Hogs Genetics

Iowa State Livestock Research Aims to Uncover How Biological Factors Impact Human Fertility

Thu, 17 Apr 2025 21:25:43 GMT

Despite having sperm with good motility (forward movement) and morphology (cell shape), one out of every four boars experience a conception rate of less than 80%. The issue mirrors human fertility challenges with one out of eight couples struggling with infertility, and one-third of those cases are attributed to male factors, according to the National Institute of Health.

“Pigs and cattle are species we have plenty of oocytes and sperm cells available for, allowing us to conduct in vitro fertilization research,” says Karl Kerns, Iowa State University assistant professor of animal science in a recent article . “They also are effective models for human reproduction compared to rodents, who do not model the human as well genetically or phenotypically at the cellular level.”

He dedicates his research efforts to pigs and cattle .

Kerns’ Lab specializes in molecular reproductive physiology with a focus on understanding and enhancing livestock sire fertility. The lab is equipped with state-of-the-art facilities, including andrology and molecular biology labs as well as an in vitro fertilization (IVF) lab. The IVF lab has computer-assisted semen analysis and time-lapse fluorescent microscopes to image-based flow cytometry paired with deep learning, artificial intelligence analysis methods and sorting flow cytometry.

The lab’s goal is to enhance reproductive efficiency by analyzing sperm quality and identifying biological markers that influence fertility rates. The process involves sorting sperm cells using advanced flow cytometry technology. The sorter system uses microfluidics and lasers to analyze and sort cells based on fluorescence-marked biomarkers.

“We can track thousands of cells per second, identifying key fertility indicators and sorting them accordingly,” Kerns says.

The process allows for an in-depth analysis of fertility potential and production capabilities.

Kerns’ team employs both positive and negative biomarkers to evaluate sperm quality. Positive biomarkers are generally considered good and reflect increased chances of conception, while negative biomarkers can indicate compromised fertility potential.

The team also assesses mitochondrial activity, zinc signatures and protein detection, all of which assist the lab in detecting and analyzing both healthy and unhealthy sperm.

Ian Shofner, a third-year doctorate student in mammalian reproductive physiology, focuses on artificial intelligence (AI) and developing models that predict sperm fertility metrics in the Kerns Lab.

“Currently, male fertility diagnostics are lacking in accuracy, and my work aims to improve these predictions for better assessments of male fertility in mammals,” Shofner explains. “With this, we intend on enabling the industry to make cost-effective AI solutions for fertility diagnostics using affordable brightfield microscopy technology.”

Tyler Weide, a third-year doctorate student in the interdepartmental genetics and genomics program, has an emphasis on uncovering the molecular and cellular mechanisms for fertilization.

“It’s an ideal environment for those interested in reproductive physiology to apply critical thinking in solving complex problems relevant to both agricultural and biomedical sciences,” Weide says.

Your Next Read: Gene Editing: Livestock Genetic Improvement Through DNA Editing

Company News: Promotions, New Hires and Acquisitions

Fri, 24 Jan 2025 22:29:29 GMT

BioZyme® Inc. Hires Steven Stone as ASM in Dakotas

Steven Stone, Strasburg, Colo., joins BioZyme® Inc., as the new Area Sales Manager (ASM) for in North and South Dakota.

In his role, he will work with the dealer network, promote the BioZyme family of brands and collaborate with dealers and customers. As with everyone at BioZyme, his goal is to empower our customers and partners as they improve their animals’ health and nutrition.

Stone brings extensive agricultural sales experience and practical livestock knowledge to his role as ASM. He worked his way from pen rider to mill supervisor at the former Conagra Feedlot in Gilcrest, Colorado. He spent time as a ranch manager, collected bulls at a bull stud, taught high school agricultural classes and worked in sales. He also spent time as an entrepreneur. His early career goals included becoming an agricultural lobbyist, which led him to pursue his first degree in social science at the University of Northern Colorado–Greeley. He then earned a bachelor’s degree in agricultural business from the Middle Tennessee State University-Murfreesboro.

“I’m most excited about working for a company that has the animals’ best interest at heart. Those animals depend on our nutrition, and our job is to ensure they perform. I can fully embrace the care that comes full circle philosophy that BioZyme employs,” Stone says.

Granite Creek Capital Partners Announces Acquisition of Ritchie Industries

Granite Creek Capital Partners, L.L.C., a private investment firm based in Chicago, has acquired Ritchie Industries, Inc. (“Ritchie” or the “Company”), a leading manufacturer of automated livestock watering products.

Ritchie offers a complete line of livestock watering products for the beef, dairy, equine and other livestock markets. The waterers are manufactured in Conrad, Iowa, continuing the legacy of the Company’s founder, Thomas Ritchie, who patented the first automatic float-controlled livestock watering device in 1921.

“Ritchie has a storied history and has built an unmatched reputation for quality and integrity,” said Jim Clark, Partner at Granite Creek. “We are excited to have the opportunity to partner with the Company to build on its strong foundation and explore new products and services that will further expand Ritchie’s market-leading position.”

Mike Ray, Operating Partner at Granite Creek, added, “We are ready to leverage our expertise in livestock markets and animal health to support the Ritchie team. Clean, reliable water access in any weather and operating conditions is vital to a herd’s performance. We look forward to supporting Ritchie’s ongoing product innovation efforts for its customers in the United States and international markets.”

The Granite Creek-led acquisition of Ritchie was supported by an investment from Rural American Fund and a rollover investment from Ritchie’s management and employees.

László Pecze Director Topigs Norsvin Central Europe

László Pecze has been appointed director of Topigs Norsvin Central Europe, and started his new position Jan. 23. He reports to Arno van de Laar, Regional Director Europe.

Topigs Norsvin Central Europe is based in Budaörs, near Budapest, and is active in 14 countries in the region.

For the last 17 years, Pecze managed the pig production and later the total production of a major agricultural group in Hungary. From 2007 to 2008, he was Area Manager and Technical Consultant for Topigs Norsvin.

“I admire the dedication and passion the people of Topigs Norsvin have for their profession and pigs,” Pecze says. “The organization’s staff have been and will continue to be a professional base and a point of reference for producers in the region. Thanks to these factors and the outstanding quality of the genetics and support, Topigs Norsvin is a key contributor to the successful future of pork production in Central Europe.”

Your next read: Elevate Your Expertise: Join Ag Leaders at Top Producer Summit

FDA Clarifies Approach to Genomic Alterations in Animals

Thu, 02 May 2024 19:11:36 GMT

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) took important steps to advance the FDA’s regulatory process for intentional genomic alterations (IGAs) in animals. FDA says the updated guidance underscores the agency’s commitment to further modernize its approach to evaluating and supporting the development of innovative animal and veterinary products to increase regulatory flexibility, predictability and efficiency. The agency also established a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with USDA to clarify roles and responsibilities for regulation of IGAs in animals.

“We recognize that innovations in animal biotechnology offer tremendous opportunities for advancing human and animal health, and that we as an agency need to keep our regulatory approach current with the evolution of the science,” Tracey Forfa, director of the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine, said in a release. “These updated guidance documents demonstrate our commitment to facilitating innovation while ensuring product safety. These technologies hold great promise for many uses and public and animal health benefits, such as animal disease resistance, control of zoonotic disease transmission, improved animal husbandry, and increased food production and quality.”

FDA clarified that IGAs in animals can be made using modern molecular technologies, which may include random or targeted DNA sequence changes, including nucleotide insertions, substitutions, or deletions, or other technologies that introduce specific changes to the genome of the animal. IGAs in animals have many different intended uses, including applications in human health (e.g., reduced allergenicity; “biopharm” animals that produce substances, generally in their milk or eggs, for use in the production of human therapeutics; animals used to model human disease), in improved animal health, well-being, and husbandry practices (e.g., disease resistance, heat tolerance), and in enhanced production and food quality (e.g., faster growth, feed efficiency, nutritional benefits).

The two documents released on May 1 include:

Both of these documents are intended to help the industry understand the existing statutory and regulatory requirements as they apply to IGAs in animals and to inform the public about the FDA’s process for regulating them, FDA said.

“The guidance documents align with the goals of the FDA’s Animal and Veterinary Innovation Agenda (AVIA), which aims to foster development of safe, innovative products and implement smart, risk-based approaches to regulating modern animal and veterinary products, while protecting human, animal and environmental health,” FDA wrote.

The FDA first issued final guidance on the regulation of certain IGAs in animals in 2009. In January 2017, due in part to evolution in the science of IGA technologies, the agency clarified the scope of its guidance to include animals with intentionally altered genomic DNA developed through use of genome editing technologies, in updated draft GFI #187, “Regulation of Intentionally Altered Genomic DNA in Animals.”

Final GFI #187A outlines the FDA’s overarching policy for regulating all IGAs in animals and describes the agency’s risk-based regulatory approach to the oversight of heritable IGAs. It also describes how FDA determines when it is appropriate to exercise enforcement discretion over certain products. In Draft GFI #187B, FDA describes how the FDA approval process applies to heritable IGAs in animals.

“The FDA is committed to collaborating with its regulatory partners across the federal government to ensure that approved IGAs are safe for the animal, safe for people, and that the product does what it claims to do. On April 18, the FDA and USDA signed an MOU that applies to the FDA’s activities involving IGAs in animals that are also subject to certain USDA authorities,” FDA wrote.

The MOU establishes policies and procedures that not only enhance the exchange of information between the agencies, but also describe the regulatory roles of the agencies, and promote coordination of regulatory responsibilities in a manner that will enable an efficient regulatory process. It does not change or add regulatory requirements for developers, FDA noted. Additional details can be found here.

The FDA said it encourages developers of IGAs in animals to approach the agency early in their research and development phase to discuss the specific risk profile of the proposed product and the appropriate pathway for commercialization. For products that qualify, the agency recommends participation in the Veterinary Innovation Program, intended to assist developers of innovative veterinary products, including certain IGAs in animals, by providing intensive technical and programmatic assistance throughout the approval process in order to make it as efficient as possible.

The agency requests public comment on GFI #187B for 90 days starting on May 2. To ensure the FDA considers comments before it begins work on the final version of GFI #187B, members of the public should submit comments by July 31.

How Does Iowa State Research on Swine Sire Fertility Impact Cattle, Humans?

Wed, 23 Mar 2022 19:43:03 GMT

Sire infertility is a problem for the reproductive performance of swine, despite the greater attention that has long been given to the female side of the equation.

“We know that 25% of the boar herd has less than 80% conception rates, which is considered unacceptable by industry,” said Karl Kerns, assistant professor of animal science at Iowa State University and 2014 alum of the same department. “By adding even one more pig to a litter, we could increase production by an estimated $120 million annually. To improve that, we need to learn more about what influences the capacity of sperm to fertilize. That means developing better tools for researching sperm health – and making it easier for the industry to use the knowledge we already have.”

Kerns is leading a new five-year grant from the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture to support research on boar sperm capacitation -- the biological pathways that support spermatozoa’s ability to fertilize. The grant is one of 14 funded nationwide under NIFA’s Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) - Animal Reproduction Program. This project, and two other recent awards to collaborate with colleagues at the University of Missouri and the USDA Agricultural Research Service, total $1.7 million in federal support for Kerns’ work studying male fertility.

Kerns takes a molecular approach to analyze the biochemical makeup of sperm, especially the proteins, fats and energy sources that signal which sperm are more – or less -- fertile. The AFRI project focuses on swine, but has implications for other species, including cattle and humans.

To study sire fertility, he uses a state-of-the-art piece of equipment found in few andrology labs around the world: an image-based flow cytometer, “basically a high-throughput microscope,” he explained. In a matter of a 30-60 seconds, the cytometer allows imaging of up to 10,000 sperm cells and up to nine biomarkers within each cell. Kerns then uses computer-based artificial intelligence to link the resulting vast data set of images with reproductive outcomes. This kind of equipment and approach has become more common in human health research, such as the cancer field, but it has not been used to study livestock fertility, according to Kerns.

The project has multiple goals, including reducing barriers in the swine industry to use the best available information on swine genetics and reproductive capacity.

“In the past, the uptake of relevant technology has been slowed by the high cost of lab equipment, the need for highly skilled labor and increased analysis time, none of which are conducive to production,” said Kerns. “This new project will use analytical software resources aimed at providing accessible, economical methods and equipment that can more quickly translate findings from the lab bench to barns.”

Another aspect of the research is to investigate the lipid (or fats), protein and energy sources of fertile spermatozoa to see if supplements can increase sperm cell survival after insemination and boost fertility.

His previous foundational work has already had an impact on the livestock industry. While doing graduate and postdoctoral research at the University of Missouri, he and his team found a relationship between zinc ions and the fertilization competency of boar spermatozoa. That information, now termed the “mammalian sperm zinc signature,” has improved boar and bull fertility diagnostics. Further research on the influence of zinc on sperm health is an ongoing area of focus.

“Male fertility is one part of the fertility equation that is often overlooked, but it’s critically important,” Kerns said. “However, this is not just about swine. We are taking a ‘One Health’ approach that is likely to be relevant to other mammals, including cattle and humans. For instance, infertility is a costly issue for the beef industry, representing a $4.7 billion annual loss for U.S. cattle producers.”

“Eventually this could also lead to better fertility diagnostics for humans,” he said. “One out of eight couples struggle with infertility. We know that men contribute up to two-thirds of the problem directly and indirectly. Current human infertility treatments are not only very expensive, with low success rates, but also can put undue stress on the emotional health of the couple when not diagnosed correctly. Having better diagnostics to identify male fertility issues, and better ways to address them, could reduce the stigma we now often unduly place on women and greatly boost reproductive success for couples.”

Read more from Farm Journal’s PORK:

Boar Fertility: It’s Not Just About Form and Speed

$10-Million USDA Grant to Develop Cell-Cultivated Meat in Bioreactors

Mon, 08 Nov 2021 17:21:35 GMT

A team of researchers led by a Tufts University professor has received a five-year, $10-million grant from the USDA to develop an alternative food source: meat produced not from farm animals, but from cells grown in bioreactors, the university reports.

David Kaplan, Stern Family Professor of Engineering, and his team of graduate students at Tufts, a private university in Middlesex County, Mass., will bring together engineers, biologists, nutrition researchers and social scientists in an effort to grow cell-cultivated meat in bioreactors.

“Cultivated-meat production is emerging as an alternative source of sustainable protein to help address nutrition and food safety for consumer choices,” Tufts reports. Kaplan and his team have led other projects exploring how to grow meat directly from animal cells.

Kaplan believes that this new industry could provide nutritious and safe foods while reducing environmental impact and resource usage—with a target of significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, land use and water use than traditional meat production, he told Tufts.

Interdisciplinary teams will evaluate consumer acceptance of cultivated meat, measure the environmental impact of the manufacturing process, assess the economic viability compared to farm production, and prepare the next generation of the industry’s workforce, the article said.

“Part of our research will look at improving the nutritional content, shelf life, and other qualities of cell-based meat, along with assessments of impact on consumer perceptions and acceptance,” Kaplan said in the article.

Do Consumers Want to Eat Cell-Cultivated Meat?

The verdict is still out on whether or not consumers will accept and rally around cell-cultivated meat. According to Kaplan in the article, “That’s still an unknown, and that’s why we included consumer acceptance as an important part of our study. The only data point we have so far is the overwhelming receptivity of consumers to plant-derived meats, like the Impossible Burgers and Beyond Burgers.”

But plant-derived meats are different than cell-based meat, he pointed out. He anticipated positive views, but admits he can’t be sure.

Part of his team’s research will look at improving the nutritional content, shelf life, taste and flavor, and other qualities of cell-based meat. Kaplan believes this could have an impact on consumer perceptions and acceptance.

“If life-cycle analysis shows significant advantages in sustainability and environmental impact, that could also have a positive effect on acceptance as well,” he told Tufts.

More from Farm Journal’s PORK:

Is There Room at the Table for Meat and Alternative Proteins?

Eat Just Raises Funding to Expand Cell-Based Meat

Industry Groups Call for Mandatory Labeling of Cell-Based and Cultured Meat Products

Gene Editing: Experts Say it’s Time to Remodel Regulatory Landscape

Fri, 16 Jul 2021 14:13:04 GMT

In order for gene editing in agricultural animals to “unleash enormous gains in productivity,” a remodeling of the federal landscape is imperative, experts conclude.

The panel, convened by the American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges (AAVMC) and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), has spent the past 18 months studying this issue and recently released the “ AAVMC/APLU Gene Editing in Agriculture Task Force Report .”

“Gene editing has the capacity to create transformational change in our food production systems,” Noelle Cockett, president of Utah State University, a renowned geneticist, and chair of the task force said in a release. “But in order to realize those benefits in production and safety, we need a regulatory structure that has kept pace with technology.”

The report suggests current regulatory protocols have not kept up with technological change and must be modernized in order for society to realize the benefits of new scientific capabilities. Reform is needed to address the food security and sustainability needs of a global population expected to reach 10 billion people by 2050.

“For the promises of applying gene editing in livestock to be realized, federal regulatory approval and monitoring processes that are rooted in science and streamlined with the pace of development, as well as public acceptance of food derived from gene edited animals, are essential,” authors said in the report.

If remodeling of the federal regulatory landscape doesn’t happen soon, the U.S. will not be able to sustain its place as a global leader and innovator in the animal agriculture sector and keep up with the expanding global human population, the report said.

Regulatory recommendations
Currently the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates genetic work on food animals as an “animal drug” under protocols developed during the early phases of the Biotechnology Revolution. The USDA regulates these technologies with crops.

The report offers these recommendations:
1. Update the existing FDA regulatory framework (currently based upon processes established for transgenic technologies that are out of step with state-of-the-art gene editing technologies) and develop a coordinated, streamlined, fact-based, and cost-effective assessment and approval process between the USDA and FDA to ensure safe food.

2. Develop an evidence and logic-based decision-making protocol for gene editing applications that is regulated separately from transgenic-based GMOs which result from the integration of recombinant DNA.

3. Develop streamlined assessment and approval processes that categorize gene editing applications based on: a) the type of genomic change being created, b) the method used for creating the genomic change, c) the impact on the welfare of the animal, and d) the potential for negative impact on the environment.

4. Develop a regulatory channel for approval of gene-edited agricultural animals with genomic structures that could have arisen in nature as safe for human consumption.

Steps to Unlock the Potential
The panel also outlined a series of steps that could help pave the way for fully reaping the potential benefits of gene editing technology:

• Establish a national coalition of scientific experts, bioethicists and engagement specialists from APLU and AAVMC member institutions to serve as a sounding board and think-tank related to the modernization of the existing federal regulatory framework.

• Engage with federal legislators, staffers, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and inform them on key issues related to regulatory approval and monitoring processes for gene editing applications in livestock.

• Distribute the task force report to stakeholder organizations and agencies like U.S. Land-grant universities, the FDA, the USDA, the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, the Gates Foundation and others.

• Establish a University Research Consortium of scientific experts developing gene editing applications in livestock that will facilitate collaborative research and educational initiatives.

“Our task force has thoughtfully and carefully considered many different aspects of this issue, including perspectives from the scientific and agricultural communities, and we have made our recommendations. We hope this work will meaningfully inform the work of government officials as they develop the best public policy in this area,” Cockett said in a release.

Task Force members include Cockett; Jon Oatley, Washington State University; Bhanu Telugu, Universities of Missouri and Maryland; Londa Nwadike, Kansas State University and University of Missouri; Jonathan Beever, University of Tennessee; Rex Dunham, Auburn University; and James Murray, University of California, Davis; Kathy Simmons, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association; and Clint Nesbitt, Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO). The task force was staffed by AAVMC Director for Governmental Affairs Mr. Kevin Cain.

Read the full report .

Read more:

FDA Stalls U.S. Gene-Edited Livestock Efforts

USDA Oversight of Gene-Edited Livestock: A Seismic Shift for Agriculture

Gene Editing Promise Stalled at FDA

Virus-Resistant Pigs Provide Answers to Global Threats

Ag Needs White House Support on Gene-Edited Livestock Oversight

.

Livestock Producers on Level Playing Field Thanks to MOU Between USDA and FDA

Tue, 19 Jan 2021 20:46:06 GMT

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been finalized regarding regulation of certain animals developed using genetic engineering. USDA announced the MOU with the Food and Drug Administration that outlines responsibilities regarding genetically engineered animals that are intended for agricultural purposes such as human food, fiber and labor.

This MOU complements USDA’s issuance of an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on the Movement of Animals Modified or Developed by Genetic Engineering on December 28, 2020.

“Today’s Memorandum of Understanding clears a path to bring our regulatory framework into the 21st century, putting American producers on a level playing field with their competitors around the world. In the past, regulations stifled innovation, causing American businesses to play catch-up and cede market share,” said U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue in a release. “America has the safest and most affordable food supply in the entire world thanks to the innovation of our farmers, ranchers and producers. Establishing a new, transparent, risk and science-based regulatory framework would ensure this continues to be the case.”

The terms of the MOU support USDA’s ANPR outlining a contemplated regulatory framework that would apply to certain animals (cattle, sheep, goats, swine, horses, mules, or other equines, catfish, and poultry) developed using genetic engineering intended for agricultural purposes, USDA explains. Under this framework, USDA would safeguard animal and human health by overseeing pre-market reviews through post-market food safety monitoring for certain farm animals modified or developed using genetic engineering that are intended for human food.

The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) applauded the MOU signed between the USDA and the FDA, giving USDA primary regulatory jurisdiction over the development of gene-edited livestock.

“NPPC has been calling for this decision for more than three years to ensure that U.S. agriculture maintains its competitive edge globally. We look forward to working with the Biden administration to implement a technology that has the potential to improve animal health, further reduce agriculture’s environmental footprint and improve production efficiency,” NPPC said in a statement.

The MOU also allows for the transition of portions of FDA’s pre-existing animal biotechnology regulatory oversight to USDA. USDA would continue to coordinate closely with FDA to fulfill oversight responsibilities and provide the appropriate regulatory environment, ensuring the safety of products derived from new technologies and fostering innovation at the same time, the release said.

FDA would continue its review of intentional genomic alterations intended for any purpose other than agricultural use, such as biopharma and non-heritable genomic alteration, and the regulation of dairy products, table and shell eggs, certain meat products and animal feed derived from animals developed using genetic engineering.

Read More:

FDA Stalls U.S. Gene-Edited Livestock Efforts

USDA Oversight of Gene-Edited Livestock: A Seismic Shift for Agriculture

USDA Oversight of Gene-Edited Livestock: A Seismic Shift for Agriculture

Mon, 21 Dec 2020 21:01:23 GMT

USDA announced its intention on Monday to have primary oversight over gene-edited livestock. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said this would be a significant step in modernizing regulations of agricultural animals modified or produced by genetic engineering.

“This would be a seismic shift for agriculture,” Greg Ibach, USDA undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs, told AgriTalk’s host Chip Flory on Monday. “This provides an opportunity for U.S. animal agriculture to catch up with our competitors worldwide, since Canada, Argentina, Brazil and China all have paths forward for animal biotechnology that improve animal health and animal welfare and we do not. This will help our producers be able to use less antibiotics, treat fewer sick animals, and be able to eliminate traits that like horns that cause animal stress in the production cycle.”

Last year, President Trump ordered federal agencies to streamline the approval process for biotechnology products used in farming. Secretary Perdue announced that USDA will move forward with an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit public input and feedback on a contemplated regulatory framework that would modernize our system into a scientifically-sound, risk-based, and predictable process that facilitates the development and use of these technologies for U.S. farmers and ranchers under USDA’s authorities.

“Earlier this year we moved forward with the secure rule which paved the way for the first update for plant biotechnology regulation in 30 years. We’ve continued to work and using APHIS’ animal health authorities and FSIS’ food safety authorities, we now have a proposal that we would like to take comments on where we would use those authorities to be able to provide a safe, seamless, predictable, science-based way forward to approve animal biotechnology trade,” Ibach explained.

The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) already has a review process in place for gene editing in plants, which can serve as a model for livestock.

“FDA has taken a look at the food animal biotechnology trade and has attempted to regulate them under their drug authority,” Ibach said. “As we know, these don’t represent drugs, they are alternations that enhance health, enhance animal welfare – traits like the hornless Holstein cow that was developed by Alison Van Eenennaam. Working with FDA to identify a path forward using our animal health and food safety regulatory authority for food animals is progress.”

FDA would still maintain authority over animals that have biotechnology traits that allow for biomedical or pharmaceutical uses, he added.

“It seems like common sense to have this at USDA rather than FDA. But that’s from a farm boy’s perspective,” Flory said.

So, how do you explain this to a consumer?

“Each and every day and for the past 30 years, USDA has regulated plant biotechnology and we’ve identified traits and advances in plants that have improved the availability of food for consumers across the world and lessened the amount of herbicides and pesticides used to produce crops,” Ibach said. “And we’ve done that successfully without any adverse side effects.”

USDA plans to use the same food safety and animal health statutes where they have authority to regulate animals and apply them to animal biotechnology.

A Quantum Leap Forward
The U.S. has long been a leader in livestock genetics. Unfortunately, without a clear path forward, researchers are going to Canada, Brazil, Argentina and China to be able to commercialize these technologies because we do not have a clear path forward in the U.S., Ibach said.

“This will help us be able to put American farmers and ranchers first – put them in the driver’s seat – if we can develop a predictable regulatory authority that will give them access to these traits and not their foreign competitors,” Ibach added.

Without this change, it will become continually harder for the U.S. to compete. Moving oversight to USDA will make the process better to advance technology to develop immunities that would reduce the use of antibiotics, develop traits that would ensure continued humane treatment and maybe even enhance humane treatment on our farms, and decrease animal suffering and all those things would be good for consumers, he said.

The Federal Register will publish this posting on Dec. 28, beginning a 60-day comment period. Ibach encouraged all interested parties to give input about what they would like to see and what the advantages they see to USDA moving forward with a rulemaking and what factors would be important in a proposed rule from USDA.

“We think this is something that is very good for agriculture, and that it’s not administration-driven. It will be just as good for agriculture today as it will be in 3060 or 360 days from today. We believe that we’ll see a strong response from agriculture and animal agriculture especially. We anticipate that the comments that we will receive will be used by the next administration as they contemplate moving forward with a rule,” Ibach said.

More from Farm Journal:

Trade, ASF Prevention, Proposition 12 Top NPPC’s 2021 Priorities

NPPC Campaign Broadens Awareness of Gene Editing’s Promise

Ag Needs White House Support on Gene-Edited Livestock Oversight