Literature DB >> 23031560

Effect of feeding genetically modified Bt MON810 maize to ∼40-day-old pigs for 110 days on growth and health indicators.

S G Buzoianu1, M C Walsh, M C Rea, J P Cassidy, R P Ross, G E Gardiner, P G Lawlor.   

Abstract

A total of 72 male weaned pigs were used in a 110-day study to investigate the effect of feeding genetically modified (GM) Bt MON810 maize on selected growth and health indicators. It was hypothesised that in pigs fed Bt maize, growth and health are not impacted compared with pigs fed isogenic maize-based diets. Following a 12-day basal period, pigs (10.7 ± 1.9 kg body weight (BW); ∼40 days old) were blocked by weight and ancestry and randomly assigned to treatments: (1) non-GM maize diet for 110 days (non-GM), (2) GM maize diet for 110 days (GM), (3) non-GM maize diet for 30 days followed by GM maize diet up to day 110 (non-GM/GM) and (4) GM maize diet for 30 days followed by non-GM maize diet up to day 110 (GM/non-GM). BW and daily feed intake were recorded on days 0, 30, 60 and 110 (n = 15). Body composition was determined by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (n = 10) on day 80. Following slaughter on day 110, organs and intestines were weighed and sampled for histological analysis and urine was collected for biochemical analysis (n = 10). Serum biochemistry analysis was performed on days 0, 30, 60, 100 and 110. Growth performance and serum biochemistry were analysed as repeated measures with time and treatment as main factors. The slice option of SAS was used to determine treatment differences at individual time points. There was no effect of feeding GM maize on overall growth, body composition, organ and intestinal weight and histology or serum biochemistry on days 60 and 100 and on urine biochemistry on day 110. A treatment × time interaction was observed for serum urea (SU; P < 0.05), creatinine (SC; P < 0.05) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST; P < 0.05). On day 30, SU was lower for the non-GM/GM treatment compared with the non-GM, GM and GM/non-GM treatments (P < 0.05). On day 110, SC was higher for the non-GM/GM and GM/non-GM treatments compared with non-GM and GM treatments (P < 0.05). Overall, serum total protein was lower for the GM/non-GM treatment compared with the non-GM/GM treatment (P < 0.05). The magnitude of change observed in some serum biochemical parameters did not indicate organ dysfunction and the changes were not accompanied by histological lesions. Long-term feeding of GM maize to pigs did not adversely affect growth or the selected health indicators investigated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23031560     DOI: 10.1017/S1751731112000249

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Animal        ISSN: 1751-7311            Impact factor:   3.240


  10 in total

1.  How safe does transgenic food need to be?

Authors:  Laura DeFrancesco
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 54.908

2.  Herbivorous Juvenile Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) Fed with Genetically Modified MON 810 and DAS-59122 Maize Varieties Containing Cry Toxins: Intestinal Histological, Developmental, and Immunological Investigations.

Authors:  Gergő Gyurcsó; Béla Darvas; Ferenc Baska; László Simon; Eszter Takács; Szandra Klátyik; András Székács
Journal:  Toxins (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-19       Impact factor: 4.546

3.  Sequence-based analysis of the intestinal Microbiota of sows and their offspring fed genetically modified maize expressing a truncated form of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab protein (Bt Maize).

Authors:  Stefan G Buzoianu; Maria C Walsh; Mary C Rea; Lisa Quigley; Orla O'Sullivan; Paul D Cotter; R Paul Ross; Gillian E Gardiner; Peadar G Lawlor
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2013-10-04       Impact factor: 4.792

4.  A proteomic-based approach to study underlying molecular responses of the small intestine of Wistar rats to genetically modified corn (MON810).

Authors:  Asmaa Al-Harbi; Sahira Lary; Martin G Edwards; Safaa Qusti; Andrew Cockburn; Morten Poulsen; Angharad M R Gatehouse
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2019-06-06       Impact factor: 2.788

Review 5.  Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Feed: Is There Any Difference From Food?

Authors:  Paula A Giraldo; Hiroshi Shinozuka; German C Spangenberg; Noel O I Cogan; Kevin F Smith
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2019-12-11       Impact factor: 5.753

6.  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

7.  The effect of feeding Bt MON810 maize to pigs for 110 days on intestinal microbiota.

Authors:  Stefan G Buzoianu; Maria C Walsh; Mary C Rea; Orla O'Sullivan; Fiona Crispie; Paul D Cotter; R Paul Ross; Gillian E Gardiner; Peadar G Lawlor
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-04       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of a marine-derived Bacillus strain for use as an in-feed probiotic for newly weaned pigs.

Authors:  Maria Luz Prieto; Laurie O'Sullivan; Shiau Pin Tan; Peter McLoughlin; Helen Hughes; Orla O'Donovan; Mary C Rea; Robert M Kent; Joseph P Cassidy; Gillian E Gardiner; Peadar G Lawlor
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  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

10.  Weight of the evidence: independent research projects confirm industry conclusions on the safety of insect-protected maize MON 810.

Authors:  Jay S Petrick; Erin Bell; Michael S Koch
Journal:  GM Crops Food       Date:  2019-10-25       Impact factor: 3.074

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.