Researchers in Canada have developed a genetically "engineered" pig whose excrement contains up to 65% less phosphorus, thus greatly reducing the environmental damage from its breeding
If in the past I wrote about the environmental damage caused by the consumption of beef and pork, here is a partial solution. The environmental damage in raising domestic animals for food in general but mainly cattle and pigs is caused in various forms, swelling that increases the level of methane (greenhouse gas), consumption of resources - for the production of steak between 4,000 and 15,000 liters of water, deforestation and fires to create pastures.
One of the more serious injuries is the percolation of barnyard (and piggery) spills. The waste water that contains high concentrations of phosphorus reaches streams, rivers and the sea, and in the sea, the concentrations of phosphorus form a substrate for the reproduction of toxic algae, algae that steal the oxygen from the water and create vast areas of "dead zones", areas where the lack of oxygen and the toxicity of the algae kill marine life.
In recent days, a Canadian commercial company has come out with a development that will offset a significant part of the damage, the project was developed by researchers at the University of Guelph in Ontario (Canada). This is a genetically "engineered" pig whose excrement contains up to 65% less phosphorus. The developers refer to the development as an "environmental pig" EnviroPig. The development has already been approved by the Canadian environmental authorities for limited production, and is now awaiting final approvals from the Canadian (and US) food authorities. The developers expect that within a year mass breeding of the environmental pig will begin, and according to the developers this will be one of the most important ventures in the development of transgenic food.
Like all animals, so do pigs, they need phosphorus to build bones, teeth, cell walls and many functions in the activity of the cells and in different environments, in the USA the pigs eat mainly corn, while in Canada the pigs are fed with different types of grains and mainly oats. The phosphorus found in most grains is not digestible without the enzyme phytase, an enzyme that is missing in the digestive system of pigs.
To overcome the deficiency, the farmers add the enzyme to the concentrated feed, but the digested enzyme is not as effective (in breaking down the phosphorous compounds) as an enzyme produced in the digestive system. Therefore, large amounts of the phosphorus leave the pig's digestive system without "use", that is, from the point of view of the pig, the phosphorus is wasted, from the point of view of the environment, an excess nutrient (nutrient) is added, an excess that causes damage.
After searching for a decade, researchers found the solution in the genetic structure of E. coli. To ensure success, the researchers transplanted a segment from the voice to a DNA segment. of a mouse, the proliferating cells were injected into pig embryos, the experiments showed that the "mixture" integrated into the cells so that the piglets that grew up bequeathed the "Hindu" trait to their offspring.
Today, pigs live in the eighth generation since the "Hindus" and all of them have the desired feature, that is, in the digestive tracts of all of them, the enzyme pitas is produced in a sufficient quantity and much larger than non-engineered pigs. That is, pigs that use about 65% more phosphorus, a utilization that means less phosphorus in waste water.
In addition to this, with a significant reduction in the need for food additives, it is easy for farmers to meet the requirement of "zero harmful waste water", a requirement that today is fulfilled by collecting and recycling waste water. An activity that adds to the breeding expenses, which means that raising the environmental pig will also be cheap. Now we are waiting for the approval of the American food authorities, the US Food and Drug Administration, an approval that will allow the environmental pig to join a small and honorable group of "transgenic animals" that have been approved for breeding and use by humans.
The engineering of plants, fish, pigs, and others, are part of the solution to the explosion of the human population, provided that every development is thoroughly tested and not "released" to creation before all precautions are taken to prevent damage.
I will refer to the "religion" of burning the meat in our surroundings soon. In the meantime, due to the laws and regulations of Judaism, many are prevented from celebrating the birth of pork, perhaps until a "pre-environmental" is developed and in light of the presumption of religious rulers to be environmental and in light of the fact that the consumption of pork is less harmful to the environment, perhaps the rulers will do the right thing if they consider allowing an ancient, archaic and worthless prohibition.
15 תגובות
Dr. Assaf Rosenthal
A. If I go down to the level of your reaction, I would simply say: Mother, you are a fool.
B. What is the connection between my reaction (?) and your nonsense (!) and flippant statements that I really don't feel like entering into a debate about their truth.
C. I have no doubt that you got your doctorate because you did your homework once in your life, so go do your homework and come to me with a response that is a little less derogatory of the academic degrees in the world.
Well, I must say: the fact that you believe in vegetarianism, or the fact that the genetically engineered pig will not solve all our environmental problems, does not mean that its coverage is superficial, or sensational. There is of course no problem discussing the question of its effectiveness, but this is a discussion, not a complaint against the site or the writer who dared to publish such news. what do you have.
……., while the land requirement for a hypothetical diet based on wheat was six times less than that for an existing affluent diet with meat.
It is argued that in the near future changes in consumption patterns rather than population growth will form the most important variable for total land requirements for food……..
Excellent from response 6
Sages said before me that: "The most evil and wicked deeds
are done out of religious conviction",
Your sarcastic response proves the truth of the saying.
For anyone who asks about the "energetic and economic viability" of eating meat versus vegetarianism
Here is an excerpt from an article published in Nature:
Land requirements per food item that were determined in a previous study are combined with data on the per capita food consumption of various food packages, varying from subsistence to affluent, leading to information on land requirements for food……….
Land requirements per food item that were determined in a previous study are combined with data on the per capita food consumption of various food packages, varying from subsistence to affluent, leading to information on land requirements for food.
Michael Rothschild,
Regardless of Hagai's words, I am happy to discover that there is another matter on which we do agree.
Without going into the philosophical question of whether it is permissible, and if so to what extent and for what purposes it is permissible to take the life of any living soul, there are enough reasons why not to consume meat and not to develop the culture of meat.
Slaughtering animals is not a necessity without which it is impossible - today, when it is possible to supply the body with essential elements such as B12, etc. without any problems from other sources.
In general, meat is not the most appropriate source of food for good health in general - there are enough studies, from various medical and health fields, that indicate a general correlation that tends to be negative between good health and eating meat.
Tasty food is not a necessary or exclusive function of meat.
It is quite clear that it is more economical to produce and consume food from plants than from animals.
And no less important, and perhaps most important: the consumption of meat involves slaughter, a demonstration of violence and cruelty. This has a very negative impact on the cultivation of a culture of violence in human societies, and on the education of the individual in any way. This is not true for us, and does not suit us. It's time to stop it.
Eddie:
I just don't understand why you join Haggi's steams.
The report is neither superficial nor sensational.
Moreover - he also does not pretend to solve all the ecological problems of the world as Hagi tries to put in his mouth.
That's why I actually don't agree with many of Hagai's words.
And with regard to the recommendation about vegetarianism - it seems to me that Assaf would have signed it himself and he even hints at this at the end of his words when he talks about the religion of burning the meat so that here too the claim should not be against the article, its author or the site but against other parties.
Michael Rothschild,
You are right - a pig is a pig is a pig. If it is genetically modified - it is even more 'pig' - precisely because it pretends to be 'not so pig'...
Regarding vegetarianism - I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation.
Hagai,
I agree with every word.
It just surprises me that you might be surprised by "that the science site is also guilty of the sin of superficial and sensational coverage". And there are things on the site that are even more disturbing than superficial and sensational...
It is unfortunate that the science site also commits the sin of superficial and sensational coverage. Even if everything described in the article is true, applicable and harmless (which still requires proof in the field that depends on many factors, including the growth rate of the pigs of the new breed) the new "development" is nothing more than a cosmetic touch on the tip of the iceberg of the problem of the meat industry in the era of the global environmental crisis and the limited resources kneeling under The burden of humanity spiraling out of control. When a given piece of land can feed 10 people with plant food or one person with animal products - the reduction of phosphorus in excretions is not what will melt the glacier that is fast approaching us.
Asaf, if you didn't start - I wouldn't relate.
But really, not all infantile ignorance should be publicly expressed.
Go out and learn and I'm sure that with the right teacher you will not only find an interest in not eating forbidden foods, those that even in the main the Torah does not encourage eating meat in everyday life at all!
(Search for material on "Rabbi Kook's vision of vegetarianism")
And by the way - ask a smart researcher like you who writes on this website and he will tell you that these laws are not "so ancient"
So really all haters of Israel - draw a line.
If I understood the basic idea of the article correctly, the transgenic pigs will not only excrete less phosphorus, but also, as a result of the improvement in the digestive system and the absorption of phosphorus into their bodies, they will need less food because, after all, a smaller amount of food will provide them with all their phosphorus needs. The savings for the breeders will not only be in saving the phytas enzyme but also in saving food costs. Only the kashrut matter remains with yes. It is not impossible because with genetic engineering methods it will be possible in the future to transplant a cow's or goat's or sheep's digestive system into a pig's body.
Avi:
Nice try but it doesn't work. The Torah did not command against eating pork because of the genes.
Eating the pig is forbidden because it splits a hoof and cleaves a rift, but does not chew the cud.
This is also true for the transgenic pig.
In any case - I suggest everyone to be vegetarian.
A transgenic pig is not a pig anymore, so you can eat it, enjoy.
Apart from the waste water, which has also not been solved, since we are only talking about a reduction here, the other ecological problems with eating meat remain, such as greenhouse gases (18 percent of all greenhouse gases according to a UN committee), deforestation for pastures, which also causes midbor, exploitation Water and soil resources are many times greater than vegetable crops with equal caloric value, very considerable use, relative to vegetable agriculture, of fossil fuels, etc.
In addition to this, the typical Western world's disregard for the long and difficult suffering of farm animals and the taking of their lives is hypocritical and ugly.
The question arises, why are we required to preach? Is our self-indulgence, this ugly lust for the flesh worth the enormous damage it causes?
The rabbi is some kind of lie: no problem, if it reduces the amount of methane in the air from now on you can eat pork!