Bedford United Kingdom Google Scholar
Fuente, J.M. de la, Ramirez-Rodriguez, V., Cabrera-Ponce, J.L. and Herrera-Estrella, L. (1997). Aluminium tolerance in transgenic plants by alteration of citrate synthesis. Science 276 (5318): 1566–1568.Google Scholar
Gardiner, P. and Devendra, C. (ed.) (1995). Global agenda for livestock research. Proceedings of a Consultation held at ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya, 18-20 January, 1995. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
Giannessi, L.P., Silvers, C.S., Sankula, S., and Carpenter, J.E. (2002). Plant biotechnology: Current and potential impact for improving pest management in US agriculture. An analysis of 40 case studies. National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. Washington DC 20036 USA. http://www.ncfap.org Google Scholar
Hartnell, G.F. (2004). Using biotechnology for the production and enhancement of livestock feed. In: Dairying: using science to meet consumers’ needs. Edited by Kebreab, E. Mills, J, and Beever, D. British Society of Animal Science Occasional Publication no. 29 (In press).Google Scholar
Ismael, Y., Bennett, R.M., and Morse, S. (2002). Bt cotton, pesticides, labour and health: A case study of smallholder farmers in the Makhatini Flats, Republic of South Africa. In: 6th International conference on agricultural biotechnology: New avenues for the production, consumption and technology transfer, Ravello, Italy, pp. 6–8.Google Scholar
James, C. (2002). Review: Global status of commercialised transgenic crops: 2002. ISAAA Briefs No. 27 International Service for the Acqutision of Agricultural Applicationa (ISAAA), Ithaca NY, USA.Google Scholar
Kalscheur, K.F., Teter, B.B., Piperova, L.S. and Erdman, R.A. (1997). Effect of fat source on duodenal flow of trans-C18:1 fatty acids and milk fat production in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 80: 2115–2126.Google Scholar
Kent, L. and Moniem, M. (2002). The potential benefits of genetically engineered crops in Egypt: How much can they reduce pesticide use and increase farmers’ income. Agricultural Policy Reform Program, Reform Design and Implementation Unit, Ministry of Agriculture, Cairo, Egypt, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
Khandelwal, A., Sita, L.S. and Shaila, M.S. (2003a). Expression of hemagglutinin protein of rinderpest virus in transgenic tobacco and immunogenicityof plant derived protein in a mouse model. Virology 308: 207–215.Google Scholar
Khandelwal, A., Sita, L.S. and Shaila, M.S. (2003b). Oral immunization of cattle with hemaggultinin protein of rinderpest virus expressed in transgenic peanut induces specific immune responses. Vaccine 3812: 1–8.Google Scholar
Kleter, G.A., Noordam, M.Y., Kok, E.J., and Kuiper, H.A. (2001). New developments in crop plant biotechnology and their possible implications for food product safety. Report 2000.004. State Institute for Quality Control of Agricultural Products, Wageningen, The Netherlands. http://www.rikilt.wageningenur.nl/news/biotechnology. Google Scholar
May, M. (2003). Economic consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet. Annals of Applied Biology 142: 41–48.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (1999). Towards sustainable agriculture. London MAFF Publications. http://www.maff.gov.uk Google Scholar
Mgheni, M., Mukhebi, A. W., Setshwaelo, L. L. Tsiresy, R. Nyathi, P. Osuji, P. and Kategile, J. A. (1993). Synthesis of constraints to livestock research and development and recommendations. In: Future of livestock industries in East and Southern Africa. Edited by.Kategile, J.A. and Mubi, S. Proceedings of a workshop. International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA), Addis Ababa, pp. 219–223.Google Scholar
Munkvold, G.P., Hellmich, R.L. (1999). Comparison of fumonisin concentrations in kernels of transgenic Bt maize hybrids and non transgenic hybrids. Plant Disease 83: 130–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2003). The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries, pp. 1–164.Google Scholar
O’Quinn, P., Nelssen, J., Goodband, R., Knabe, D., Woodworth, J., Tokach, M., & Lohrmann, T. (2000). Nutritional value of a genetically improved high-lysine, high-oil corn for young pigs. Journal of Animal Science 78: 2144–2149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oba, M., and Allen, M.S. (2000). Effects of brown midrib 3 mutation in corn silage on productivity of dairy cows fed two concentrations of dietary neutral detergent fiber: 3. Digestibility and microbial efficiency. Journal of Dairy Science 83: 1350–1358.Google Scholar
Oerke, E.C. and Dehne, H.W. (1997). Global crop production and efficacy of crop protection: current situation and future trends. European Journal of Plant Pathology 103: 203–215.Google Scholar
Paoletti, M.G., and Pimentel, D.S., (2000). Environmental risks of pesticides versus genetic engineering for agricultural pest control. Journal Agricultural Environmental Ethics 12: 279–303.Google Scholar
Phipps, R.H. and Park, J.R. (2002). Environmental benefits of genetically modified crops: Global and European perspectives on their ability to reduce pesticide use. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 11: 1–18.Google Scholar
Pietri, A. and Piva, G. (2000). Occurrence and control of mycotoxins in maize grown in Italy. Proceedings of the 6th International Feed Production Conference, Piacenza, 27-28 November 2000, Facolta di Agraria Piacenza, Italy, pp. 226–236.Google Scholar
Piva, G., Morlacchini, M., Pietri, A., Piva, A., and Casadei, G. (2001a). Performance of weaned piglets fed insect-protected (MON 810) or near isogenic corn. Journal of Animal Science 79 (Supplement 1):106, Abstract 441.Google Scholar
Piva, G., Morlacchini, M., Pietri, A., Rossi, F., and Prandini, A. (2001b). Growth performance of broilers fed insect-protected (MON 810) or near isogenic control corn. Poultry Science 80 (Supplement 1):320, Abstract 1324.Google Scholar
Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat (2003). World population prospectus: The 2002 revision. United Nations, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Tillman, D. (1999). Global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion: the need for sustainable and efficient practices. Proceeding of National Academy of Science USA. 96: 5995–6000.Google Scholar
Williams, C.M. (2000). Dietary fatty acids and human health. Annales de Zootechnique 49: 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar