Agricultural animals, by definition, must have utility. There are dozens of desirable agricultural phenotypes, even within a species, and they vary according to the hundreds of agricultural environments on our planet. In the course of domestication and husbandry of animals, phenotypes have continually evolved, a process that has accelerated over the past century. Specifying desirable phenotypes of future farm animals has become exceedingly complex and now includes characteristics such as carbon footprint, minimization of greenhouse gases, and modifying methods and products to adapt to wants of consumers and activists, many of whom have no connection with agriculture.
The tools for attaining phenotypic improvements of animals include increasingly powerful biotechnologies, which are sometimes oversold. In some cases the biotechnologies even drive phenotypes, as, for example, sperm of dairy bulls have become more tolerant of cryopreservation since bulls whose semen does not tolerate cryopreservation leave few progeny due to extensive use of artificial inseminations with frozen semen. In any case, biotechnologies are tools, and should be used to benefit mankind as well as animals. There are costs to making any change in animal agriculture (including making no change), and the benefit to cost ratio should be the main consideration in evaluating a change. Benefits, such as many fewer people killed by bulls through use of artificial insemination, and costs, such as discomfort to animals due to confinement, also need to be considered when evaluating biotechnologies. Baggage such as whether the technology was developed by a company vs. nonprofit organization or whether DNA was modified in the laboratory vs. a “natural” mutation should be minor considerations relative to efficacy, minimizing undesirable side effects, and what is best for the animals and the environment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
Funston RN, Summers AF (2013) Epigenetics: setting up lifetime production of beef cows by managing nutrition. Annu Rev Anim Biosci 1:339–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia-Ruiz A, Cole JB, Van Raden PM et al (2016) Changes in genetic selection differentials and generation intervals in US Holstein dairy cattle as a result of genomic selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113:E3995–E4004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hristou AN, Oh J, Giallongo F et al (2015) An inhibitor persistently decreased enteric methane emission from dairy cows with no negative effect on milk production. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112:10663–10668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume DA, Whitelaw CBA, Archibald AL (2011) The future of animal production: improving productivity and sustainability. J Agric Sci 149:9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs JA, Siegford JM (2012) The impact of automatic milking systems on dairy cow management, behavior, health, and welfare. J Dairy Sci 95:2227–2247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyndt T, Quispe D, Zhai H et al (2015) The genome of cultivated sweet potato contains Agrobacterium T-DNAs with expressed genes: an example of a naturally transgenic food crop. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112:5844–5849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucy MC (2001) Reproductive loss in high producing dairy cows: where will it end? J Dairy Sci 84:1277–1293Google Scholar
Meuwissen T, Hayes B, Goddard M (2013) Accelerating improvement of livestock with genomic selectors. Annu Rev Anim Biosci 1:221–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oguchi T, Onishi M, Chikagawa Y et al (2009) Investigation of residual DNAs in sugar from sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). J Food Hyg Soc Japan 50:41–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paxton H, Daley MA, Corr SA, Hutchinson JR (2013) The gait dynamics of the modern broiler chicken: a cautionary tale of selective breeding. J Exp Biol 216:3237–3248CrossRefGoogle Scholar