Advantage of cloning?

[JoeR]

I keep seeing on the news how the USDA has approved clone animals for human consumption.

What is the benefit of cloning over AI? Is it really cost effective for ranchers or dairy farmers to clone? I just can't see the real benefit over the cost. A good breeding program should be almost as effective as cloning, but not sure how it works on large scale agri-business.



Joe

[JazzDad]

Well, if you get a good one, it will be consistently good. Well, if you get a good one, it will be consistently good. Well, if you get a good one, it will be consistently good. Well, if you get a good one, it will be consistently good. Well, if you get a good one, it will be consistently good. Well, if you get a good one, it will be consistently good. Well, if you get a good one, it will be consistently good. Well, if you get a good one, it will be consistently good. Well, if you get a good one, it will be consistently good. Well, if you get a good one, it will be consistently good.

[jdc40]

I would think that cloning cost wise would be higher than AI. If you had a "perfect animal" you get that result everytime( in theory) by cloning. When you AI your passing good genes from each parents gene pool, but that doesn't mean that animal will perform on the same level, but it has a good chance. My question is what animals will be considered "perfect to clone" and who will be determining what animal gets cloned. Jerry

[JoeR]

I was taught that reproduction and mixing of the gene pool helped increase resistance to diseases. If you clone an entire herd, then when one gets sick, they all get sick! You could lose the entire herd to some simple bacteria. That's a big risk! I could see somone cloning a prize winning bull, but if you keep using the same gene pool, then the species never improves beyond that.

Joe

[Pat]

jdc and Joe, I don't think the ag industry proponents of cloning are so uninformed as to not have considered everything we have mentioned and more. IF all the factors that they consider, in aggregate do not disuade them from cloning it is probably for good cause (AKA improved bottom line.)

I wonder about the loss of genetic diversity as was mentioned. Diversity is what may let a few animals survive a threat and live to pass on the survival characteristic. I don't know how the cloning would be applied. Maybe as a part of a selective breeding program with plenty of genetic diversity where superior animals are developed and then cloned with only the clones at great risk to a pathogen comprising a "magic bullet."

I am somewhat amazed at all the ignorance in the general population regarding the safety of eating cloned beef or eggs from cloned super hens or milk from cloned super milker cows. The average person on the street probably hasn't a clear understanding of the difference between cloning and transgenetics. I am a lot more worried about transgenetics than clones.

Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[aussie]

Hi, Pat. Cows, sheep, and most other creatures we are familiar with, including ourselves, produce the occasional set ot twins. Identical twins, I assume, are genetically identical, and we think nothing of eating either or both bovine twins, or either or both twin of any other domesticated species. Why should clones be any different?

[Pat]

aussie, I agree that the twins are pretty much equivalent of clones with respect to one another but not with respect to a parent for whatever difference that could make. I agree with you completely, as regards cloned beef should be safe. I would consider it safe unless or until there is some way to show that the genetic code describing the animals formation is altered or damaged somehow in the cloning techique. The theory, on the surface, is certainly not something to cause concern. You just trick the sexual reproduction process to take off with only the genetic info of a single animal not the traditional pair.

There is something to be said for redundancy and the error correcting possibillties when you have two sets of genetic data. There is a higher probability of a genetic error when cloining but I don't think anyone is suggesting cloning the clones of clones. That would be like making a Xerox copy of a Xerox copy of a Xerox copy. Error rrates multiply and soon you would have quite defective animals that might not survive to be born.

My "take" on cloning is to try to find a genetic foundation animal with minimal genetic "shortcomings" so the copy process introduces the least error into the cloned animal. If you start with good genetics and stop at the first generatiion clone I have trouble seeing how eating the clone would be dangerous.

Unfortunately the general public is essentialy ignorant of even the basics of science, at least here in the good old U.S. of A. where creation science (an oxymoron) is considered on equal grounds along side real science.

I think the basic idea of cloning the best of the best to produce the best carcass traits in commercial slaughter is sound and will eventually reduce the risk of getting a "bad" cut of meat, too tough to enjoy.

I almost forgot... You asked, "Why should clones be any different?"

Twins are identical copies (give or take mionor errors) of each other. Two animals made from the same recipe so pretty similar results. They are however, made from two different sets of genetic codes (one set from each parent) and the redundancy helps correct for errors.

On the other hand clones have two copies of the same identical genetic codes so there is no redundancy as with twins (or single births through normal means.) This introduces risk precisely because there is no redundancy, no way for errors to be detected or correncted. This will increase the number of genetic deficiencies which will be and are expressed in vaious deformaties, not only visible deformaties, but various problems at the lowest levels of synthesis in the chemical processes in the animals body. If you code incorrectly for a particular protein or whatever you might get a sheep that looks like mom but dies at an early age because it just "wasn't right." Remember Dolly?

I don't claim this makes the meat poison but I am not an expert and will defer to proper science to take a whack at the issue before I run to the supermarket to stock up on SUPER BEEF.

Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[egon]

I'm all for "Cloning". Can you imagine a world full of worker "Egons"?

Durable backs, mild, even temperment, easily led, and all with a bulb of sufficient wattage to be productive yet not create problems! [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img] IE- Dim bulb! [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

Egon [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

[aussie]

There is no shortage of Creationism or Intelligent Design down here, Pat, although most of it's advocates come from USA based religions (thank you so much [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] ).Your reply made very interesting reading and helped clear up some of the areas not covered in the Media. What about plants grown from cuttings? Are they considered to be cloned? I am thinking about food plants here, of course..

[Pat]

Egon, I wish I could clone myself and get a late teen or early adult real fast. Maybe better 4-7 of them. Maybe I could get some more of my projects done in a realistic time frame. I wiold need to adjust the personality profile in a few ways to ensure desireable results.

HMMMM< recall the comedy movie, "Multiplicity?"

Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]