36 PIG virus
DNA change. When exposed to the PRRS virus, none of the animals became ill and blood tests found no trace of the infection. In addition, they were not shedding the virus or infecting other animals.
Public perception
Understandably, given public pushback against genetically modified plants, the team is highly cognizant of potential public reaction to a genetically edited pig. But what is the difference between genetic editing and genetic modification? Genetic modification (GM) has been controversial for years but for many crop farmers it has provided great production value and GM foods have been shown to have no adverse health or environmental effects. The process involves the introduction of a piece of foreign DNA to a crop plant to provide it with a desired trait such as resistance to pests, disease, drought or spoilage. In gene editing, the
process involves the deletion, or editing, of a very small piece of the genome. Nothing genetic is added from an outside, or foreign, source. According to the
researchers, by removing only a section of CD163, the edit
nfrom page 35
allows the eight-pearl receptor to retain its ordinary function in the body and reduces the risk of side effects. However, longer term studies will be done to ensure that the genetic change does not have any unforeseen adverse effect on the animals. “We are continuing to
ensure that there are no negative effects from this edit,” says Tait-Burkard. “On one hand, we are testing whether the virus is able to adapt to the edit and simply find another way in [but] from our fairly advanced preliminary results it can’t. And, on the other hand, we are breeding and raising the animals and exposing them to standard farm environments and other pathogens to ensure that they are as robust as other [non-edited] pigs.” The research has
fascinating implications but don’t count on gene-edited bacon in your cheeseburger any time soon. On the horizon is a broader discussion with the public and political leaders on gene- edited meat entering the food chain and how these techniques should be regulated. The research was published in the Journal of Virology.
COUNTRY LIFE IN BC • SEPTEMBER 2018
Before heading to the World Ploughing Championships in Germany, September 1-2, Francis Sache of Chilliwack took some time to practice his technique in early August. A perennial BC champion and the current Canadian reversible plow champion, Sache previously competed in the world championships in Austria in 2008. Sache will be one of 60 plowmen in the competition. He hopes to repeat last year’s accomplishments when Canada medalled for the first time in 41 years. DAVID SCHMIDT PHOTO
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48
