Gene-edited Hens May End Cull of Billions of Chicks 118
Israeli researchers say they have developed gene-edited hens that lay eggs from which only female chicks hatch. From a report: The breakthrough could prevent the slaughter of billions of male chickens each year, which are culled because they don't lay eggs. The female chicks, and the eggs they lay when they mature, have no trace of the original genetic alteration Animal welfare group, Compassion in World Farming, has backed the research. Dr Yuval Cinnamon from the Volcani institute near Tel Aviv, who is the project's chief scientist, told BBC News that the development of what he calls the ''Golda hen'' will have a huge impact on animal welfare in the poultry industry.
"I am very happy that we have developed a system that I think can truly revolutionise the industry, first of all for the benefit of the chickens but also for all of us, because this is an issue that affects every person on the planet," he said. The scientists have gene edited DNA into the Golda hens that can stop the development of any male embryos in eggs that they lay. The DNA is activated when the eggs are exposed to blue light for several hours. Female chick embryos are unaffected by the blue light and develop normally. The chicks have no additional genetic material inside them nor do the eggs they lay, according to Dr Cinnamon. "Farmers will get the same chicks they get today and consumers will get exactly the same eggs they get today," he said. "The only minor difference in the production process is that the eggs will be exposed to blue light."
"I am very happy that we have developed a system that I think can truly revolutionise the industry, first of all for the benefit of the chickens but also for all of us, because this is an issue that affects every person on the planet," he said. The scientists have gene edited DNA into the Golda hens that can stop the development of any male embryos in eggs that they lay. The DNA is activated when the eggs are exposed to blue light for several hours. Female chick embryos are unaffected by the blue light and develop normally. The chicks have no additional genetic material inside them nor do the eggs they lay, according to Dr Cinnamon. "Farmers will get the same chicks they get today and consumers will get exactly the same eggs they get today," he said. "The only minor difference in the production process is that the eggs will be exposed to blue light."
Easier than gene editing. (Score:2)
Re:Easier than gene editing. (Score:5, Insightful)
What could go wrong? The same that went wrong with bananas. They are all genetically identical so they are equally vulnerable to the next disease that comes by.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
only half of each generation is suitable for breeding in order to pass on the no-males trait. You'd reach monoculture sooner with that.
I don't follow your reasoning. Why would the half with the gene have less diversity than the other half? All the other chromosomes (chickens have 39) would be random. Also, with cross-over, the genes on the Z chromosomes would be mostly random as well.
Leghorns comprise 70% of America's layers and are already highly inbred. But billions of people (including me) keep backyard flocks. All my girls are Leghorns, but I kept some general-purpose breeds in the past, including Rhode Island Reds and Plymouth Rocks.
Re: Easier than gene editing. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are many different kinds of bananas in Europe, too.
Especially in the countries where you can grow them, as in Greece or Spain, Portugal etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Chicken disease is actually a serious problem [ca.gov]. They get quarantined from time to time. But they are easier to quarantine than banana trees.
Re: (Score:2)
The same that went wrong with bananas. They are all genetically identical
Except: they are not.
I guess even at your place a random super market has more than one kind of banana ...
Re:Easier than gene editing. (Score:5, Informative)
I would have thought just artificial insemination to produce only ZW chromosome matches would be easier than editing a gene.
Nope. Won't work.
In birds, the sex is determined by the mother, not the father. Females are ZW, males are ZZ. So all sperm are Z, but ova are 50% Z and 50% W.
Besides, hens lay 300 eggs per year, and there are about 300 million laying hens in America. That's a lot of inseminations. How is that "easier" than just not hatching roosters?
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the case then why couldn't they just test the membrane directly beneath the shell?
Re:Easier than gene editing. (Score:4, Informative)
If that's the case then why couldn't they just test the membrane directly beneath the shell?
The cells in the membrane come from the mother, not the embryo.
Re: (Score:2)
Because chicken sexers are cheap and fast [comparably.com].
Re: (Score:3)
That's a lot of inseminations. How is that "easier" than just not hatching roosters?
Fine, I take that.
But now, you're going to make your entire chicken industry based on the forever reducing genetic variability of the "mother" population. The "gene" that prevents males would have roughly 50/50 chance of making it into the next generation. So you can only pick half of that generation to carry on breeding, meaning less genetic diversity.
Then, only half of that next generation is suitable for breeding. At each step, you've brought the entire chicken population more closer to a monocultu
Re: (Score:3)
The "gene" that prevents males would have roughly 50/50 chance of making it into the next generation.
Nope. The gene has a zero percent chance of propagating to the next generation.
The females don't inherit it. The males all inherit it and as a result, never develop.
Re: (Score:2)
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:2)
Unforeseen consequences in 3..2..1..
Re: (Score:2)
Unforeseen consequences are a possibility no matter what. Including when we take no action at all, so you're best off just trying to predict what you can, IE spend at least a little effort thinking about possible consequences, deal with those as necessary, then have a bit of a buffer for the unforeseen stuff.
On average, unforeseen consequences aren't deal killers. In any case, this is unlikely to result in something like a disease wiping out all the banana cultivars because they're too similar genetically
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Make progress, do research, improve things, but be careful while doing so. With that, the benefits far outweigh the risks.
Re: (Score:2)
The human race has no choice in the matter. Things will be getting dicey when many/most established food crops will stop growing or have massively worse yield due to climate change. The earlier we find out how to do things like this, the better the change we can avoid civilization collapse. It does not look good as things are progressing at the moment.
Eat More Cock (Score:2)
I've never checked the sex of my KFC so we should just eat the males too. Chopped up in tenders should be EZ too.
Re:Eat More Cock (Score:5, Informative)
I've never checked the sex of my KFC so we should just eat the males too. Chopped up in tenders should be EZ too.
Layers and fryers are completely different breeds of chicken.
Most layers are Leghorns, which are champion egg layers but scrawny and terrible at converting feed to meat. So the males are killed as soon as they are hatched.
Fryers are not separated by sex, and both males and females are raised to slaughter weight (about eight weeks).
The chicken at KFC is just as likely to be male as female.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like they actually go to waste; culled chickens of whatever stripe mostly wind up in dog food. The problem is the market value is "pay someone to haul them away".
Re: (Score:2)
this development will dramatically reduce the number of openings for "chicken sexers"
"Chicken sexers" are already being replaced by neural networks.
The best NN sexers don't even look at the chicks. Instead, they listen to them and distinguish males from females by the sound of their chirps.
Re: (Score:1)
You'd start checking if they started serving males to you. A quick google says: "Roosters can be eaten, but they are not commonly found in the marketplace. The meat is much more challenging than hens because it hasn't been bred to grow fast and heavy like broilers or fryers. If you decide that rooster sounds tasty, make sure you cook them low-and-slow for best results!" Slow cooking isn't going to cut it at KFC either.
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing breed with gender. Yes, KFC does serve both male and female chickens, and you'd never be able to tell the difference.
They aren't killing male chickens that are bred for meat, only male chickens of breeds optimized for egg-laying. Those egg-laying breeds are never sent to the grocery store, male or female.
Re: (Score:2)
"They aren't killing male chickens that are bred for meat"
Wow that is shocking! Here I thought all the chickens I'd eaten were dead by the time I'd eaten them!
Re: (Score:3)
Those egg-laying breeds are never sent to the grocery store, male or female.
Nitpick: When a layer "retires", they are killed, and the meat is harvested. They are scrawny and old, so they aren't sold as fryers or broilers. Instead, they are used for products like chicken soup, where the meat is cut up into small pieces and boiled until soft.
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct. That secondary market for chicken meat doesn't produce enough demand to take in all the males from the egg-laying breeds.
Re:Eat More Cock (Score:5, Informative)
I've never checked the sex of my KFC so we should just eat the males too.
Nope. Egg-laying chickens are very different to the breeds used for meat. They taste fine, but the chicks take far too long, consuming too much food, to grow large enough for eating. It is not economical. They are bred for relatively long lives, and copious egg production.
Meat breeds, male or female, are fast-growing and incredibly efficient in turning vegetable protein into delicious meat.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd give you mod points if I had them. Most people don't realize that the chickens that lay eggs are completely different breeds than the ones that are sold as meat.
Re: Eat More Cock (Score:2)
Only in industrial growing farms.
I grew up on an end-of-the-world farm. We had 50 or so chicken by the beginning of the season. 10 or so by the end. The rest we ate. In between they laid eggs (if they were old enough), which we also ate, and some of which we used to make new chicken for next season.
Works like a charm. Tastes good, too. Never cared for species specifics.
Re: Eat More Cock (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, they are edible, but they do not have the same texture as meat producing chickens like Cornish Rocks. They are stringier and have less meat, and take longer to produce it. So if you have no problem feeding the chickens longer to get that meat, go ahead, yes, they are edible. They just aren't as good.
Re: (Score:2)
I also grew up with 100-150 chickens in the back yard, some for laying eggs, and some for meat. We did eat the egg layers that didn't produce, but believe me, we didn't like the meat as well. If you thought the egg layers (like Leghorns) tasted as good as the meat producers (like Cornish Rock), you apparently didn't have a very discriminating pallet. Egg layer meat is stringier and...has less meat overall. For people who don't know the difference, by all means, go ahead, eat those egg layers or their rooste
Re: (Score:2)
you apparently didn't have a very discriminating pallet
True, we didn't. We didn't care for specie or races -- every chick was cockin' around through the whole village, so to speak. Ass end of nowhere somewhere in Europe. Different chicken for different purposes wasn't even a concept to us. Only different colors. Whatever was an at one point, either ended up on the breakfast table or eventually gave a chicken. And all chicken got eaten sooner or later. Mostly "later" if they made good eggs, but that was more of a guideline than a hard rule :-p
Egg layer meat is stringier and...has less meat overall. For people who don't know the difference [...]
Oh, I do know the d
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever was an egg at one point
Re: Eat More Cock (Score:2)
That's informative, thanks. Of course, instead of trying to raise the male chicks to eat them, we could just, you know... everybody loves popplers!
Chicken realities (Score:3)
The reality of the matter is that chickens have bred to the point that the difference between meat lines and egg lines is even more profound than the differences between cows intended for milk and meat production.
Yes, there are "heritage" breeds of chicken intended for both. But for commercial production, it's literally cheaper to produce and incubate the egg of a meat line, than the difference to raise the male egger* chicken to slaughter weight.
I'm going by memory, but it can be as much as a factor of tw
Re: (Score:2)
I've never checked the sex of my KFC so we should just eat the males too.
Every morning I wake to my cock standing firm and upright, crowing loudly in my backyard waking everyone up. Neighbors say "Look at his shining magnificent cock" as all the hens cluck around it looking for seed.
If you were to fuck with that cock, well that's when a cock gets very hard indeed and fucks you up down and sideways because history reveals cock fighting was so brutal they had to ban it. If I was to wake up without my cock, I'd be sad because people would not have something to look at and go WOW
Dystopian Crazy (Score:2)
Only in a totally bastardized version of reality, does changing the genetics of a species, and calling it a "favor", sound great.
--
Some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers.- Garth Brooks
Re: (Score:2)
If you see how they sex chicks, it is somewhat cruel even though the males undergo a quick and painless death. Basically the sexer checks the sex of the chick, and if it's a female, it's put aside, if it's a male, it's tossed into a device that basically is a spinning drum with vanes where the chick hits it and is killed by the impact of the vane.
Sexing chicks is actually an in-de
Re: (Score:2)
It reduces waste. It basically is beneficial for anything that wants a future on this planet. I bet you never thought that far though.
Re: (Score:2)
You're an amazing soul. Have you been tested for your psychic abilities? Maybe you can also predict the future? Please share with us.
--
The internet does not make people stupid. It just makes the stupid ones more obvious. - gweihir
Re: (Score:2)
How boring. You are clearly insult-challenged. What a terrible disability. My condolences.
Would it be applicable to humans? (Score:4, Funny)
As your typical Slashdotter, I'd like humanity to also have a higher — perhaps, much higher — female-to-male ratio...
No, no, no! I don't want this option either. Violence is not an answer...
I’ve read this story before (Score:2)
Don't cull the roosters... (Score:2)
Eat them instead!
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how it works. Egg-laying breeds don't make good meat, and they take too long to grow large enough. Breeds raised for meat, by contrast, grow much more quickly and therefore more cheaply.
Idiotic (Score:2)
"The breakthrough could prevent the slaughter of billions of male chickens each year, which are culled because they don't lay eggs."
Just sell the males to the Capon-industry.
Boon (Score:2)
This process will be a boon to feminists around the world.
life finds a way (Score:2)
Got a backup? (Score:2)
Does anyone see an issue with gene editing chooks to not produce males. This screams bad,
What a transfobic article!! (Score:2)
As we all know, sex is a social construct [growinguptransgender.com] — just raise these "male" chickens as females, no genetic modifications needed!
Re:A better solution: (Score:4, Funny)
No.
They're tasty.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Cholesterol is produced and regulated within our own bodies. An unhealthy excess typically results from insulin resistance, and it's a leading indicator of many more bad things to come (diabetes, obesity, arteriosclerosis, kidney disease, increased heart attack and stroke risk, etc.) so it's kind of a warning to exercise and to eat better in general before irreversible damage occurs.
Also, factory-farmed animals are unhealthy for us for numerous other reasons. High saturated fat content is just one of them
Re: (Score:2)
Did you say that to feel good about yourself? Your idea is useless unless you can actually convince people to do it, which you can't. It's literally like you're saying the solution to surviving Earthquakes is to not have the Earth shake. It's unimplementable. You've heard the Belling the Cat fable, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's unimplementable.
it's just incredibly difficult now but that's no reason to stop trying! in the long run, and if we don't royally fuck up first by throwing us back to stone age or getting extinct, which is a very distinct possibility, it seems to me that it is the most probable development. as cultures become more civilized they tend to expand their circle of empathy and our history actually shows this very consistently, we have steadily forsaken a lot of barbaric customs over time replacing them with more sustainable/effi
Re: (Score:2)
We only got rid of slavery because it was (or seemed) economically feasible in the north. When you aren't super dependent on something, you can let it go and walk around telling others to do so. Right now, people like chicken too much to just give it up. The mind will hunt every excuse in the book if it has to. How many people are able to allow their sense of morality to override their fear of suffering?
Re: A better solution: (Score:5, Informative)
Male chicks don't get "wasted", they're turned into bullion cubes, cat food, and raw collagen & calcium. There's no literal "loss", merely a decrease in potential profit relative to what they could have made with the same capital investment from 100% female chicks.
It's the same with dairy cows. They don't end up in a landfill after they've been milked for months, they become cat food, leather hide, and Jell-O.
Over the past two centuries, pretty much everything from slaughtered animals had found a market. Not everything is "valuable", but very little doesn't have at least enough value to cover its subsequent transportation cost to the buyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I didn't know that they turned baby chicks into bullion cubes, cat food and collagen and calcium supplements. That sounds disgusting. (Although only a little less disgusting than eating dead chicken.)
Why can't they just raise the male chicks for meat?
Re: (Score:2)
Roosters don't lay eggs, so the return-on-investment is much smaller.
Re: A better solution: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the problem though, the idea of treating living, breathing things as cogs in a machine meant only to maximize potential profit and capital investment. It is simply barbaric to hatch a ton of baby chicks just to immediately dump half of them alive into a macerator. In my view, anything that can be done to reduce the suffering of animals in our food system should be done, profits be damned.
Re: A better solution: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fairly sure 100 years from now, only the super rich will actually be able to afford real meat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about real meat. The "really grown" stuff. Rest assured that it's going to be some trendy shit for the super rich to have their "special food" so they can feel above the plebes.
Re: (Score:2)
The laboratory tools and environment to grow "lab meat" are extensive and expensive. We see this now with insulin, which is approximately 10 times the cost for the e. coli synthesized insulin than it was for animal harvested insulin. Why do you expect the price of something meticulously synthesized to drop over something evolved for millions of years as part of existing ecosystems?
Why is this better? (Score:5, Insightful)
A better solution: STOP EATING HELPLESS ANIMALS.
Why is this solution better?
Citation needed, you'll need to come up with a way to measure the "goodness" of the situation in some way, and then show that not eating chickens is better using your chosen measure.
People have been eating chickens since an estimated 7,000 to 10,000 years ago. A microloan ($20 from, for example, the Grameen Bank) will allow a family to purchase chickens and feed, the eggs will supply the family with extra protein and an income that can be used to pay back the micro loan and bring in extra money - possibly bringing them out of desperate poverty.
You've got a high bar to clear.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but simply shouting "STOP EATING HELPLESS ANIMALS" leads to the obvious response: WHY?
Re: (Score:3)
The answer is, it increases the suffering of a sentient creature. We should try to reduce or eliminate suffering as best we can even at the cost of some inconvenience.
Re: Why is this better? (Score:3, Interesting)
We should try to reduce or eliminate suffering as best we can
So why do we still have homelessness?
And shouldn't we try to save gazelles from lions? ...because we sure as hell "can"!
even at the cost of some inconvenience.
It's not a "minor inconvenience", it's against our biology. We're omnivorous.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because something goes against our biology does not mean it is wrong. Nature does not give a shit about right and wrong. A parasite is nature the same as a human. A serial killer would claim that his not being a killer is against his biological compulsions. It does not mean his actions are correct. Furthermore, it is possible to survive on a vegetarian diet. It will soon be possible for us to make meat and all the essential nutrients without requiring an animal to suffer. Not everything natural is eth
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Science.
Eating meat is bad for your health (heart disease, cancer, etc.)
Eating meat is bad for the environment (agricultural pollution, CO2, farms clear cutting natural ecosystems)
Eating meat is bad for the animals (yes, they do suffer)
Re: (Score:2)
As a vegan (originally for health reasons) I would be all in favor of people eating fewer animals, or even better yet none at all.
But factory farming is the one aspect of raising animals for food that I absolutely cannot abide. In each of the areas you mentioned, it causes far worse outcomes than the consumption of traditionally raised animals. It is heartless and cruel, and also unnecessary, although I do realize that it's also what makes these animals so inexpensive and thus widely available.
What I had
Re: Why is this better? (Score:2)
Good attitude. Good points.
Keep working on it. You don't have to be perfect to improve your health and cut down pollution.
Re: Why is this better? (Score:2)
Just because something goes against our biology does not mean it is wrong.
Don't know about that. But if something goes within our nature of being (not necessarily always the dame as "our biology", but close enough when it's about food) it does mean it's not wrong.
A serial killer would claim that his not being a killer is against his biological compulsions. It does not mean his actions are correct.
This is because here's where the distinction between "our nature" and "our biology" starts becoming relevant: killing each other is detrimental to our society, and because our social part is crucial to who and what we are, we are within our right to act against the serial killer. This is very simplified, of course, but y
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
It's very inefficient to feed corn to chickens who only convert about 10% to meat.
It is much more efficient to just eat the corn and get 100% of the benefit.
Re: (Score:3)
Why? It's very inefficient to feed corn to chickens who only convert about 10% to meat. It is much more efficient to just eat the corn and get 100% of the benefit.
Corn does not taste like chicken.
Re: (Score:2)
No, corn does not taste like chicken. Corn has a sweet, slightly vegetal flavor that is distinct from the flavor of chicken or any other type of meat. Corn is a type of grain that is often eaten as a vegetable or used as a ingredient in many dishes. It can be cooked in a variety of ways, including boiling, roasting, grilling, and frying, and is often used in dishes such as corn on the cob, corn chowder, and cornbread. Some people also enjoy eating corn in its raw form, either as a snack or as part of a sala
Re: (Score:2)
So the answer is efficiency is not as important as eating a nice piece of chicken mmmmm. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Did ChatGPT write this?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Then maybe he's Buddhist [bodhilinux.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Fire and doom? Is that the new version of Cain and Abel? About effin' time that software got updated.
But I should be safe, I don't use Windows for anything relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Kali maaaaaaaaaaaa [youtube.com]!
Re: (Score:2)
STOP EATING HELPLESS ANIMALS.
This isn't about eating animals. It is about eating eggs while killing fewer animals.
This is a step in the right direction.
Disclaimer: I don't eat animals, and I get my eggs from the hens in my backyard.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
while killing fewer animals.
All it does is kill them earlier at the embryonic stage. So instead of discarding hatchlings, the farms are discarding full-sized eggs.
I don't see how this is revolutionary. The chickens still need to make the eggs. No feed is saved. It just makes the sorting process easier.
And makes people feel better, I guess. Not a pleasant thought, shredding the chicks, but it is quicker and more humane than how most birds die in the wild.
A real revolution would be to stop the male zygotes at the microscopic stages,
Re:A better solution: (Score:4, Informative)
So instead of discarding hatchlings, the farms are discarding full-sized eggs.
Nope. The eggs are not discarded.
After incubating for five days, eggs are "candled" to ensure they have a developing embryo. Typically, a few percent do not.
Traditionally, this was done by holding each egg before a candle flame, but today is an automated process using machine vision.
The eggs without an embryo are not sold directly to consumers but can be sold to bakeries and producers of other foods.
Re:A better solution: ?? (Score:2)
The description sounded a lot like it was after there was an embryo. How about the ones that DO have an embryo, I assume nothing else is done with that?
Or, maybe I'm very confused.
Re: (Score:2)
STOP EATING HELPLESS ANIMALS.
This isn't about eating animals. It is about eating eggs while killing fewer animals.
Sigh, why are vegetarians always so wrong.
./ers.
This isn't about eating animals at all. The issue is that male chicks are not useful for much so they're sorted out and destroyed en masse and it's mostly female chicks who get raised, lay eggs and eventually become pies.
Reducing the number of male chicks means reducing the amount killed for no benefit at all.
This also means the decimation of the chick sexing industry, but lets face it that wont affect most
Re: (Score:2)
STOP EATING HELPLESS ANIMALS.
This isn't about eating animals. It is about eating eggs while killing fewer animals.
Sigh, why are vegetarians always so wrong.
This isn't about eating animals at all. The issue is that male chicks are not useful for much so they're sorted out and destroyed en masse and it's mostly female chicks who get raised, lay eggs and eventually become pies.
And now, they are prevented from turning into embryos, which means the eggs that would have become roosters are instead used for human consumption while they are still eggs, rather than waiting and killing the roosters later, after they hatch. The statement you replied to was absolutely correct.
Reducing the number of male chicks means reducing the amount killed for no benefit at all.
They provide some small benefit, mostly as cat food.
This also means the decimation of the chick sexing industry, but lets face it that wont affect most ./ers.
What seems weird to me is that this approach is being considered, rather than the more obvious approach of physical or chemical castration of the unwanted male chi
Re: (Score:2)
Eggs are bad for your health (heart disease, cancer, etc.)
Raising chicken for eggs is bad for the environment. (pollution, CO2, strip mine the land)
Raising chickens is cruel to the animals.
I evolved incisors and will use them. (Score:2)
Humans are of, not above, nature. Over-socialized weaklings are a problem not a solution. They cannot be reasoned with. They can be overcome and sidelined.
Re: (Score:2)
"They can be overcome and sidelined."
And almost always become dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
But they're made out of food, and they're so delicious...
Re: (Score:2)
You give me non-plant-based protein that tastes as good and has the same (or better) nutrition and I'll think about it.
Re: (Score:2)
I fully agree! Also stop eating helpless plants! And helpless bacteria and fungi! In fact, stop eating at all!
In other news, stupid ideology is stupid and even more so if its perpetrators resort to shouting.