Re: What are the Risks of Cloning?

[Guest guest]

I really think that for a lot of these things the being able to do it is the drive. For us practical types it never makes sense.

Debbie ChikouskyManitoba, Canadagdchik@..."The person who wants something will find a way. The person who doesn’t will find an excuse."

What are the Risks of Cloning?

"Success rate" of cloning no greater than 3% max. article gives links to more info. on cloning none of it is good. Why even do it, is it money, anyone know???? Donhttp://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units/cloning/cloningrisks/

[Guest guest]

I really think that for a lot of these things the being able to do it is the drive. For us practical types it never makes sense.

Debbie ChikouskyManitoba, Canadagdchik@..."The person who wants something will find a way. The person who doesn’t will find an excuse."

What are the Risks of Cloning?

"Success rate" of cloning no greater than 3% max. article gives links to more info. on cloning none of it is good. Why even do it, is it money, anyone know???? Donhttp://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units/cloning/cloningrisks/

[Guest guest]

Even USDA conceeds that there is noone that will produce cloned

animals for food production - not now. It costs between 20,000 and

30,000 to clone one animal. I think they consider that a cloned

animal's offspring might be able to make them money however.

[Guest guest]

Even USDA conceeds that there is noone that will produce cloned

animals for food production - not now. It costs between 20,000 and

30,000 to clone one animal. I think they consider that a cloned

animal's offspring might be able to make them money however.

[Guest guest]

Even USDA conceeds that there is noone that will produce cloned

animals for food production - not now. It costs between 20,000 and

30,000 to clone one animal. I think they consider that a cloned

animal's offspring might be able to make them money however.

[Guest guest]

Despite all the popular press spin, cloning is never going to be

something done to produce an animal you eat. Too expensive, too

technical to be profitable that way. And, all the percentages being

tossed around on the list? You all need to go to the actual

published scientific journal articles because what you quote for a

success rate is very old news and not correct! It's much higher now

because technique has improved a lot.

The bottleneck has always been in the female lines. A good sire can

have literally ten thousand daughters out there via AI.

Where cloning can be of use is to much quicker advance genetic

improvement because you can see more 'production' of offspring from a

cloned FEMALE line. A good cow, for example, is limited to having

only about 4 to 12 offspring in her average lifetime with only half

possibly being female. With a good cow, you could widen that

bottleneck to many more via cloning her.

I don't see it being that big a deal on trying to clone males,

because with AI you already have a huge stockpile of genetics. Using

cloning as a backup though, in case a good male ends up

injured/dead/sterile would be nice. The reason they have done males

in past is that their was a short term profit to be gained by semen

sales on rare individuals.

As pointed out, the costs of cloning are pretty steep and it's not

going to be something that is ever done for true food production. We

have been eating animals produced via AI, in vitro fertilization,

embryo transplant for decades.

Donna

Safehaven Nubians

Dandridge, TN

>

> Even USDA conceeds that there is noone that will produce cloned

> animals for food production - not now. It costs between 20,000 and

> 30,000 to clone one animal. I think they consider that a cloned

> animal's offspring might be able to make them money however.

>

[Guest guest]

Despite all the popular press spin, cloning is never going to be

something done to produce an animal you eat. Too expensive, too

technical to be profitable that way. And, all the percentages being

tossed around on the list? You all need to go to the actual

published scientific journal articles because what you quote for a

success rate is very old news and not correct! It's much higher now

because technique has improved a lot.

The bottleneck has always been in the female lines. A good sire can

have literally ten thousand daughters out there via AI.

Where cloning can be of use is to much quicker advance genetic

improvement because you can see more 'production' of offspring from a

cloned FEMALE line. A good cow, for example, is limited to having

only about 4 to 12 offspring in her average lifetime with only half

possibly being female. With a good cow, you could widen that

bottleneck to many more via cloning her.

I don't see it being that big a deal on trying to clone males,

because with AI you already have a huge stockpile of genetics. Using

cloning as a backup though, in case a good male ends up

injured/dead/sterile would be nice. The reason they have done males

in past is that their was a short term profit to be gained by semen

sales on rare individuals.

As pointed out, the costs of cloning are pretty steep and it's not

going to be something that is ever done for true food production. We

have been eating animals produced via AI, in vitro fertilization,

embryo transplant for decades.

Donna

Safehaven Nubians

Dandridge, TN

>

> Even USDA conceeds that there is noone that will produce cloned

> animals for food production - not now. It costs between 20,000 and

> 30,000 to clone one animal. I think they consider that a cloned

> animal's offspring might be able to make them money however.

>

[Guest guest]

Despite all the popular press spin, cloning is never going to be

something done to produce an animal you eat. Too expensive, too

technical to be profitable that way. And, all the percentages being

tossed around on the list? You all need to go to the actual

published scientific journal articles because what you quote for a

success rate is very old news and not correct! It's much higher now

because technique has improved a lot.

The bottleneck has always been in the female lines. A good sire can

have literally ten thousand daughters out there via AI.

Where cloning can be of use is to much quicker advance genetic

improvement because you can see more 'production' of offspring from a

cloned FEMALE line. A good cow, for example, is limited to having

only about 4 to 12 offspring in her average lifetime with only half

possibly being female. With a good cow, you could widen that

bottleneck to many more via cloning her.

I don't see it being that big a deal on trying to clone males,

because with AI you already have a huge stockpile of genetics. Using

cloning as a backup though, in case a good male ends up

injured/dead/sterile would be nice. The reason they have done males

in past is that their was a short term profit to be gained by semen

sales on rare individuals.

As pointed out, the costs of cloning are pretty steep and it's not

going to be something that is ever done for true food production. We

have been eating animals produced via AI, in vitro fertilization,

embryo transplant for decades.

Donna

Safehaven Nubians

Dandridge, TN

>

> Even USDA conceeds that there is noone that will produce cloned

> animals for food production - not now. It costs between 20,000 and

> 30,000 to clone one animal. I think they consider that a cloned

> animal's offspring might be able to make them money however.

>

[Guest guest]

" The arrogance of some in corporate agribusiness will likely, once

again, drive consumers to purchase organic food, the last bastion of

authenticity in the human food chain. "

" Just as in the dairy industry's adoption of genetically engineered

bovine growth hormone (rBGH/rBST), if the meat industry circles the

wagons they will drive consumers to the natural food cooperatives and

grocers stocking organic meat. "

" The National Organic Program at the USDA, responsible for oversight

of the organic industry, made it very clear that cloned animals, and

their progeny, are strictly banned from organic livestock production. "

" Consumers concerned about experiments with their food supply or

humane treatment of livestock are very uncomfortable with cloning

technology. " A recent opinion poll conducted by the Food Information

Council found that 58 per cent of Americans surveyed would be

unlikely to buy meat or milk from cloned animals, even if supported

by FDA safety endorsements.

The realities of cloning include some disturbing phenomena:

64% of cattle, 40% of sheep, and 93% of cloned mice exhibit some form

of abnormality, with a large percentage of the animals dying during

gestation or shortly after birth

· High rates of late abortion and early prenatal death, with

failure rates of 95% to 97% in most mammal cloning attempts

· Defects such as grossly oversized calves, enlarged tongues,

squashed faces, intestinal blockages, immune deficiencies, and diabetes

· When cloning does not produce a normal animal, many of the

difficult pregnancies cause physical suffering or death to the

surrogate mothers

" Regardless of what the proponents claim this is all about bottom-

line profit and producing more and more of our food from giant

industrial-scale farming operations. We are getting so, so far away

from farmer and the intimate connection between the land,

animals, and the people who care for them in a sustainable and

regenerative system. I wish I could say this was science fiction "

Widespread adoption of cloning could lead to the dramatic loss of

genetic diversity in livestock. " This may leave farmers and our

nation's food supply susceptible to devastating epidemics due to a

monoculture gene pool—think the Irish potato famine. "

All quotations attributable to:

Mark A. Kastel

Senior Farm Policy Analyst

The Cornucopia Institute

Cornucopia, Wisconsin

www.cornucopia.org

[Guest guest]

the argument that the cost of cloning will remain high is quickly

disproven by a glimpse at the history of technology

as for the idea that

" We have been eating animals produced via AI, in vitro fertilization,

embryo transplant for decades " ;

too true ... and look how morbidly obese this nation is. And look how

sick it is. And look how the males have become effeminate and

compliant. And look at the infertility rate. Et Cetera

the proposition that cloning is not much different than Artificial

insemination, and transplanting embryos, is a mistake of the first

order

But not to despair. Hommel comes to visit us in Vancouver at

the

Gold Show. In the last six years, he's made about $20 million dollars

investing in silver, as the US dollar heads down the toilet. Out of

that experience he coined " the Hommel Homily " = whatever the

Babylonian system is doing, do the opposite and prosper.

You can be sure that as agribusiness adulterates the genetics for

producing patented en-flesh, intelligent people will set

up " Heritage Herds' in order to provide proper food for ourselves

When I first heard Gordon boast that he gets $5000 [ five

thousand dollars ] for a cow from a proveably organic bloodline, I

was skeptical. I don't doubt it anymore

[Guest guest]

I really hate to tell you what I think is going on. Alice

What are the Risks of Cloning?

"Success rate" of cloning no greater than 3% max. article gives links to more info. on cloning none of it is good. Why even do it, is it money, anyone know???? Donhttp://learn. genetics. utah.edu/ units/cloning/ cloningrisks/

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

I really hate to tell you what I think is going on. Alice

What are the Risks of Cloning?

"Success rate" of cloning no greater than 3% max. article gives links to more info. on cloning none of it is good. Why even do it, is it money, anyone know???? Donhttp://learn. genetics. utah.edu/ units/cloning/ cloningrisks/

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.