Slashdot Mirror
Cyanide-Producing GM Grass Linked To Texas Cattle Deaths
Peristaltic writes "Scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture are trying to determine if an unexpected mutation in a popular GM grass, Tifton 85, is responsible for the sudden deaths of a small herd of cattle in Elgin, Texas three weeks ago. The grass has been used for grazing since 1992 without incident, however after a severe drought last year in Texas, the grass started producing cyanide in sufficient quantities to kill a small herd of cattle in Elgin, Texas. Testing has found the cyanide-producing grass in nearby fields as well." Update: 06/23 22:59 GMT by T : Reader Jon Cousins writes with a correction that means the headline above is inaccurate for including "GM." Tifton 85, he writes, is "absolutely not genetically modified. It's a conventionally bred hybrid."
This is scary movie nightmare stuff come true!!!
Grass that kills!!!
How dare your heard of cattle defame the good name of our company by having the nerve to DIE after eating our product. You sir, will be hearing from our attorneys.
Sincerely,
The Monsanto Group
Tifton 85 is actually a hybrid of African Bermuda grass and Tifton 68, a different hybrid produced in Tifton, Texas.
It's not a GM grass.
You've got to be kidding: this report needs to be retracted as it is completely wrong. Tifton 85 is a conventionally bred grass.
It's incredibly irresponsible to print something this inflammatory and wrong. You've now aerated people all over the world with this misunderstanding, and it will continue to be flogged forever with this incorrect information.
Further, people who hear about this won't know what the real issue is and it could cause more cow deaths.
Fix or retract this article immediately.
Pull the story. Get your facts straight. This farmer needs education from a local co-op extention. Any native or hybrid (NOT GM) grass can create this condition! Those that care for truth and real data go here and learn: http://www.uwex.edu/ces/forage/pubs/sorghum.htm
A different report says this can happen in any type of grass. http://www.uwex.edu/ces/forage/pubs/sorghum.htm Young plants, including roots, and leaves of older plants contain a compound called dhurrin which can break down to release a substance called prussic acid or hydrogen cyanide (HCN). The recommendation is not to graze or cut for green chop until the plant is 18 to 20 inches tall.
work in progress
These two grasses likely would have never been close enough in nature to influence each other. While genetically modified doesn't technically include selective breeding, I would argue that we are still screwing with nature and creating something that wouldn't have otherwise occurred naturally. That's how we should be defining 'Genetically Modified.'
Something deadly like this could never naturally evolve in plants! This must be the work of unnatural, man-driven processes! Stop all science now! Anthropocentrism at its finest.
Well, knowing how plants do spread over time, this could be catastrophic unless it is quarantined. We've already seen what happens with an invasive plant species.
This could be an ecological disaster. The grass isn't "new", and this wasn't a test case. It's been sold to farmers since 1991. https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=Tifton+85+bermudagrass
It's clearly for farming, but I wonder how much has ended up around residences also. In any case, this could be really bad. Looking around, it's most likely in too many areas, so it cannot be quarantined and destroyed. ... and I'm not a anti-GM nut.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
http://www.examiner.com/article/gmo-food-hybrid-poison-grass-that-kills-texas-cattle-not-genetically-modified
Unlikely this will affect GM since this grass is a hybrid, not a GM product.
It's not GM. http://www.examiner.com/article/gmo-food-hybrid-poison-grass-that-kills-texas-cattle-not-genetically-modified
The food you eat is usually made from sterile seeds.
Emphasis mine.
There is no chance of it mutating. I hope there are lawsuits too, but not because what I eat is GM, but because the cattle were pretty much poisoned and the owners should be compensated.
Wouldn't a supposedly sterile plant spontaneously producing viable seeds actually count as a mutation? I recall something like that actually happening some years back, when gmo's were all the rage (erm...being raged about). 'Fraid you might have to use your own Google-fu on that though.
Does this mean the end of gmo's? Nope. Are most of them safe? Probably. Does this mean that the anti-gmo folk were wrong? Not all of them apparently...
No, lots of plants produce cyanide (in form of free CN ions) all the time. Its mostly poisonous because it shuts down a key enzyme in mitochondria, but plants have an alternative pathway that is not affected by it. So they can tolerate much higher levels of CN ions (they are still poisonous via other mechanisms, though).
The famous example: cassava roots.
Also:
"Moo!" (thud)
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
It's not GM. http://www.examiner.com/article/gmo-food-hybrid-poison-grass-that-kills-texas-cattle-not-genetically-modified
Let's get rid of all those awful hybrid plants and let most of the people in the world starve. We should be thankful for all the wonderful discoveries that saved billions of lives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
Prussic acid poisoning happens when conditions are right, and this farmer did everything right. And CBS is totally wrong calling an F1 hybrid "GM".
This is a cross of Bluegrass, Kentucky Bluegrass, Featherbed Bent, and Northern California Sensemilia. The amazing stuff about this is, that you can play 36 holes on it in the afternoon, take it home and just get stoned to the bejeezus-belt that night on this stuff.
You're commenting on a story about a widely distributed GM grass unintentionally producing cyanide yet still believing the anti-GM crowd must be nuts?
Yes the anti-GM crowd is nuts and this story only confirms it. The grass in this case was not Genetically Modified.
still believing the anti-GM crowd must be nuts?
Yes, absolutely. Many grasses produce cyanide (usually called prussic acid by farmers). It's common and avoidable (Pro tip: never, ever let livestock graze near cherry trees. Wilted cherry leaves contain toxic levels of prussic acid). Plus this is not a GM plant, it's a hybrid.
Ah, so this is why Monstersanto doesn't want GMO's labeled... Pride in what one produces be damned.
1. It isn't from Monsanto.
2. It isn't GM.
Not GM grass. Naturally bred hybrid. The headline is 100% wrong.
Perhaps you should read the actual article before posting. And, BTW, the first non-PDF result of your posted google search says specifically that it's a hybrid not a GM strain.
If you're actually "not a anti-GM nut" you should act like one.
No, we're all commenting on a story about how grass has always done this and still does, but farmers don't pay attention in school and journalists think boring stories are more interesting if they make up a few facts like "this is GM grass and it has mutated" rather than asking a scientist who would say "Yeah, grass does that, fascinating isn't it?"
The same is sadly true for human food. If you tell average people that the sausages have a perfectly safe GM ingredient, they freak out and won't eat them. Those sausages would be perfectly safe, but they're imagining they'll grow an extra head. But drop the sausages on the floor, or let uncooked pieces of chicken drip onto them, and they're fine with that, because that's just normal everyday danger that actually exists, nothing to get freaked out about.
Several nitpicks:
1) Cyanide compounds are not necessarily poisonous. Most organic compounds with bound CN group are totally harmless.
2) Your organism can tolerate fairly large amounts of CN ions just fine. In fact, it's produced as a by-product of several normal biochemical reactions.
It's worth noting here that the grass may not have mutated at all and simply behave this way under these circumstances.
It does not make anybody "nuts". The information was corrected, and you can change your position after the fact.
I'm anti-GM, and this is apparently just hybridization gone wrong. If anything, this shows how careful we have to be and not proceed with such a cavalier attitude towards research and implementation. This was 20 years. Keeping this in mind, the short term gains demanded by capitalism gone wrong make it seem pretty damn unreasonable and dangerous to not test the crap out of something like this for an extended period of time.
For the record, my biggest gripe with GM is what I see as dangerously performed research (practically no containment of any kind), dangerous precedents in patent law (owning genetic sequences), using it as an excuse to saturate farms with pesticides (bad for environment, bad for food, and allows for rapid evolution of countermeasures in affected species), and its affect (by use) on seed diversity.
Not to mention the logistical nightmare of recouping research and working out ownership of something that, by its very nature, can move and "infect" other crops. Monsanto deserves to burn in hell for all the grief they have given farmers simply because of the fucking wind acting as a ninja-like salesman.
Except that, as noted above and in the revised summary, its not GMO.
Which demonstrates perhaps that the real danger isnt GM, its overreaction, bias, and preconceptions. Oh, and editorial failure.
Tifton 85 was bred using PI290884, from South Africa, and Tifton 68, which is a cross between PI255450, from Kiboko, Kenya, and PI293606, from Nairobi, Kenya.
See Fact Sheet - Cynodon Dactylon
"Toxicity
Some varieties have the potential to produce high levels of prussic or hydrocyanic acid (HCN), especially when high levels of nitrogen are applied. However, instances of prussic acid poisoning in cattle grazing C. dactylon are rare. Although levels of total oxalate of >1% of the DM have been recorded, there is no experience of detrimental effects on grazing cattle. Frosted C. dactylon can cause photosensitization."
What happened at ELGIN, Texas, is just an example of a RARE event. That the field in question has been in production for 15 years, and no other sites using Tifton 85 have reported animal deaths from cyanide, proves how rare the event is.
Tifton 85 has nothing to do with the laboratory manipulation of DNA (Genes).
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
PI-290884 is the name of a sample of wild grass taken from South America. Tifton 68 is a hybrid of PI 255450 and PI 293606 which are both samples from Kenya. https://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1993/v2-294.html
Since this was not a GMO at all, I expect this will be a big blow to conventional hybridization, right? Or are we going to apply a double standard and act as if dangers produced via hybridization should be ignored while dangers form GE (real or imaginary) are cause for panic?
Meddle with nature and suffer the concequences you say? Enjoy your teosinte and goatgrass, and your poisonous potatoes, tomatoes, and beans. Enjoy your seedy bananas.and grapes, your small sour apples, your gritty pears, and the little flower heads on the wild mustard plants broccoli and cauliflower came from.. Because to do otherwise would be messing with nature. Hope those chemical defenses that were bred out of all our crop plants don't give you cancer.
Once you open Pandora's box, you can't shut it again
So let's nail it shut with a few facts from a random but reputable source on the subject of prussic acid poisioning, ....
1. Sudangrass, forage sorghum, and sorghum-sudangrass hybrids are often used for summer pasture, green chop, hay, or silage. Under certain conditions, livestock consuming these feedstuffs may be poisoned by prussic acid (HCN).
2. Exposure to excessive prussic acid--also called hydrocyanic acid, hydrogen cyanide, or cyanide--can be fatal. However, producers can manage and feed their livestock to avoid problems with prussic acid.
3. Grazing stunted plants during drought is the most common cause of poisoning of livestock by prussic acid-producing plants.
Sounds to me that the farmer simply neglected to check his cattle for problems after he moved them. The GM angle has no basis in fact, it is a literary device to attract eyeballs.
Disclaimer: I've labeled myself an environmentalist for nearly 40yrs, I have no problem with GM food because the accusations against it have no basis in reality. I do have a problem with a economic system where it makes commercial sense to rip up mature orange orchards in Australia because we can import them cheaper from California. Unfortunately I don't have an answer and neither do the 'invisible hand' crowd.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
So having kids is GM too, then?
Guess a few people would get a stroke if they knew that.
Of course it is. What makes it worse is that it is a combination of GM and human cloning.
Most forage grasses (such as Tifton 85) produce prussic acid (HCN) in the young plants and new shoots.
The level of prussic acid reduces as the plants mature, but the reducion of prussic acid levels is much less during drought conditions.
When establishing a forage plot, it is comon practice to apply the selective broadleaf killing herbicide 2,4-D. A side effect of 2,4-D application is an increase in prussic acid levels 3 hours and 6 hours after application.
The combination of drought conditions and 2,4-D application, as well as early grazing on this plot are likely to be the culprit here.
In terms that the slashdot crowd can understand: Operator Error and Not Reading the Documentation are likely to be the cause.
And yes, I am an Agricultural Worker.
(Also, I know how to google for facts before I post.)
Read, L
I buy a bag of Golden Delicious, or Granny Smith, or some other breed.
That is probably the worst example to use. A lot of the apples you eat are actually bud sports. Basically, when a bud develops, sometimes there is a mutation in the cells that the bud originates from, resulting in a mutated branch. sometimes these have desirable properties, and are cultivated, but go labeled as the original cultivar, for example, that Golden Delicious might actually be a Gibson Golden Delicious, and you'd never know because they aren't labeled. You didn't even know that bud sports were a thing until just now I'd bet. Of course, you don't know if your peaches are Flamin' Fur or Redhaven, or if your blueberries are Patriot or Bluecrop, or if your raspberries are Meeker or Heritage, or the variety of the vast majority of your vegetables, so what strain of apple you're getting is hardly the only thing you are not being told in the produce isle.
If my corn has genetic material from peanuts in it, I want to know since I have a son with an anaphylactic allergy.
Fortunately no proteins put into crops via genetic engineering are unsafe (nor are they from peanuts), so that is not even an issue.
I KNOW that it doesn't necessarily mean that it would be unsafe, but the seller does NOT have the right NOT to tell me.
What if I told you that the pathogenesis related proteins in plants may provoke allergic reactions, and that we have been, through breeding, increasing them in crops to get better disease resistance? Does the seller have the obligation to tell you that too? The problem with your argument is that there is a lot of things we do to crops, and that genetic engineering is actually only pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. Thousands of genes get shuffled around while only a few well understood ones are inserted. To focus on the inserted few and ignore the rest is neither consistent nor rational.
I have the right to make that decision, not Monsanto.
I agree that you have the right to do as you will, but so do the food producers, and if you do not believe they are telling you enough, don't buy their food. Simple as that. If you wish to avoid GE crops, either eat organic, or avoid tings with corn, soy, canola, cotton, alfalfa, sugar beet, summer squash, and papaya in them (as those are the only crops currently genetically engineered).
while Monsanto's crops definitely can provide a benefit to farmers, their business practices go beyond immoral, it is truly evil
And I find reports of their evil to range from overblown to downright made up. When you look into what it is they do, sometimes its dickish, and in cases in the past (usually relating to their chemical manufacturing) it is pretty evil, but most cases today involving their crops, usually the person they are suing was in the wrong and everyone knew it. But stories like that don't sell was well as 'Evil corporation sues little guy for the heck of it'
I have a right to know whether or not I am perpetuating their crimes against small farms, but currently I don't have that option.
I'd like to know if my produce was picked by migrant workers being paid unfair wages living in exploitative conditions. I consider that pretty evil. At the same time, because it isn't something that affect the end product, I cannot support mandatory labeling for such things.
It's not GMO's or hybrids or any of that that are the issue, it is the lack of disclosure
Baloney. No one labels induced polyploidy or mutagenesis or wide crosses or embryo rescue or anything else, yet no one acts as if they are problems for not being labeled. the problem is not lack of disclosure, it is fearmongers who act as if that is something sinister and people who do not
you can have a no-moo lawn