News 
 National Rural News 
 Livestock 
 News 
 GM pastures push a wasteful boffin's idea: Gene Ethics 

GM pastures push a wasteful boffin's idea: Gene Ethics

29 Oct, 2008 05:08 PM
Moves by the Victorian Department of Primary Industries to develop a new genetically modified pasture variety have been bagged as a "waste of public money" by anti-GM campaigners.

The Victorian Government yesterday announced that the first Australian field trials of high-energy pasture grasses were set to start in Victoria soon.

"These new grasses have a reduced non-digestible content which, depending on the field trials, could mean farmers will be able to reduce the amount of feed they require for their stock," State Environment Minister Gavin Jennings said.

"This would be a critical breakthrough for dairy, beef and sheep industries which have less pasture available for stock because of climate change and the prolonged drought."

The trials will focus on pasture based on perennial ryegrass and tall fescue that have been developed by scientists at the DPI.

The Federal Gene Technology Regulator has granted a licence to plant up to 500 GM lines of these pasture varieties as part of a small field trial to be undertaken at the DPI Hamilton site.

"The trials are for proof-of-concept research and not for commercial release," Primary Industries Minister Joe Helper said.

"But this research may give farmers access to new pasture plant genetics with improved quality and energy content for livestock production."

DPI Biosciences Research Division executive director, Professor German Spangenberg, said the new technologies allowed for a targeted modification of lignin and fructan production in perennial ryegrass and tall fescue.

"Lignin provides the water proofing of fibrous parts of pasture that can't be easily digested by livestock and therefore can't be converted to energy for grazing animals," he said.

"Fructans are soluble carbohydrates that provide a readily available energy source to livestock.

"By modifying lignification and enhancing fructan production in these plants, the herbage nutritive value is increased and stock can gain more energy from less pasture."

But Gene Ethics director Bob Phelps said the trials were "a waste of public money".

"These scientific resources are needed right now to develop and deploy ecological systems that can drought proof, desalinate and restore soil fertility on farms," he said.

"An integrated, whole-of-landscape approach to sustainable farm management is the only way off the brink of permanent rural destruction.

"High technology, patented, gee-whizz GM plants cannot reverse the drought, biodiversity loss and collapse of nutrient cycling that is crippling farm production.

"More digestible GM grass is just a boffin's idea that makes sense in the laboratory but will fall at the first environmental hurdle."

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1


RELATED COVERAGE

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
This is one farmer who wont be buying your GM weeds.
Posted by cynic, 29/10/2008 8:06:16 PM
Fantastic - you stay out of the market then, Mr/s Cynic. This is the very kind of breakthrough we've been looking for. Higher pasture productivity without need for extra fertilisers, hence better productivity from stock. Go Prof Spangenberg!
Posted by shirley, 30/10/2008 10:26:52 AM
The general farming population hasn't been fertilising correctly their pastures, so even with GM there is little chance of success.

There have been higher energy grasses around since adam was a boy such as Matua Prarie grass but for some reason people think ryegrass is the answer and belt the hell out of it with N and distroy the benefits of so called high energy.

Nutritious plants grow on fertile soils so until that has been achieved you can go on GM to no avail.

Posted by Richard Woolley, 30/10/2008 10:59:47 AM
This is one farmer that will be buying the technology. As long as it is deemed safe by our regulators, these are the kinds of technologies that we need.

And let's cut off the obvious response - I am fully aware that regardless of the numbers of years or exhaustive testing organisations such as these will still cry 'it is not proven safe'.

I don't see how more digestible grass can be seen as anything but a very sound idea.

Mr Phelps’s comment is exactly what I would expect from a minority activist organisation hell bent on swaying public opinion to their will.

Posted by Food4all, 30/10/2008 11:10:25 AM
Too bad then that DPI Victoria has sacked all its animal nutrition livestock scientists and is selling the DPI Hamilton site.

DPI won't be able to evaluate if these pastures work. Prof Spandenberg has now got all DPIs funding focussed for gene manipulation, resulting in the sacking of staff throughout the DPI livestock section.

No livestock scientist worth their salt will go near DPI again.

Posted by Puzzled, 30/10/2008 12:20:12 PM
Phelps would boo santa on Xmas day. The roundup canola that we put in this year is outstanding.
Posted by Southwestslopes, 30/10/2008 1:19:45 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
POLL
Q: Should there be mandatory labelling laws to advise consumers if food contains ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops?

Yes
(86.9%)

No
(11.1%)

Undecided
(1.9%)

Total Votes: 1507
Poll Date: 27 October, 2008

Most popular articles

Ray White Rural Northern Beef Week
 
MON0152
 
IRRIGATION CONFERENCE 2010
 
Photo Library
 
Rural Bookshop
 
Land Subscriptions
 
The Land Facebook


 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...