Sie sind auf Seite 1von 28

J. Dairy Sci.

84(E. Suppl.):E9-E18
The American Dairy Science Association, 2001.
Livestock Perfora!ce: "ee#i!$ %iotec& 'rops
J. (. 'lark a!# ). *.
)p&arra$uerre
Department of Animal
Sciences
University of Illinois, Urbana
6101
+%
S,*
+'
,
To date, genetically
enhanced plants in the
marketplace that are used as
feeds for livestock are based
on producing in-secticidal
compounds or developing
herbicide tolerance. Corn
grain, whole plant green chop
corn, corn silage, corn
residue, soybeans, and
soybean meal from the
current genetically en-hanced
plants have been fed to
chickens, sheep, beef cattle,
and dairy cows and
compared with feeds
produced from isoli-nes of
nongenetically enhanced
plants. Results from 23 re-
search trials indicate that
genetically enhanced corn
and soy-beans that are
currently available in the
marketplace are sub-
stantially euivalent in
composition, are similar in
digestibil-ity, and have a
similar feeding value for
livestock.
(Key words: genetically
enhanced crops, biotech
crops, live-stock
performance!
Abbreviation key: ADG "
average daily gain.
)-,*.
D/',)
.-
#$iotechnology refers
generally to the application
of a wide range of scientific
techniues to the
modification and
improvement of plants,
animals, and microorganisms
that are of economic
importance.
%gricultural
biotechnology is that
area of biotechnology
involving applications
to agriculture. &n the
broadest sense,
traditional
biotechnology has
been used for
thousands of years,
since the advent of
the first agricultural
practices, for the
improvement of
plants, animals, and
micro-organisms'
()ersley and *iedow,
+,,,!. -enetic
engineering is one
form of
biotechnology .ust as
is the traditional
selection and
breeding of plants and
animals that possess
desirable ge-netic
traits. )lants that
supply feeds for
livestock have im-
proved over the years
because new plant
varieties were devel-
oped using traditional
techniues of
biotechnology. Crops
to supply feed for
livestock produced
through genetic
enhance-ment are
emerging from
research and
development to the
mar-ketplace because
scientists have
developed techniues
to transfer specific
genes from one
organism to another,
allowing the
e/pression of
desirable traits in the
recipient organism.
This genetic
enhancement
approach allows for a
uicker and more
specific selection of
traits or compounds
produced by the
organism. These
organisms are
referred to as
genetically modified
or genetically
enhanced organisms.
0hen used with
plants, this new
technology is a more
selective
improvement process
that promises to
enhance productivity
while using more
sustainable and
environmentally
sound approaches for
producing livestock
feeds (1artnell and
2uchs, +,,,!.
Received %ugust +, 2333.
%ccepted 4ctober 5, 2333
Corresponding author6 7. 1.
Clark8 e-mail6 .-
clark9:uiuc.edu.
To date,
genetically
enhanced plants
that have reached
the
marketplace are based on
producing insecticidal
compounds or developing
herbicide tolerance. )lants that
are genetically en-hanced to
contain a gene from Bacillus
thuringiensis ($t!, a soil
bacterium, produces protein
that affects only a narrow
range of pests but kills the
;uropean corn borer (Ostrinia
nu-bilalis!. The $t insecticidal
proteins have been
successfully used
commercially since the early
+,93s and have a history of
being safe when their
directions for application are
followed. The ;uropean corn
borer is a common and
economically de-structive pest
of corn that costs corn
producers in the <nited *tates
and Canada more than one
billion dollars each year
(4stlie et al., +,,=!. 1erbicide-
tolerant plants that are
currently being marketed are
produced by the stable
insertion of a gene that
e/presses a glyphosate-
tolerant, modified plant >-
enol-pyruvylshikimate -3-
phosphate synthase protein in
the receptor plant (?e$run et
al., +,,=! rendering it tolerant
to the herbi-cide glyphosate,
which allows for increased
weed control.
Corn grain, whole plant
green chop corn, corn silage,
corn residue, soybeans, and
soybean meal from the
current geneti-cally enhanced
plants have been fed to
livestock and compared with
feeds produced from
isolines of
nongenetically
enhanced plants.
Chickens, sheep, beef
cattle, and dairy cows
have been used in
these e/periments.
The purposes of these
e/periments were to
compare genetically
enhanced and
nongenetically en-
hanced isolines of
corn and soybeans for
nutritional euiva-
lence and
digestibility, and to
determine production
and health of
livestock fed these
feeds. Composition,
digestibility, and
livestock production
responses have been
measured in the e/-
periments that have
been completed to
date. The ob.ective of
this paper is to review
the results obtained
from these e/peri-
ments.
%t
'.
*-
"u!$i 0ro1t&
*e#uce# 2y %t
'or!
The $t corn
contains genes from
Bacillus thuringiensis
that e/press protein
that affects only a
narrow range of pests
but kills the ;uropean
corn borer, a common
pest in corn fields.
Corn borers reduce
the uality and yield
of corn and damage
the plant tissue,
resulting in increased
opportunity for fungal
growth. The fungi can
release mycoto/ins
that can be to/ic to
both animals and
humans. *ome
species of Fusarium
fungi produce
fumonisin, a
dangerous to/in that
can kill horses and
pigs and cause
esophageal cancer in
humans. ;lim-inating
the corn borer from
corn reduces growth
of the fungi from the
corn plant (@unkvold
et al., +,,=, +,,,!
and in-creases the
uality and yield of
corn. $ecause the $t
proteins produced in
the genetically
enhanced corn plant
serve as in-secticides,
they kill the corn
borers before they do
much dam-age to the
corn plant, and the
opportunity for fungal
growth is decreased.
Therefore, in addition
to protecting the corn
plant from the corn
borer, genetic
enhancement to
produce $t corn that
is resistant to this pest
may improve the
safety of corn for
animal and human
consumption by
reducing fungal
growth.
!ol. ", #. S$ppl., 2001 #%
&'A() A*D I+,A((AA-U#((#
Table 1.
;nergy
content
and
digestibil
ities of
4@ and
protein
in non-
$t and
$t corn
grain
determin
ed using
laying
hens.
+
&tem
@etaboliAable energy, k7Bg
Cigestibility, D
4@
)rotein
$0, g
&nitial
2inal
+
%ulrich
et al.
(+,,E!.
Table 2.
$ody
weight
gain, feed
intake,
feed
efficiency
, and
protein
digestibil
-ity
determin
ed using
broiler
chicks
fed non-
$t
(Cesar!
and $t
corn
grain.
+
&tem
$ody weight, g
&nitial
2inal
-ain
2eed intake, g
2eedBgain, gBg
)rotein digestibility, D
+
1alle et al. (+,,E!.
Table 3. Futrient content of corn grain.
&tem
)ro/imate analysis, D
@oisture
2at
)rotein
2iber
%sh
%mino acids, D
Taurine
1ydro/yproline
%sp
Thr
*er
-lu
)ro
-ly
%la
Cys
Gal
@et
&le
?eu
Tyr
)he
1is
4rn
?ys
%rg
Trp
+
$rake and
Glachos
(+,,E!.
2
2rom ;vent
+=9. The
event was a
single
insertion of
transgenic
CF% into the
plant
genome.
'&icke!s
Three
research
trials have
been
conducted
in which
$t corn
was
compared
with a
control
non-$t
isoline
using
chick-ens
as the
e/periment
al animal.
%ulric
h et al.
(+,,E!
conducted
a >-d
feeding
trial in
which
either $t or
non-$t
corn of an
isoline
(Cesar!
was fed to
laying
hens. There
were si/
hens per
treatment
and corn
sup-plied
>3D of the
diet.
Futrient
compositio
ns of the
corn and
#2 .o$rnal
of Dairy
Science
diets,
includi
ng
protein
, fat,
?ys,
@et,
Cys,
calciu
m,
phosph
o-
rus,
magnes
ium,
and
fatty
acids
(C
+963
,
C
+E63
,
C
+E6+
,
C
+E62
,
C
+E63
!,
were
substant
ially
euival
ent for
the $t
and
non-$t
corns
and
diets.
Cigesti
bilities
of 4@
and
protein
and
metabo
liAable
en-
ergy
content
of the
corns
and
diets
were
not
differe
nt
(Table
+!.
Theref
ore,
$0 of
the
hens
did not
change
.
-e
rman
scienti
sts
(1alle
et al.,
+,,E! also
conducted
a 3>-d
feeding
trial in
which
either $t or
non-$t
corn of an
isoline
(Cesar!
was fed to
broilers.
There were
+2 male
chicks per
treatment,
and >3D of
the diet
was corn.
There were
no
significant
differences
between
treatments
for $0 of
the chicks
at the
beginning
or end of
the trial
(Table 2!.
2eed in-
take, feed
conversion,
and protein
digestibilit
y also were
not
significantl
y different
between
treatments.
Fon-
$t and $t
corns also
were
compared
at Forth
Caro-lina
*tate
<niversity
in a trial
with
broiler
chicks
from + to
3E d of age
($rake and
Glachos,
+,,E!. The
e/periment
al design
was a 2 H 2
H 2
factorial
consisting
of mash
versus
pellets,
males
versus
females,
and non-$t
versus $t
corn. The
$t corn
was from
;vent +=9-
1ybrid
>>39 $TI
and the
isoline was
-599>.
There were
32 pens
with 53
birds per
pen. There
were only
minor
differences
in the
moisture,
fat, protein,
fiber, ash,
and amino
acid
contents of
the non-$t
and $t
corns
(Table 3!.
2inal $0
and the
percentage
of birds
alive at the
end of the
trial were
not
significantl
y different
for the
non-$t and
$t
treatments
(Table 5!.
$irds that
were fed
diets that
contained
$t corn
had the
best feed
conversion
ratio, but
this
improve-
ment
cannot
necess
arily
be
attribut
ed to
the
source
of corn
be-
cause
there
were
minor
differe
nces in
the
nutrien
t
content
of the
diets.
@ost
carcass
compo
nents
were
not
affecte
d by
the
source
of
corn,
but the
birds
fed the
$t corn
had a
signifi
cant
increas
e in
breast
skin
and
)ector
alis
minor
yields.
%lthou
gh the
improv
ed feed
conver
sion
and
increas
ed
breast
skin
and
)ector
alis
minor
yields
cannot
necessarily
be
attributed
to the $t
corn per se,
it does
indicate
that the $t
corn did
not have
detrimental
effects on
feed
conversion
and chick
growth.
'
o

p
o
s
i
t
i
o
!

a
!
#

)
!

3
i
t
r
o

D
i
$
e
s
t
i
2
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

'
o
r
!

S
i
l
a
$
e
Corn
plants were
collected
from nine
locations in
&owa,
&llinois,
&ndiana,
*outh
Cakota,
and
0isconsin
to evaluate
nu-tritive
characterist
ics of fresh
and ensiled
whole
plant
material
from
several
commercia
lly
available
@4F E+3
$t corn hy-
Table 4.
Chick growth,
feed
efficiency,
and carcass
components.
+
Corn
&tem
Fon-$t
-599>
$t
2

>>39$TI
*
;
2inal $0, kg +.E32 +.E2> 55
2eedBgain, gBg
3
+.=>
a
+.=2
b
3.3
+
%live, D
5
,=.E ,9.+ 3.E
Carcass components, D $0
Feck
>.9
= >.=5
3.3
>
?egs
+3.
>, +3.>3
3.3
9
Thighs
+2.
29 +2.>2
3.+
3
0ings
E.2
5 E.+,
3.3
5
2at pad
+.3
9 +.52
3.3
>
$reast skin +.E,
a
2.3E
b
3.3
5
)ectoralis ma.or
+3.
>9 +3.E2
3.+
+
)ectoralis minor 3.2=
a
3.3,
b
3.3
3
Ribs and back +=.3 +9.=
3.2
5
a
,
b
*
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

(
P

J

3
.
3
>
!
.

+
$
r
a
k
e

a
n
d

G
l
a
c
h
o
s

(
+
,
,
E
!
.
2
2rom ;vent
+=9.
3
%d.
usted
feedB
gain
"
feed
cons
ume
dB
(live
$0
K
$0
of
dead
birds
!.
5
)erc
entag
e of
birds
rema
ining
alive
at
the
end
of
trial.
S/0+1SIU02 A-(I&U'TU(A' 3I1T#&,*1'1-/
Table 5. ?east suares means for nutrient composition and in vitro digestibility of non-$t near-isoline (control! and $t
(@4FE+3! corn silages harvested at +B5 to +B3 milk line or at early blacklayer stage of harvest.
+,2,3
L to +B3 @ilk line $lacklayer
Fon-$t $t Fon-$t $t
&tem
near-
isoline @4FE+3 *;@
near-
isoline @4FE+3 *;@
@oisture, D 95.= 95.3 2.5= >,., >,.3 3.+3
C), D =.EE E.33 3.25+ E.2= E.33 3.2,=
Feutral detergent insoluble protein, D 3.E=3 3.=,9 3.932 3.,5, 3.E=+
3.3==
,
%sh, D 5.29 5.35 3.2>= 5.2+ 3.,> 3.335
%C2, D 23.= 22.= +.9, 25.+ 2+.= 2.+,
FC2, D 3=.3 39.2 +.,2 3=.3 3>.9 2.>+
?ignin, D 2.5, 2.3= 3.+,= 2.E= 2.99 3.2>9
Cell wall digestibility, D 5>.9 5>.9 +.+= 5+.3 53.5 +.>+
&n vitro true digestibility, D =,.= E3.3 +.+5 =E.3 =,.3 +.5,
&n vitro dry matter digestibility, D =2.9 =3.9 +.5+ =3.> =3.9 +.E3
*tarch, D 33.5 35.9 2.33 35.= 39.= 3.3>
Fon-fiber carbohydrate, D 5,.> >3.> 2.33 =E.3 =,.3 +.5,
4il, D 2.E9 2.,= 3.22= 3.2> 3.59 3.2E3
Total digestible nutrients, D =2.9 =3.E +.92 =+.+ =3.5 2.++
F;?, @calBkg +.9=5 +.=33 3.3E> +.9+, +.99=
3.3>3
3
F;@, @calBkg +.5=5 +.>29 3.539 +.593 +.>3=
3.3>=
,
F;-, @calBkg 3.E,3 3.,3E 3.3,2 3.E=, 3.,+5
3.3>2
3
+
2aust (+,,,!.
2
%ll data e/cept for moisture are on a C@ basis.
3
%verage of two or three samples from each of nine different locations in five states.
brids and their respective non-$t near-
isogenic control hybrids (2aust, +,,,8
2aust and *pangler, 2333!. Corn plants
were harvested at +B5 and +B3 milk lines
and at the blacklayer stage of
development. 0hole plant material was
chopped and en-siled using )GC mini
silos. Futrient composition and in vitro
digestibility were determined on freshly
chopped material and silage after 93 d of
fermentation. 0hen harvested at early
blacklayer the fresh whole plant material
from $t hybrids had more moisture,
stayed green longer, and had a lower
ammonia bound F content than the non-
$t hybrids. These scientists concluded
that silage made from the $t hybrids and
their non-$t near-isogenic hybrids were
similar for nutrient composition and
important feeding-related characteristics
(Table >!. &n vi-tro digestibility of C@
and cell walls from $t and non-$t corn
silage harvested at +B5 to +B3 milk line and
at early blacklayer stages of development
were not significantly different. These
findings suggest similar feeding values for
silages made from $t and non-$t hybrids
during all phases of typical corn silage
maturity.
Lactati!$ Dairy 'o1s
%t &owa *tate <niversity, +2 lactating
1olstein cows were used to investigate the
feeding value of whole plant green chop
from $t and non-$t corn hybrids (2aust
and @iller, +,,=8 2aust, personal
communication, 2333!. 2resh, chopped,
whole, green corn plants from two $t corn
hybrids (;vent +=9
Table 6. ?east suares means
for feed intake, milk
production, and milk com-
ponent percentages from dairy
cows fed non-$t and $t whole
plant green chop corn.
+
&sogenic
&tem control
2eed intake, kg as
fedBd 53.5
@ilk, kgBd 53.5
2at, D 3.5+
)rotein, D 2.=2
?actose, D 5.==
*F2, D E.+E
Total solids, D ++.>,
@ilk urea F, mgBdl +9.,
+
2aust (personal
communication, 2333!.
and $t ++! and from a
control isogenic non-$t
hybrid were fed in diets
of the cows for +5 d.
-reen chopped corn
plants were fed to
ma/imiAe the intake of
the $t protein because $t
protein is degraded when
the corn plant is ensiled.
There were no sig-
nificant differences
among treatments for
feed intake, milk
production, or fat,
protein, lactose, total
solids, and urea in milk
(Table 9!.
*i/teen lactating
1olstein cows in a
replicated 5 H 5 ?atin
suare design with 2+-d
periods were used to
evaluate the ef-fects of
early (F5252! and late
(F=333! maturing corn
with or without the $t
gene from ;vent $t ++ at
the <niversity of Fe-
braska (2olmer et al.,
2333b8 T. Mlopfenstein
and R. -rant, personal
communication, 2333!.
Therefore, the four
treatments were non-$t
early-maturing corn, $t
early-maturing corn, non-
$t late maturing corn,
and $t late maturing
corn. The diets
Table 7. ;ffect of $t gene in early or late maturing
corn silages on feed intake and production of milk
and milk components by dairy cows.
+
;arly-
maturing ?ate-maturing
F5252 F=333
&tem
Fon-
$t $t
2
Fon-
$t
C@&
kgBd 22.5 22.E 22.=
D of $0
3.=
2 3.=> 3.=>
$0
kg 9+>
ChangeB2+-d period 22.=
@ilk, kgBd 2E.9
2at
D
3.E
2
kgBd
+.3
,
)rotein
D
3.>
>
kgBd
+.3
+
?actose
D 5.E
>
kgBd
+.3
E +.53 +.3= +.53
5D 2C@, kgBd 2=.= 2E.3 2=.3 2=.5
2C@BC@&, kgBkg
+.2
5 +.29 +.23 +.+,
+
2olmer et al. (2333b!8
Mlopfenstein and -rant
(personal communication,
2333!.
2
;vent $t++. The event was a
single insertion of transgenic
CF% into the plant genome to
produce $t corn.
!ol. ", #.
S$ppl.,
2001 #4
&'A() A*D I+,A((AA-U#((#
Table .
Cigestibi
lities (D!
of
nutrients
in Fon-
$t and
$t corn
silage by
sheep.
+
Cigestibility
4@
2at
2iber
F2;
2
+
Caenick
e et al.
(+,,,!.
2
F2; "
Fitrogen
-free
e/tract.
Table !.
Composi
tion of
Fon -$t
and $t
corn
silages,
feed
intake,
and per-
formanc
e of
1olstein
bulls fed
corn
silage.
+
&tem
*ilage composition
C@, D
4@, D
C), D
Crude fat, D
Crude fiber, D
@etaboliAable energy, @7Bkg
2eed intake
Concentrate, kgBd
Corn silage, kgBd
C@&, kgBd
)rotein intake, gBd
@etaboliAable energy intake, @7Bd
*teer performance
2inal $0, kg
%C-, gBd
@etaboliAable energyB$0 gain,
@7Bkg
1ot carcass weight, kg
Cressing, D
%bdominal fat, kg
a
,
b
@
e
a
n
s

w
i
t
h

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

s
u
p
e
r
s
c
r
i
p
t
s

a
r
e

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

(
P

J

3
.
3
>
!
.

+
C
a
e
n
i
c
k
e

e
t

a
l
.

(
+
,
,
,
!
.
contained
53D corn
silage,
2ED corn
grain from
the same
corn as the
silage to
ma/imiAe
the hybrid
effect, +3D
alfalfa
silage, and
22D of a
protein,
mineral,
and
vitamin
mi/ture.
There was
no effect of
the $t trait
in either
the early or
late
maturing
corn on
C@&, milk
production,
milk
compositio
n, milk
component
yields, 5D
2C@
production,
efficiency
of 2C@
production
(Table =!,
ruminal
p1,
concentrati
on of G2%
in rumen
fluid, or in
situ FC2
digestion
kinetics.
$t
(;vent
+=9! and
non-$t
(isogenic
Rh23E!
corn was
grown in
two
locations in
2rance (N,
$arriere, ).
$runschwi
g, 2.
*urault,
and 7.C.
;mile,
personal
communic
ation,
2333!
and
harvest
ed as
silage.
Twenty
-four
dairy
cows
were
fed ei-
ther
the $t
or non-
$t corn
silage
in diets
that
contain
ed
=3D
corn
silage
and
2=D
concen
trate
for +3
wk.
Cry
matter
intake
was +
kgBcow
per day
greater
for
cows
fed the
$t
silage.
@ilk
produc
tion
(33
kgBd
per
cow!
and the
C), fat,
and
fatty
acid
compositio
n of milk
were not
affected by
the source
of corn
silage. The
authors
concluded
that the
feeding
value for
the $t and
non-$t
corn
silages
were eual.
S&eep
2rench
scientists
($arriere,
$runschwi
g, *urault,
and ;mile,
personal
communic
ation,
2333!
compared
$t (;vent
+=9! and
non-$t
(isogenic
Rh23E!
corn
silages in a
+>-d di-
gestibility
trial with
wethers.
Twenty-
four
wethers
were fed
$t corn
silage and
+2 wethers
were fed
non-$t
corn silage.
Fet energy
values for
the corn
silages fed
at
maintenanc
e to the
wethers
and
digestibiliti
es of 4@,
crude fiber,
and FC2
were not
different
for $t and
non-$t
corn
silages.
-erma
n scientists
(Caenicke
et al.,
+,,,! also
determined
digestibilit
y of $t and
non-$t
isogenic
(Cesar!
corn silage
supplement
ed with
protein
using
sheep.
2our
wethers
were fed
either $t or
non-$t
corn silage.
Cigestibilit
ies of both
silages
were high,
and there
were no
significant
differences
between
the silages
for
digestibilit
y of 4@,
fat, fiber,
or
nitrogen-
free-e/tract
(Table E!.
"ee#lot
'attle
"e# 'or!
Sila$e
Caenic
ke et al.
(+,,,!
compared
$t and
non-$t
isogenic
(Cesar!
corn
silages as
feeds for
-erman
1olstein
bulls.
Twenty
bulls per
treatment
were
assigne
d to a
diet of
either
$t or
non-$t
corn
silage
plus a
consta
nt
intake
of
concen
trate.
$ulls
were
about
+9> d
of age,
initiall
y
weighe
d about
+EE
kg, and
were
fed
corn
silage
until
they
weighe
d about
>>3
kg.
There
was no
differe
nce in
the
nutrien
t
compo
sition
of the
corn
silages
(Table
,!.
$ulls
fed $t
and
non-$t
corn
silages
consu
med
the
same
amoun
t of
concen
trate
and similar
amounts of
as fed corn
silage.
$ecause
the $t
silage was
slightly
lower in
C@, bulls
fed this
silage
consumed
less C@
and energy
than bulls
fed non-$t
silage.
1owever,
average
daily gain
(ADG!,
hot carcass
weight,
dressing
percentage,
and
abdominal
fat were
not
different
for bulls
fed the $t
and non-$t
corn silage.
To
compare $t
(;vent $t
++! and
non-$t
isogenic
corn si-
lages and
early
(F5252!
and late
(F=333!
maturing
corn si-
lages,
nutritionist
s at the
<niversity
of
Febraska
(2olmer et
al., 2333a8
Mlopfenste
in,
personal
communic
ation,
2333! as-
signed +2E
steers that
weighed
2E2 kg to a
2 H 2
factorial
ar-
rangement
of
treatments.
Ciets on a
C@ basis
were ,3D
corn silage
and +3D
protein
supplement
(=>D
soybean
meal and
2>D urea
on a F
basis!. The
trial was
+3+ d in
length. Cry
matter
intake was
greater for
steers fed
$t than
non-$t
corn silage
(Table +3!.
There was
a
significant
interaction
between
the $t trait
and the
hybrid
genotype
for %C-
and
efficiency
of feed
utiliAation
by steers.
%verage
daily gain
was greater
for steers
fed the $t
early-
maturing
corn silage
compared
with the
non-$t
early-
maturing
corn silage
but was
similar for
steers
Table 1".
)erformance
of growing
steers fed
no
n-
$t and $t corn
silages that
mature early
and late.
&tem
C@&, kgBd
&nitial wt, kg
2inal wt, kg
%C-, kgBd
2eedBgain, kgBkg
b,c,d
the same row
not bearing a
common
superscript
differ (
3.3>!.
+
(2333a! and
Mlopfenstein
(personal
communicati
on, 2333!.
2
3
ver
sus
no
n-
$t.
#" .o$rnal of
Dairy Science
S/0+1SIU02 A-(I&U'TU(A' 3I1T#&,*1'1-/
fed $t and
non-$t late
maturing corn
silage.
;fficiency of
feed utiliAation
was better for
steers fed non-
$t than $t late
matur-ing corn
silage but was
similar for $t
and non-$t
early-maturing
corn silage.
&ncorporation
of the $t gene
into the two
different corn
hybrids
appeared to
have different
effects on
performance of
the steers. This
effect was
suggested to be
re-lated to the
nutrient
composition of
the two corn
hybrids from
which the $t
corn was
developed.
*teers fed the
early-maturing
corn silage
gained ++D
faster (P J
3.3+! and were
=D more
efficient in
feed utiliAation
(P J 3.3+! than
steers fed late
maturing
silage8
however, the
presence of the
$t gene in the
corn hybrids
did not
consistently
affect
performance of
the steers.
Therefore, the
genetics of the
parent corn
hybrid ap-
peared to have
a greater effect
on animal
performance
than did the
incorporation of
the $t gene into
the corn.
2or 2 yr,
scientists
(1endri/ et al.,
2333! at )urdue
<ni-versity
grew $t and
non-$t corn
silage to feed to
steers. ;ach
year, >9 steers
were fed either
$t or non-$t
whole plant
corn silage for
about E= d to
determine
animal
performance.
Cry matter
intake (E.EE vs.
E.9= kgBd! and
%C- (+.33 vs.
+.35 kgBd! were
not different for
steers fed $t or
non-$t corn
silage8 however,
efficiency of
feed utiliAation
(9.E9 vs. 9.5E
kg C@Bkg gain!
was better for
steers fed non-
$t corn silage.
These scientists
concluded there
were no ma.or
differences in
feeding value of
these corn
silages.
0ra4i!$ %eef
'attle
Three
e/periments
have been
conducted to
investigate the
effects on beef
cattle of graAing
corn residue that
contained the $t
trait. Russell et
al. (2333a,
2333b! planted
one non-$t corn
hybrid ()ioneer
35E,! and three
$t-corn hybrids
()ioneer 35R3=,
Nield-ard
event8 Fovartis
FI9239,
Nield-ard
event8 and
Fovartis F95-
O5, Mnockout
event! in
duplicate 2., ha
fields. %fter the
harvest of grain,
three mature
cows in mid-
gestation were
assigned to
duplicate fields
for each
treatment (si/
cowsBtreatment!
to strip-graAe
for +29 d. *i/
cows also were
assigned to
duplicate
drylots. %ll
cows were fed
alfalfa-grass hay
to maintain a
$C* of five on
a nine-point
scale. There
were no
differences in
yields of grain
or dropped
grain. Cry
matter and 4@
contents and
yields of in vitro
digestible C@
were not
different for
these sources of
corn residue.
*ource of corn
residue did not
affect the mean
rates of change
in composition
of corn residue
during the +29 d
of graAing.
There were no
significant
differences in
$0 or $C* of
cows among
treatments
(Table ++!. To
maintain similar
$C*, cows
graAing corn
residues
reuired a
smaller uantity
of hay than did
cows
maintained in
drylot. The
amount of hay
reuired to
maintain body
condition of
the cows was
not different
for cows fed
the non-$t and
the $t corn
residues.
*i/ty-
seven steers
that weighed
on average 2E5
kg were used
in a two-part,
=3-d trial to
evaluate their
performance
when fields of
$t F=333 and
isogenic non-
$t F=333 corn
residues were
graAed (2olmer
et al., 2333a8
Mlopfenstein,
per-sonal
communicatio
n, 2333!. 2ifty-
one steers were
assigned to the
fields to
achieve eual
stocking rate
per hectare for
the $t (2=
steers! and
non-$t (25
steers! fields.
*i/teen
additional
steers were
used to
evaluate
graAing
preference for
the $t and non-
$t corn
residue. *teers
were fed 3.5>
kg of protein
sup-
plementBhead
per day to
ensure that
protein did not
limit ani-mal
performance.
%verage daily
gain and
graAing
preference were
not different for
steers graAing
$t and non-$t
corn resi-dues
(Table +2!.
Table 11. Changes
in $0 and condition
score of cows
graAing corn residue
and fed hay.
+
Corn residue and hay
2
)ion
eer
Fovart
is
Fovarti
s
)ioneer35
E,
35R
3=
FI92
39 F95-25
Crylo
t
&tem Fon-$t $t
3
$t
3
$t
5
fed
hay
&nitial
$0, kg
9
3
=
9+
,
93
,
92
5
93
3
Condition score >.3 >.3 >.3 >.+ >.3
Change
$0, kg
3
+ 53 32 3= 3+
Condition score 3.+ P3.2 P3.3 3
P
3.+
1ay fed 9>3
a
92E
a
92>
a
>5+
a
+55=
b
kg C@Bcow
a,b
Cifferences
between treatment
means with
different
superscripts are
signifi-cant (P J
3.3>!.
+
Russell et al.
(2333a, 2333b!.
2
1ay fed to maintain
$C* of five on nine-
point scale.
3
Nield-ard event.
The event was a
single insertion of
transgenic CF%
into the plant
genome to produce
$t corn.
5
Mnockout event.
The event was a
single insertion of
transgenic CF%
into the plant
genome to produce
$t corn.
Table 12.
)erformance and
graAing preference
of growing steers
graAing Fon-$t and
$t corn residue.
+
Corn residue F=333
&tem
Fon-
$t $t
2
*;@
&nitial wt, kg
2
E
5 2E5 3.3>
2inal wt, kg
3
3
9 33+ 2.3
%C-, kgBd 3.32 3.25 3.33
-raAing preference,
3
D >2.> 5=.> >.2
+
2olmer et al.
(2333a! and
Mlopfenstein
(personal
communication,
2333!.
2
;vent
$t++. The event
was a single
insertion of
transgenic CF%
into the plant
genome to
produce $t corn.
3
)ercentage of
steers observed
graAing Fon-$t
and $t corn
residue.
1endri/ et
al. (2333! used
=E nonlactating
pregnant beef
cows during 2
yr for an
average of 3E d
per year to
determine
performance of
cows graAing
$t or isogenic
non-$t corn
resi-dues.
Twenty
additional
cows were
given access to
both $t and
isogenic non-
$t corn
residues in yr +
to determine
graAing
preference.
There were no
differences in
average $0
change or
choice of
graAing
preference by
cows graAing $t
or non-$t corn
residue. There
were no ma.or
differences in
feeding value of
these corn
residues.
(
E
*
%)
')
D
E-
,
.
LE
*
+
-
,
'
.
*
-
-lyphosate
-tolerant crop
varieties have
been developed
and
commercialiAed
for corn,
soybeans,
canola, and
cotton (*idhu et
al., 2333!.
Research trials
have been
conducted to
investigate the
nutrient
composition and
the feeding
value of
glyphosate-
tolerant corn for
food producing
animals. Two
feeding trials
have been
conducted, one
with growing
broiler chickens
and one with
lactating dairy
cows to evaluate
this genetically
enhanced corn. Q
!ol. ", #. S$ppl., 2001 #5
&'A() A*D I+,A((AA-U#((#
Table 13. Futrient composition of whole plant green chop from a control parental line (CM>E3!, a glyphosate-tolerant line
(-%2+BCM>E3!, and five commercial lines of corn generated from multiple field sites over a period of 2 yr (+,,9 to
+,,=!.
+
+,
,9
+,,
=
-%2+BC
-%2+BC
M Commercial 1istorical
&tem
Cont
rol M>E3
Contro
l >E3 lines range
2
@oisture, D
9>.
>2 =2.33 9E.=3 9E.E3 9E.3+ 9E.=P=3.>
)rotein, D C@
=.>
E =.,+ =.5> =.5, =.23 5.EPE.5
2at, DC@
+.>
3 +.=3 2.2+ +.EE 2.35 +.5P2.+
%sh, D C@
3.E
> 5.22 5.29 5.2, 5.+, 2.,P>.+
%C2, D C@
2>.
E, 2>.35 2>.>> 23.E> 2>.>9 2+.5P2,.2
FC2, D C@
53.
E> 3,.5= 3E.,2 3=.,+ 3,.>5 3,.,P59.9
Carbohydrates, D C@
E=.
35 E9.+5 E9.39 E9.3> E9.92 E5.9PE,.+
Calcium, D C@
3.+=
99 3.+,35 3.2+== 3.2335 3.+,5E F%
)hosphorus, D C@
3.2+
25 3.22EE 3.2+=, 3.2+=E 3.+,,2 F%
+
*idhu et al. (2333!.
2
Cenotes the lowest and highest individual values across sites from conventional control values determined from previous
studies.
F% " Fot available.
Table 14. Futrient composition of grain from a control parental line (CM>E3!, a glyphosate-tolerant line (-%2+BCM>E3!,
and five commercial lines of corn generated from multiple field sites over a period of two years (+,,9-+,,=!.
+
+,
,9 +,,=
?iteratur
e 1istorical
-%2+B -%2+B
Commerci
al
&tem
Cont
rol CM>E3
Contr
ol CM>E3 lines range range
2
@oisture, D
+5.
53 +5.+> +9.2+
+9.E
9
+9.3
3 =P23 ,.5P+>.E
)rotein, D C@
+3.
3> +3.3> +3.>5
++.3
>
+3.E
= 9.3P+2.3 ,.3P+3.9
2at, DC@
3.>
> 3.>+ 3.,E 3.,3 3.9, 2.,P9.+ 2.5P5.2
%sh, D C@
+.2
= +.2= +.>9 +.3E +.=, +.+P3., +.2P+.E
%C2, D C@
3.=
2 3.=3 9.3> 9.3> 9.39 3.3P5.3 ,.9P+>.3
FC2, D C@
++.
=3 +3.E2 ,.E3 ,.33
+3.+
2 E.3P++., 3.+P>.3
Carbohydrates, D C@
E>.
+> E>.+> E3.=,
E3.9
9
E3.9
E F% E+.=PE9.3
Calcium, D C@
3.3
32= 3.3329
3.33
53
3.333,
a
3.3353 3.3+P3.+ 3.332,P3.339
)hosphorus, D C@
3.2
,, 3.2,,
3.32
9
3.32
9 3.333
3.29P
3.=> 3.2EEP3.393
a
Cifferent from control (P J 3.3>!.
+
*idhu et al. (2333!
2
Cenotes the lowest and highest individual values across sites from conventional control values determined from previous
studies.
F% " Fot available.
Table 15. %mino acid composition of grain from a control parental line (CM>E3!, a glyphosate-tolerant line
(-%2+BCM>E3!, and five commercial lines of corn generated from multiple field sites over a period of two years (+,,9-
+,,=!.
+
+,,
9 +,,=
?iteratur
e 1istorical
-%2+B -%2+B
Commerci
al
%mino acid
Contr
ol CM>E3
Contr
ol CM>E3 lines range range
2
--------------------------- D of total amino acids
-------------------
%la
=.9
5 =.92 =.92 =.95 =.=E 9.5P,., =.2PE.E
%rg
5.3
3 5.+3 5.>+ 5.5E 5.39 2.,P>., 3.>P>.3
%sp
9.=
E 9.=+ 9.9> 9.93 9.>= >.EP=.2 9.3P=.>
Cys
2.+
+ 2.+3 2.2E 2.22 2.+, +.2P+.9 +.EP2.=
-lu
+,.
39 +,.2= +E.=3 +E.=E
+,.+
=
+2.5P
+,.9 +E.9P22.E
-ly
3.=
E 3.=2 3.E, 3.E3 3.=+ 2.9P5.= 3.2P5.2
1is
2.E
5 2.E+ 2.=5 2.9= 2.E3 2.3P2.E 2.EP3.5
&le
3.>
E 3.93 3.>= 3.>3 3.=> 2.9P5.3 3.2P5.3
?eu
+2.
,3 +3.++ +2.E= +2.,E
+3.3
2
=.EP
+>.2 +2.3P+>.E
?ys
3.3
, 3.32 3.32 3.++ 2.,9 2.3P3.E 2.9P3.>
@et
2.3
3 +.,E 2.+= 2.+9 2.32 +.3P2.+ +.3P2.9
)he
>.+
= >.+> >.33 >.3+ >.39 2.,P>.= 5.,P9.+
)ro
E.9
, E.9, ,.33 E.,E ,.+9
9.9P
+3.3 E.=P+3.+
*er
>.2
= >.33
a
>.33 >.+= 5.95 5.2P>.> 5.,P9.3
Thr
3.=
3 3.== 3.>5 3.>, 3.53 2.,P3., 3.3P5.2
Trp
3.>
= 3.92 3.9+ 3.9+ 3.>, 3.>P+.2 3.5P+.3
Tyr
3.,
> 3.E+
a
3.== 3.=3 3.5E 2.,P5.= 3.=P5.3
Gal
5.9
5 5.>E 5.92 5.>= 5.=, 2.+P>.2 5.2P>.3
a
Cifferent from control (P J 3.3>!.
+
*idhu et al. (2333!.
2
Cenotes the lowest and highest individual values across sites from conventional control values determined from previous
studies.
#6 .o$rnal of Dairy
Science
S/0+1SIU02 A-(I&U'TU(A' 3I1T#&,*1'1-/
Table 16. 2atty acid composition of grain from a control parental line (CM>E3!, a glyphosate-tolerant line (-%2+BCM>E3!,
and five commercial lines of corn generated from multiple field sites over a period of 2 yr (+,,9 to +,,=!.
+
+,
,9
+
,
,
=
2atty acid -%2+B
-
%
2
+
B
Commerci
al
?iteratur
e 1istorical
Contr
ol CM>E3
Contr
ol
C
M
>
E
3 lines range range
2
-----------------
------- D of total fatty acids
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
%rachidic (2363!
3.5
+ 3.53 3.39
3
.
3
=
3.5
3 3.+P2 3.3P3.>
$ehenic (2263!
3.+
= 3.+9 3.+>
3
.
+
9
3.+
E F% 3.+P3.3
;icosenoic (236+!
3.2
, 3.2E 3.33
3
.
3
3
3.3
3 F% 3.2P3.3
?inoleic (+E62!
>E.
=2 >E.>9 9+.>+
9
+
.
5
3
>,.
+E 3>P=3 >>.,P99.+
?inolenic (+E63!
+.3
E +.+3 +.+5
+
.
+
5
+.+
+ 3.EP2 3.EP+.+
4leic (+E6+!
2=.
53 2=.>3 25.+3
2
5
.
2
3
29.
23 23P59 23.9P2=.>
)almitic (+963!
,.,
2 ,.,5 +3.=2
+
3
.
=
3
+3.
>E =P+, ,.,P+2.3
*tearic (+E63!
+.E
9 +.E= +.9=
+
.
9
E
+.E
E +P3 +.5P2.2
+
*idhu et al. (2333!.
2
Cenotes the lowest and highest individual values across sites from conventional control values determined from previous
studies.
'opositio!
-rain and whole plant green chop
from glyphosate -tol-erant corn (-%2+!, a
control parental line (CM929!, and five
commercial hybrids were analyAed for
nutrient composition (*idhu et al., 2333!.
Results of these analyses indicated that,
e/cept for a few small differences that
probably are not bio-logically significant,
moisture, protein, fat, ash, carbohydrate,
%C2, FC2, amino acid, fatty acid,
calcium, and phosphorus contents of the
corn grain and whole plant green chop
were not significantly different (Tables +3,
+5, +>, and +9!. There-fore, the
glyphosate-tolerant corn grain and green
chop were substantially euivalent in
composition to the control and
commercial corn
varieties.
'&icke!s
% control parental
line (CM>E3!, a
glyphosate-tolerant line
(-%2+BCM>E3! and five
commercial varieties of
corn were evaluated with
>93 growing broiler
chickens (E3Btreat-ment!
in a 3,-d growth trial
(*idhu et al., 2333!.
-rowth, feed efficiency,
feed efficiency ad.usted
for feed consumption of
dead chickens, and fat
pad weights were not
different for chickens fed
the control or glyphosate
-tolerant corn (Table +=!.
?ikewise, these same
measurements were not
different for chickens fed
the glyphosate-tolerant
corn and the population
mean for chickens fed the
five commercial corn
varieties.
Table 17. )erformance of
chickens fed a control parental
line (CM>E3!, a gly-pohosate-
tolerant line (-%2+BCM>E3!,
and five commercial lines of
corn.
+
@ean
final 2eed 2eed
&tem $0 (kg!
efficienc
y
2
efficiency
(%d.!
@ales
Control +.,5> +.992 +.92,
-%2+BCM>E3 2.3+3 +.=>3 +.959
Commercial
lines
>
+.,5= +.9,, +.9>3
2emales
Control +.E>, +.==, +.=2+
-%2+BCM>E3 +.EE> +.=E+ +.=5,
Commercial
lines
>
+.E=5 +.=E, +.=55
+
*idhu et al. (2333!.
2
Total feed consumption per pen divided by total
$0 of surviving chickens.
3
Total feed consumption
per pen divided by total $0 of surviving chickens
and the weight of chickens that died or were
removed from pens.
5
2at pad wt as percentage of $0.
>
@ean of five commercial lines of corn tested
separately.
Dairy 'o1s
*i/teen multiparous
1olstein cows from =+ to
+3= d in milk were
assigned to two groups
and used in a switchback
design with three periods
of 2E d each to evaluate
the feeding value of
glyphosate-tolerant corn
or a control isogenic line
(CM929! of corn
(Conkin, personal
communication, 2333!.
Cows were fed for ad
libitum intake diets that
contained 92D corn
silage, +=D corn grain,
and 2+D protein,
mineral, and vi-tamin
supplement. There were
no differences in C@&,
milk production, 5D
2C@ production, *CC,
milk urea F, or per-
centages and yields of
protein, fat, lactose, and
*F2 in milk when cows
were fed glyphosate-
tolerant corn or the
isogenic line of corn
(Table +E!.
0L5P(.S+,E
-,.LE*+-,
S.5%E+-S
*oybeans have been
genetically enhanced and
commer-cialiAed by
introducing a single gene
that makes the soybean
plant tolerant to the
herbicide glyphosate.
This modification allows
farmers to spray fields of
soybeans with this
herbicide to kill weeds
without killing the
soybeans. Composition
of the glyphosate-tolerant
soybeans and products
from their process-ing as
well as their feeding
value for chickens and
dairy cattle
Table 1. ;ffects of feeding
glyphosate-tolerant (CM929RR!
or an isogenic parent line
(CM929! of corn silage and
corn grain to dairy cows on feed
in-take, milk production, and
milk components.
+
Control
-lyphosate-
tolerant
&tem CM929 CM929RR
C@&, kgBd 2+.> 2+.E
@ilk, kgBd 2,.5 2,.>
5D 2C@, kgBd 2=.> 2=.E
*CC, / +333 +3+ ,,
@<F,
2
mgBdl +3.E +3.,
@ilk protein
D 3.2> 3.25
kgBd 3.,9 3.,9
@ilk fat
D 3.>> 3.9+
kgBd +.35 +.39
@ilk lactose
D 5.=3 5.=2
kgBd +.53 +.53
@ilk *F2
D E.=5 E.=>
kgBd 2.>E 2.>,
+
Conkin (personal
communication, 2333!.
2
@<F " @ilk urea nitrogen.
!ol. ", #.
S$ppl.,
2001 #6
&'A() A*D I+,A((AA-U#((#
Table
1!.
Composi
tion of a
control
parental
line and
genetical
ly
enhance
d
glyphosa
te-
tolerant
soybeans
(-T*!
from
+,,2 and
+,,3 <*
field
trial.
+
&tem
+,,2 (, sites!
@oisture, D
)rotein, D C@
%sh, D C@
2at, D C@
2iber, DC@
Carbohydrates, D
C@
+,,3 (5 sites!
@oisture, D
)rotein, D C@
%sh, D C@
2at, D C@
2iber, DC@
Carbohydrates, D
C@
+
)adgett
e et al.
(+,,9!.
R
*
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

l
i
n
e

(
P

J

3
.
3
>
!
.

F
T

"

F
o
t

t
e
s
t
e
d
.
Table 2".
%mino acid
composition
of a control
parental line
and
genetically
enhanced
glyphosate-
tolerant
soybeans
(-T*! from a
nine-site +,,2
<* field
trials.
+
Table 21.
2atty acid
composition
of a control
parental line
and
genetically
enhanced
glyphosate-
tolerant
soybeans
(-T*! from a
nine-site +,,2
<* field
trial.
+
-enetically enhanced
Control -T* -T*
?iteratur
e
2atty acid %>533 53-3-2 9+-9=-+ range
------------------ gB+33 g ------------------
963 3.++
3.+
+ 3.++
+963 ++.+,
++.
2+ ++.+5
=P
+2
+=63 3.+3
3.+
3 3.+3
+E63 5.3,
5.+
5 5.3>
2P
>.>
+E6+cis +,.=2
+,.
=5 +,.E+
23P
>3
+E62 >2.>2
>2.
3+ >2.5E
3>P
93
+E63 E.32
E.2
3 E.+2
2P
+3
2363 3.39
3.3
= 3.3>
236+ 3.+=
3.+
= 3.+=
2263 3.>3
3.>3
R 3.5,
2563 3.+E
3.+
, 3.+E
<nknowns 2.93
2.5
E 2.>,
+
)adgette et
al. (+,,9!.
R*ignificantly
different from
the control
line (P J
3.3>!.
Table 22.
$ody weight
gain, feed
intake,
gain6feed
ratio, survival,
and breast and
fat pad
weights of
chickens fed
soybean meal
processed
from
glyphosate-
tolerant
(-T*!
varieties or a
control
parental line
of soybeans
during a 52-d
study.
+,2
%mino
acid
%sp
Thr
*er
-lu
)ro
-ly
%la
Gal
&le
?eu 3.3>
2.
,= 3.33 2.=+P3.23
Tyr +.5>
+.
53 +.53 +.+2P+.92
)he +.,=
+.
,3 +.,> +.=3P2.3E
1is
?ys
%rg
Cys
@et
Trp
+
)ad
gette
et al.
(+,,
9!.
hav
e
bee
n
inv
esti
gate
d in
rese
arc
h
trial
s.
'o
p
osi
tio
!
adg
ette
et
al.
(+,
,9!
e/te
nsiv
ely
inv
esti
gate
d
the
co
mp
o-
siti
on
of
two
gly
pho
sate
-
tole
rant
soy
bea
ns
(53-
3-2
and
9+-
9=-+!
and a
contr
ol
pare
ntal
soyb
ean
varie
ty
(%>5
33!
from
+3
field
s
durin
g 2
yr.
Futri
ents
meas
ured
in
the
soyb
ean
seeds
in-
clude
d
nutri
ents
by
pro/i
mate
analy
ses
(prot
ein,
fat,
fiber,
ash,
carb
ohyd
rates
!,
amin
o
acids
, and
fatty
acids
.
%nti
nutri
ents
meas
ured
in
the
soyb
ean
seed
or
toast
ed
meal
were
tryps
in-
inhib
itor,
lecti
ns,
isofl
avon
es,
stach
yose,
raffin
ose,
and
phy-
tate.
Futri
ents
by
pro/i
mate
analy
ses
were
deter
mine
d for
de-
fatte
d
toast
ed
meal,
defat
ted
nont
oaste
d
meal,
prote
in
isolat
e,
and
prote
in
conc
entra
te
prep
ared
from
the
three
soyb
ean
varie
-ties.
2atty
acid
com
posit
ion
of
soyb
ean
oil
from
the
three
va-
rietie
s
also
was
meas
ured.
*tati
stical
ly
signi
fican
t
differ
ence
s
were
detec
ted
betw
een
the
contr
ol
and
glyp
hosat
e-
toler
ant
soyb
ean
seeds
for
some
of
the
nutri
ents
deter
mine
d by
pro/i
-
mate
analy
ses
(Tabl
e
+,!.
1ow
ever,
these
differ
ence
s
were
-enetically enhanced
&tem Control %>533
-T* 9+-
9=-+ -T* 53-3-2
$0, g 2+,2
2+
EE 2+55
0t gain, gBd >+ >+ >3
2eed intake,
gBd ,3 ,3 ,2
-ain6feed, gBg 3.>>+ 3.>5E 3.>59
*urvival, D ,3.E E,.2 ,+.=
$reast wt, g 332
2,
9 2,5
2at pad wt, g E+ E2 ==
+
1am
mond
et al.
(+,,9!
.
2
+23
chick
s (+B2
male
and
+B2
femal
e!
were
used
in the
trial
from
hatch
ing to
52 d
posth
atchi
ng.
small
and
were
consi
dere
d
biolo
gical
ly
unim
porta
nt.
Ther
e
were
no
signi
fican
t
differ
ence
s in
anti-
nutri
ent,
amin
o
acid
(Tabl
e
23!,
or
fatty
acid
(Tabl
e 2+!
con
tent
.
The
se
data
indi
-
cate
d
that
the
co
mp
osit
ion
of
con
trol
and
gly
pho
sate
-
tole
rant
soy
bea
ns
wer
e
sub
stan
tiall
y
eu
ival
ent.
'&i
cke
!s
hree
hun
dre
d
and
si/t
y
broi
ler
chic
ken
s
wer
e
use
d
fro
m
birt
h to
52 d
of
age
to
evalu
ate
the
feedi
ng
value
of
soyb
ean
meal
prod
uced
from
two
glyph
osate
-
tolera
nt
soyb
eans
(53-
3-2
and
9+-
9=-+!
and a
contr
ol
paren
tal
variet
y
(%>5
33!
(1am
mond
et al.,
+,,9
!.
The
e/per
iment
al
desig
n was
a 3 H
2
facto
rial
ar-
range
ment
with
three
soyb
ean
variet
ies
and
two
se/es
of
chick
ens
(eua
l
numb
ers!.
%t
the
end
of the
52-d
e/per
iment
there
were
no
signif
icant
differ
ences
amon
g
sourc
es of
soyb
ean
meal
for
$0,
live
weig
ht
gain,
feed
intak
e,
gain6
feed
ratio,
survi
val,
breas
t
musc
le, or
fat
pad
weig
ht of
chick
ens
(Tabl
e 22!.
Lact
ati!
$
Dair
y
'o1
s
T
o
furth
er
evalu
ate
these
glyph
osate
-toler
ant
soyb
eans,
39
multi
parou
s
1olst
ein
cows
rangi
ng
from
,3 to
+,9
C&@
at the
start
of the
e/per
iment
were
fed
T@R
that
conta
ined
+3.2
D of
one
of
three
whol
e raw
soyb
eans
on a
C@
basis
(1am
mond
et al.,
+,,9
!.
The
soyb
eans
were
two
lines
of
glyph
osate
-
tolera
nt
(53-
3-2
and
9+-
9=-+!
and a
contr
ol
paren
tal
variet
y
(%>5
33!.
The
trial
was
2, d
long,
with
diges
tibilit
y and
F
balan
ce
de-
termi
ned
from
d 2+
to 2E,
and
amm
onia
and
G2%
conc
entra
-tions
in
rume
n
fluid
deter
mine
d on
d 2,.
Ciffe
rence
s
amon
g
#
.o$r
nal
of
Dairy
Scie
nce
S/0+1SIU02 A-(I&U'TU(A' 3I1T#&,*1'1-/
Table 23. Cry
matter and net
energy intakes and
production and
composition of
milk from cows
fed a control
parental line or
genetically
enhanced gly-
phosate-tolerant
soybeans (-T*!
during a 2,-d
trial.
+
&tem
Fumber of cows
C@&, kgBd
F;? intake,
@7Bd
@ilk, kgBd
3.>D 2C@, kgBd
2at, D
)rotein, D
?actose, D
*CC H +3
3
2C@BF;?
intake,
kgB@7
a,b
@eans in the
same row not
bearing a common
superscript differ
(P J 3.3>!.
+
1ammond et al.
(+,,9!.
Table 24. @ilk
production, feed
intake, C@
digestibility, and
nitrogen bal-ance
of cows fed a
control parental
line or genetically
enhanced
glyphosate-tolerant
soybeans (-T*!
during a =-d total
collection trial.
+
&tem
Fumber of cows
@ilk, kgBd
C@&, kgBd
C@ digestibility, D
Fitrogen intake, gBd
@ilk nitrogen, gBd
<rine nitrogen, gBd
2ecal nitrogen, gBd
%bsorbed nitrogen, gBd
Retained nitrogen, gBd
)roductive nitrogen,
gBd
+
1ammond et al.
(+,,9!.
2
)roductive nitrogen
is milk nitrogen plus
retained nitrogen.
treatments were
not significant
for C@, F;
?
, or
F intakes8 milk
production8
3.>D
2C@BF;
?
8
percentages of
protein, fat, or
lactose in milk8
somatic cell
count (Table
23!8 C@
digesti-bility8 F
absorbed or
retained8 F
e/creted in
feces and urine
(Table 25!8 and
concentration of
ammonia F or
molar percent-
ages of G2% in
ruminal fluid.
)roduction of
3.>D 2C@ was
greater for cows
fed glyphosate
-tolerant
soybeans
because both
milk production
and milk fat
percentage were
slightly but not
significantly
greater than for
cows fed the
control parental
variety. These
data indicate
that the feeding
value of these
sources of
soybeans are
substantially
euivalent.
'oercial
/tili4atio!
of 0e!etically
E!&a!ce#
'rops
@odern
methods of
biotechnology
are being
accepted and
used by farmers
who planted
about 53 million
ha of geneti-
cally enhanced
crops globally
in +,,, (7ames,
+,,,!. 2rom
+,,E to +,,,
the global
hectares of
genetically
enhanced crops
increased from
2=.E million
hectares to 3,.,
million hectares
or about 55D
(7ames, +,,,!.
1erbicide
-tolerant
soybeans grown
in the <nited
*tates increased
from +3.2
million ha in
+,,E to +>.3
million ha in
+,,,, euivalent
to >3D of the
33.3 million ha
of soybeans
grown in the
<nited *tates
during +,,,
(7ames, +,,,!.
%lso,
genetically
enhanced corn
that was in-sect-
resistant, $t-
and herbicide-
tolerant, and
herbicide-
tolerant
increased from
E.+ million ha in
+,,E to +3.3
million ha in
+,,,, euivalent
to 33D of the
3+.5 million ha
of corn grown in
the <nited
*tates in +,,,
(7ames, +,,,!.
%ppro/i-mately
=3D of the
soybeans
produced in the
world (Clark
and
$ateman,
+,,,! and
E3D of the
corn produced
in the <nited
*tates
(Fational Corn
-roup
%ssociation,
2333! are
consumed by
animals.
$ecause these
genetically
enhanced
crops were
grown
beginning in
+,,9, they
have been fed
to livestock.
Fo detrimental
effects have
been reported
when these
feeds were fed
to livestock,
which supports
findings in the
research trials
summariAed
above. This
indicates that
the genetically
en-hanced
corn and
soybeans that
are currently
available in the
marketplace
are
substantially
euivalent in
composition,
simi-lar in
digestibility,
and have a
similar feeding
value for live-
stock.
(u
a!
"oo
#
Sup
ply
a!#
Safe
ty
)ssu
es
+ss
ociat
e#
1it&
0e!et
ically
E!&a
!ce#
'rops
&t has been
estimated that
the worldSs
population will
in-crease from
the current si/
billion people to
about +3 billion
people by the
year 2353. &t
also has been
estimated that
the supply of
food reuired to
adeuately meet
human
nutritional
needs over the
ne/t 53 yr is
uantitatively
eual to the
amount of food
previously
produced
throughout the
entire history of
humankind
($auman, +,,28
FRC, +,,5!. &f
we are to ade-
uately feed
this growing
population,
modern
methods of bio-
technology
must be used to
produce crops
that supply feed
for livestock
and food for
humans. 0e
must be sure
that these and
future products
produced using
modern
techniues of
biotech-nology
are safe for both
livestock and
humans if they
are to be eaten
now and in the
future. &n this
regard, $eever
and Memp
(2333! in an
e/cellent
review
concluded
#%dditionally
there is a
growing body
of scientifically
valid
information
available that
indicates no
significant risk
associated with
the consump-
tion of CF% or
the resulting
proteins from
-@ crops that
are registered in
any of these
countries. $ased
on the safety
analy-ses
reuired for
each crop,
consumption of
milk, meat and
eggs produced
from animals
fed -@ crops
should be
consid-ered to
be as safe as
traditional
practices.'
*E"E
*E-
'ES
%ulrich, M., &.
1alle, and -.
2lachowsky.
+,,E.
&nhaltsstoffe und
verdaulich-keit
von maiskorern
der sorte cesar
und der
gentechnisch
veranderten $t-
hybride bei
legehennen.
)ages 59>-59E
in Gerband
Ceutscher ?and-
wirtschaftlicher
<nterschungs-
und
2orschungsanstal
ten Reiche
MongreT
berichte.
-iessen,
-ermany.
$auman, C. ;.
+,,2. $ovine
somatotropin6
Review of an
emerging animal
technology. 7.
Cairy *ci.
=>63532-35>+.
$eever, C. ;., and
C. 2. Memp.
2333. *afety
issues associated
with the CF%
in animal feed
derived from
genetically
modified crops.
% review of
scien-tific and
regulatory
procedures.
Futrition
%bstracts and
Reviews. *eries
$6 ?ivest.
2eeds 2eeding
=36+=>-+E2.
$rake, 7., and C.
Glachos. +,,E.
;valuation of
transgenic
event +=9 #$t'
corn in broiler
chickens.
)oultry *ci.
==695E-9>3.
Clark, 7. 1., and
1. -. $ateman,
&&. +,,,. <se
and future
prospects for
use of soy
products in
dairy cattle
diets. )ages E=-
+3> in
4pportunities for
*oy )roducts in
%nimal
Futrition. 7. M.
Crackley, ed.
2ederation of
%nimal *cience
*ocieties, *avoy,
&?.
Caenicke, R., C.
-Udeken, and M.
%ulrich. +,,,.
;insatA von
silomais
herkVmmlicher
sorten und der
gentechnisch
verUnderten $t-
hybriden in der
rinderfWtterung-
@astrinder.
)ages 53-52 in
@aiskollouium.
0ittenberg,
-ermany.
2aust, @. %. +,,,.
Research update
on $t corn
silage. )ages
+>=-+95 in 2our-
*tate %pplied
Futrition and
@anagement
Conference.
@idwest )lan
*er-vice, %mes,
&%.
2aust, @., and ?.
@iller. +,,=.
*tudy finds no
$t in milk. &owa
*tate <niver-sity
&ntegrated Crop
@anagement
Fewsletter &C-
5=E, *pecial
?ivestock
;dition, %mes.
2aust, @. %., and *.
@. *pangler.
2333. Futritive
value of silages
from @4FE+3
$t and non-$t
near-isogenic
corn hybrids. 7.
Cairy *ci.
E36++E5 (%bstr.!.
2olmer, 7. C., C. ;.
;rickson, C. T.
@ilton, T. 7.
Mlopfenstein, and 7.
2. $eck.
!ol. ", #. S$ppl., 2001 #%
&'A() A*D I+,A((AA-U#((#
2333a
.
<tiliA
ation
of $t
corn
residu
e and
corn
silage
for
growi
ng
beef
steers
. 7.
%nim
. *ci.
=E(*u
ppl.
2!6E>
(%bst
r.!.
2olmer,
7. C.,
R. 7.
-rant
, C. T.
@ilto
n, and
7. 2.
$eck.
2333
b.
;ffect
of $t
corn
silage
on
short-
term
lactati
onal
perfor
manc
e and
rumin
al
ferme
ntatio
n in
dairy
cows.
7.
Cairy
*ci.
E36++
E2.
(%bst
r.!
1alle, &.,
M.
%ulri
ch,
and
-.
2lach
owsk
y.
+,,E.
;inst
aA
von
maisk
orner
n der
sorte
cesar
und
des
gente
chnis
ch
veran
derte
n $t-
hybriden
in der
broiler-
mast.
)ages
29>-29=
in )roc. >
Tagung,
*chweine
-und
-eflWgele
rnUhrung.
0ittenber
g,
-ermany.
1ammond,
$. -., 7.
?. Gicini,
-. 2.
1artnell,
@. 0.
Faylor,
C. C.
Mnight,
;. 1.
Robinson
, R. ?.
2uchs,
and *. R.
)adgette.
+,,9. The
feeding
value of
soybeans
fed to
rats,
chickens,
catfish
and dairy
cattle is
not
altered by
ge-netic
incorpora
tion of
glyphosat
e
tolerance.
7. Futr.
+296=+=-
=2=.
1artnell, -.
2., and 2.
?. 2uchs.
+,,,.
Current
and
future
value of
innovativ
e
technolog
y in
geneticall
y
modified
grains
and
oilseeds.
)ages 9,-
E> in 2if-
teenth
%nnual
Carolina
*wine
Futrition
Conferen
ce,
Raleigh,
FC.
1endri/, M.
*., %. T.
)etty, and
C. ?.
?ofgren.
2333.
2eeding
value of
whole
plant
silage
and crop
residues
from $t
or
normal
corns. 7.
Cairy
*ci.
E3(*uppl
. +!62=3
(%bstr.!.
7ames, C.
+,,,.
-lobal
review of
commerc
ialiAed
transgeni
c crops6
+,,,.
Fo. +26
)review.
&nternati
onal
*ervice
for the
%cuisiti
on of
%gri-
$iotech
%p-
plication
s $riefs,
&thaca,
FN.
?e$run, @.,
%.
*ailland,
and -.
2reyssin
et. +,,=.
@utated
>-
enolpyru
vyl-
shikimat
e-3-
phosphat
e
synthase,
gene
coding of
said
protein
and
trans-
formed
plants
containin
g said
gene.
&nternati
onal
)atent
%pplicati
on 04
,=B35+33
.
@unkvold,
-. )., R.
?.
1ellmich
, and ?.
-. Rice.
+,,,.
Compari
son of
fu-
monisin
concentr
ations in
kernels
of
transgeni
c $t
maiAe
hybri
ds
and
non-
transg
enic
hybri
ds.
)lant
Cis.
E36+3
3-
+3E.
@unkvol
d, -. ).,
R. ?.
1ellmich
, and 0.
$.
*howers.
+,,=.
Reduced
Fusa-
rium ear rot
and
symptomless
infection in
kernels of
maiAe
genetically
en-gineered
for ;uropean
corn borer
resistance.
)hytopathol
ogy
E=6+3=+-
+3==.
Fational Corn
-rowers
%ssociation.
2333. The
0orld of
Corn. <.*.
Corn
Consumptio
n ?ivestock.
%vailable at
http6BBwww.n
cga.comB33
worldB
mainBcornXc
onsumptionX
livestock.ht
ml. %ccessed
on
9B2+B2333.
FRC. +,,5.
)age 3 in
@etabolic
@odifiers6
;ffects on
the Futrient
Reuire-
ments of
2ood-
)roducing
%nimals.
T.C.
;therton, ed.
Fational
Research
Council,
Fational
%cademy
)ress,
0ashington,
C.C.
4stlie, M. R.,
0. C.
1utchinson,
and R. ?.
1ellmich.
+,,=. $t
Corn and
;uro-pean
Corn $orer.
FCR )ubl.
Fo. 932.
<niv. of
@F, *t.
)aul.
)adgette, *. R.,
F. $. Taylor,
C. ?. Fida,
@. R.
$ailey, 7.
@acConald,
?. R.
1olden, and
R. ?. 2uchs.
+,,9. The
composition
of
glyphosate-
tolerant
soybean
seeds is
euivalent to
that of
conventional
soybeans. 7.
Futr.
+296=32-
=+9.
)ersley, -. 7.,
and 7. F.
*iedow.
+,,,.
%pplication
s of
$iotechnolo
gy to Crops8
$enefits and
Risks.
(C%*T
&ssue )aper
Fumber
+2.! Council
for
%gricultural
*cience and
Technology,
%mes, &%.
Russell, 7. R.,
C. 2arnham,
R. M.
$erryman,
@. 7.
1ersom, %.
)ugh, and
M. $arrett.
2333a.
Futritive
value of the
crop
residues
from bt-
corn hybrids
and their
effects on
performance
of graAing
beef cows.
)ages >9-9+
in 2333
$eef
Research
Report
(%.*.
?eaflet
R+=23!,
&owa *tate
<niversity,
%mes, &%.
Russell, 7. R.,
@. 7.
1ersom, %.
)ugh, M.
$arrett, and
C. 2arnham.
2333b. ;f-
fects of
graAing crop
residues
from bt-
corn hybrids
on the
performance
of gestating
beef cows.
7. %nim.
*ci.
=E(*uppl.
2!6=, .
(%bstr.!
*idhu, R. *., $.
-.
1ammond,
R. ?. 2uchs,
7. @utA, ?.
R. 1olden,
$. -eorge,
and T.
4lson.
2333.
-lyphosate-
tolerant
corn6 The
composit
ion and
feed-ing
value of
grain
from
glyphosate-
tolerant corn
is euivalent
to that of
conventional
corn (Oea
mays ?.!. 7.
%gric. 2ood
Chem.
5E6233>-
23+2.
#10
.o$rn
al of
Dairy
Scien
ce