search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Other gene editing research related to boar taint


SRY-KO pigs have had the SRY gene “knocked out”.


He first explains that while all gene-edited organisms are cur- rently considered genetically modified (GMO) in the Europe- an Union (EU) and not legal to commercially produce, gene-edited plants and animals are legal to produce in other jurisdictions. And while in his view the global pork industry is already very interested in gene-edited pigs, he thinks con- sumer acceptance for gene editing can best be achieved by showing how it solves a serious environmental or animal wel- fare problem, like castration. Petersen reports that in the EU “there is a lot of discussion about gene editing”. He says, “I have had some questions from the EU Commission about its benefits and risks. It ap- pears the EU parliament may allow some gene editing in fu- ture. What other options does the EU have but to allow it? It is already having an impact on trade. However, consumer ac- ceptance in the EU is another matter. That cannot be changed by law.”


Perceived benefits Consumer acceptance of gene editing as an alternative to castration in pigs was recently studied in Brazil with the re- sults published in June 2019; perceived benefits were found to play a role. The research team, from the Universidade Fed- eral de Santa Catarina in Brazil, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile and the University of British Columbia in Canada found that just over half of the participants considered gene modification of male pigs acceptable. The results were not in- fluenced by sex, age, religion, level of education or whether participants lived in an urban or rural area. While acceptability was not related to basic knowledge of ge- netic biotechnologies, nor to awareness of issues related to pig castration or boar taint (both of which were low), it was


In the USA, gene editing has recently been used by an alliance between Hendrix Genetics and Recombinetics/Acceligen to keep male pigs pre-adolescent. These pigs never develop testes because the genes required for them to begin puberty are removed. To commercialise this, however, some males with the gene edit must obviously produce sperm; the strategy being tried to achieve this involves injection of breeder males with hormones. The feasibility of this on a commercial scale is yet to be worked out, and it is also unknown at this point whether these pre-adolescent male pigs will have the same meat quality, growth rate and so on as conventional castrated pigs. In addition, consumer ac- ceptance of exogenously supplied hormones, even if the hormones are only supplied to gene-edited male breeder pigs, may be low. In 2018, Pig Progress reported on gene-editing research into how genes in the testes of pigs that relate directly to boar taint (the production of androsterone and skatole) can be “knocked out”. In terms of updates, a study by Danish re- searchers (University of Copenhagen, Technical University of Denmark, the Dan- ish Pig Research Center and Danish Meat Research Institute) identified some of these genes and published their results in September 2019. Boar taint (and castration) could also be avoided if sex-sorted sperm was feasible. In 2017, Pig Progress reported on developments with this technology, but the company, when contacted recently, reports that no significant progress has been made with sorting speed or other factors needed for successful commercialisation.


positively related to perceived benefits and negatively re- lated to perceived risks. “Participants that considered gene modification of pigs acceptable justified their position using arguments that it improved animal welfare,” the research team reports in their study summary. “In contrast, those who were not in favour were generally opposed to genetic modification.” In addition, a major concern raised by a large majority of par- ticipants (80%) was “unforeseen downstream consequences of using genetic modification in this manner”.


▶PIG PROGRESS | Volume 36, No. 5, 2020


Microinjection of a pig zygote.


31


PHOTOS: FLI


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