Literature DB >> 15889650

Animal nutrition with feeds from genetically modified plants.

Gerhard Flachowsky1, Andrew Chesson, Karen Aulrich.   

Abstract

Plant breeders have made and will continue to make important contributions toward meeting the need for more and better feed and food. The use of new techniques to modify the genetic makeup of plants to improve their properties has led to a new generation of crops, grains and their by-products for feed. The use of ingredients and products from genetically modified plants (GMP) in animal nutrition properly raises many questions and issues, such as the role of a nutritional assessment of the modified feed or feed additive as part of safety assessment, the possible influence of genetically modified (GM) products on animal health and product quality and the persistence of the recombinant DNA and of the 'novel' protein in the digestive tract and tissues of food-producing animals. During the last few years many studies have determined the nutrient value of GM feeds compared to their conventional counterparts and some have additionally followed the fate of DNA and novel protein. The results available to date are reassuring and reveal no significant differences in the safety and nutritional value of feedstuffs containing material derived from the so-called 1st generation of genetically modified plants (those with unchanged gross composition) in comparison with non-GM varieties. In addition, no residues of recombinant DNA or novel proteins have been found in any organ or tissue samples obtained from animals fed with GMP. These results indicate that for compositionally equivalent GMP routine-feeding studies with target species generally add little to nutritional and safety assessment. However, the strategies devised for the nutritional and safety assessment of the 1st generation products will be much more difficult to apply to 2nd generation GMP in which significant changes in constituents have been deliberately introduced (e.g., increased fatty acids or amino acids content or a reduced concentration of undesirable constituents). It is suggested that studies made with animals will play a much more important role in insuring the safety of these 2nd generation constructs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15889650     DOI: 10.1080/17450390512331342368

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Anim Nutr        ISSN: 1477-2817            Impact factor:   2.242


  10 in total

Review 1.  Genetically modified foods: safety, risks and public concerns-a review.

Authors:  A S Bawa; K R Anilakumar
Journal:  J Food Sci Technol       Date:  2012-12-19       Impact factor: 2.701

2.  Degradation of Cry1Ab protein from genetically modified maize (MON810) in relation to total dietary feed proteins in dairy cow digestion.

Authors:  Vijay Paul; Patrick Guertler; Steffi Wiedemann; Heinrich H D Meyer
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2009-11-04       Impact factor: 2.788

Review 3.  Environmental risk assessments for transgenic crops producing output trait enzymes.

Authors:  Alan Raybould; Ann Tuttle; Scott Shore; Terry Stone
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2009-11-19       Impact factor: 2.788

4.  Detection of genetically modified maize in Jordan.

Authors:  Abeer Aburumman; Hussein Migdadi; Muhanad Akash; Ayed Al-Abdallat; Yaser Hassan Dewir; Muhammad Farooq
Journal:  GM Crops Food       Date:  2020-04-07       Impact factor: 3.074

5.  Effect of feeding cows genetically modified maize on the bacterial community in the bovine rumen.

Authors:  S Wiedemann; P Gürtler; C Albrecht
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2007-10-12       Impact factor: 4.792

6.  Results of a 16-week Safety Assurance Study with Rats Fed Genetically Modified Bt Maize: Effect on Growth and Health Parameters.

Authors:  Beata Szymczyk; Witold Szczurek; Sylwester Świątkiewicz; Krzysztof Kwiatek; Zbigniew Sieradzki; Małgorzata Mazur; Dariusz Bednarek; Michał Reichert
Journal:  J Vet Res       Date:  2018-12-31       Impact factor: 1.744

7.  Effects of feeding Bt MON810 maize to pigs for 110 days on peripheral immune response and digestive fate of the cry1Ab gene and truncated Bt toxin.

Authors:  Maria C Walsh; Stefan G Buzoianu; Mary C Rea; Orla O'Donovan; Eva Gelencsér; Gabriella Ujhelyi; R Paul Ross; Gillian E Gardiner; Peadar G Lawlor
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-04       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  GMOs in animal agriculture: time to consider both costs and benefits in regulatory evaluations.

Authors:  Alison L Van Eenennaam
Journal:  J Anim Sci Biotechnol       Date:  2013-09-25

9.  Glyphosate-based herbicide formulations and reproductive toxicity in animals.

Authors:  Zachery Ryan Jarrell; Muslah Uddin Ahammad; Andrew Parks Benson
Journal:  Vet Anim Sci       Date:  2020-06-24

Review 10.  Glyphosate in livestock: feed residues and animal health1.

Authors:  John L Vicini; William R Reeves; John T Swarthout; Katherine A Karberg
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-11-04       Impact factor: 3.159

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.