[Closed] cloned beef

They die young due to being beef cattle. Nothing to do with cloning.

Did consumers ask for cloned beef?

They die young due to being beef cattle. Nothing to do with cloning.

No I'm talking about how many die or are born abnormally in cloning itself

No I'm talking about how many die or are born abnormally in cloning itself

How many do?

science will solve all our problems:
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/16/artificial-meat-food-royal-society ]mmmm..... artificial meat vats.....[/url]

i've got no problems with eating cloned beef, i'd eat horse, dog, cat if they were available like in other countries. i'd eat human if i had to (southerner of course, the northerners meat would be too fatty and full of "real beer" 😉 ) .

no expert myslef but a quick google came up with this

Reproductive cloning is expensive and highly inefficient. More than 90% of cloning attempts fail to produce viable offspring. More than 100 nuclear transfer procedures could be required to produce one viable clone. In addition to low success rates, cloned animals tend to have more compromised immune function and higher rates of infection, tumor growth, and other disorders. Japanese studies have shown that cloned mice live in poor health and die early. About a third of the cloned calves born alive have died young, and many of them were abnormally large. Many cloned animals have not lived long enough to generate good data about how clones age. Appearing healthy at a young age unfortunately is not a good indicator of long-term survival. Clones have been known to die mysteriously. For example, Australia's first cloned sheep appeared healthy and energetic on the day she died, and the results from her autopsy failed to determine a cause of death.

In 2002, researchers at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, reported that the genomes of cloned mice are compromised. In analyzing more than 10,000 liver and placenta cells of cloned mice, they discovered that about 4% of genes function abnormally. The abnormalities do not arise from mutations in the genes but from changes in the normal activation or expression of certain genes.

Problems also may result from programming errors in the genetic material from a donor cell. When an embryo is created from the union of a sperm and an egg, the embryo receives copies of most genes from both parents. A process called "imprinting" chemically marks the DNA from the mother and father so that only one copy of a gene (either the maternal or paternal gene) is turned on. Defects in the genetic imprint of DNA from a single donor cell may lead to some of the developmental abnormalities of cloned embryos.

strikes me as not particularly good in order to make cheap beef, if the clones were being used for something that might benefit medical science I would agree, but not for beef. Farmers have been able to produce good healthy beef of an appropriate standard the old fashioned way or with stored sperm.

The cows in question are not cloned, one of their ancestors was. Is this not the same as just eating the offspring of the original donor cow?

I do not think it was done as a way of producing meat, rather an experiment, and they just ended up with a cow that presumably was sold the normal way?

you're laughing if you like to eat brains - most of these cows have at least 2 heads

The cows in question are not cloned, one of their ancestors was. Is this not the same as just eating the offspring of the original donor cow?

Yes but IMO the animal welfare issues are huge, the meat is no doubt very good.

http://beefmagazine.com/mag/beef_improving_genetics_reproductive/

"However, the technology may never become economically viable for large-scale production of calves."

An amazing complicated and expencive way to make dog food.

Yes but IMO the animal welfare issues are huge, the meat is no doubt very good

Eh?

its fairly easy molgrips read what I posted above, think hard and then try reading it again. If that fails I've picked out a key part for you below:

About a third of the cloned calves born alive have died young, and many of them were abnormally large.

I suppose the question in this particular case is therefore: Do the offspring of cloned cows suffer similar infant mortality (and similar) rates if they are conceived 'naturally'?

If the answer is "No, they revert to the same rates as uncloned cows" then there are no additional issues that arise. If the answer is "Yes, they continue to have abnormally high death rates, often with unexplained causes" then there are most definitely animal welfare issues. Does anyone know whether this is the case?

About a third of the cloned calves born alive have died young, and many of them were abnormally large.

This isn't very useful as it seems to refer to cloned calves only, rather than the offsrping of cloned calves.

I love corned beef

Another addition to the long list of shite meat eaters will shove down their gobs.

Hey where'd my post go?

And a_a - f*ck off 🙂

whats the matter molgrips cant you read or something?

This isn't very useful as it seems to refer to cloned calves only, rather than the offsrping of cloned calves.

Well I prefer to take a more longsighted view of animal welfare, its not just the animal that is on my plate that bothers me, but where that animal and its ancestors come from. Its rather like the argument that its OK to have animals in zoo's if they were born in zoo's which has always seemed a little odd me.

Hang on a minute, I don't think I quite follow.

Is cloning being used on an ongoing basis as a beef production technique? Or are there cows that were cloned for scientific purposes then entered the food chain. If the cloning is not continuing, then there's no issue since subsequent cows were conceived in the usual way. If someone is cloning cows for the beef market then that is bad.

And leave off the 'stupid' insults, I'm getting enough unfounded nastiness from Shibboleth on the tattoo thread 🙁

I'm not stupid, and I do care about animal welfare.

mol earlier:
[img] [/img]

🙂

Hang on a minute, I don't think I quite follow.

clearly

Gonna help me out?

I tried, I really did.

Well answer this. Is cloning being used in beef production?

Yes because some farmer is trying to grow beef in scotland using offspring from cloned animals

Right, but is the cloning continuing or is it something that has already happened (perhaps for some kind of research purposes) and is not happening any more?

Still happening but not in the UK. Progeny of the cloned cattle have entered the UK and the UK food chain

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10951108 ]Cloning for beef production[/url]

To be honest I'd be happy for Europe to fall behind the US if it means we don't end up with giant factory beef farms like they have there.

Well I prefer to take a more longsighted view of animal welfare, its not just the animal that is on my plate that bothers me, but where that animal and its ancestors come from.

Fair enough, the problem is, how far back do you go? I'm pretty sure cows in their current form aren't how 'nature' intended. The whole industry has arisen because of the desire to breed animals for a specific purpose, in many cases this is to the detriment of the individual animals welfare. So, what do you do? Go vegan and cease to be a hypocrite? Or take a more pragmatic approach and try to make sure the animal products you buy are sourced from the more humane farms?

I tend to fall into the latter category, but then I don't have a problem with being a hypocrite (I tended to view it as a spectrum, rather than black and white!).

So, what all this boils down to is. Are these cloned cows and their offspring treated well when they're alive? Are they killed quickly and with as little stress as possible? If so, I'm happy to eat 'em!

Its rather like the argument that its OK to have animals in zoo's if they were born in zoo's which has always seemed a little odd me.

I think that depends on the animal, some animals (birds of prey) appear to 'imprint' themsleves on their carers and would be in considerable danger if they were to be released. Others are kept for their own protection (ironically, mostly because we're their major predator). It's a bit of a generalisation to keep animals in zoos just 'cos they were born there. I'd be surprised if that was most zoos policy.

Releasing animals into the wild from zoos is a long and expensive process.

So, what all this boils down to is. Are these cloned cows and their offspring treated well when they're alive?

Its not though is it, what it actually boils down to are how many aborted feotuses, deformed calves and sickly calves were created to make the one good clone

About a third of the cloned calves born alive have died young

Its rather like the argument that its OK to have animals in zoo's if they were born in zoo's which has always seemed a little odd me.

I think that depends on the animal, some animals (birds of prey) appear to 'imprint' themsleves on their carers and would be in considerable danger if they were to be released. Others are kept for their own protection (ironically, mostly because we're their major predator). It's a bit of a generalisation to keep animals in zoos just 'cos they were born there. I'd be surprised if that was most zoos policy

woosh, there goes a missed point

I agree with you AA that cloning would be an (even more) egregious way to get beef. But I don't think that's what's happening, certainly not in this instance.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10951108 ]did you read this molgrips, its happening in the USA and many want it bought here[/url]

Its not though is it, what it actually boils down to are how many aborted feotuses, deformed calves and sickly calves were created to make the one good clone

Yes, but as I said how far back are you willing to go? How many aborted feotuses, deformed calves and sickly calves have been created since humans started manipulating the cow as a species? Genetic modification in it's current form shouldn't be viewed separately to how it's previously been done, i.e. species cross breeding and artificial selection.

woosh, there goes a missed point

Humour me then, because your point was too subtle for me to pick up on! What was the point you were attempting to make?

I did read that, hence my comment about wanting Europe to stay behind the times...

I did read that, hence my comment about wanting Europe to stay behind the times...

good boy well done 😆

How many aborted feotuses, deformed calves and sickly calves have been created since humans started manipulating the cow as a species?

a ****in sight less than a 1/3 thats for sure and thats only of the ones that were born alive!!!

Humour me then, because your point was too subtle for me to pick up on! What was the point you were attempting to make?

the point was that just because something is right with the current generation (bird of prey born in captivity orsecond generation from a clone) it does not mean the ethical issues associated with the previous generation should be ignored.

a **** sight less than a 1/3 thats for sure and thats only of the ones that were born alive!!!

Really? Since humans have started breeding animals for their own ends I'm not so sure the mortality rate hasn't been that low. Of course I'm speculating here (as are you for that matter) we can't possibly know how many died in the early days of farming. It started before recorded history after all. So I suppose your hyperbole could be accurate.

Either way though, you're still discounting the many billions of lives that have been lost prior to cloning coming on the scene, not to mention the associated pain and suffering that went along with it. Seems a bit odd to focus on the (relatively) few that have been lost since cloning arose.

the point was that just because something is right with the current generation (bird of prey born in captivity orsecond generation from a clone) it does not mean the ethical issues associated with the previous generation should be ignored.

Oh, okay. I agree with that, but your argument still seems to stop after a few generations prior. Surely you should be arguning all the way back to the point that humans started getting involved with farming animals, and manipulating their genetics to their own ends? I don't understand the arbitrary point you're starting at, unless you object to the cloning process itself, rather than the idea of genetic manipulation?

The whole point of the cloning is to take cattle that have a really good dead carcass and then clone it to breed with those desirable genetic characteristics but can't be done naturally as it is already dead.

As the whole point is to get genetically superior cattle from a breeding and meat point of view why would you want to breed sickly or deformed cattle? If it works it works. If it breeds deformed or weak cattle farmers will not use it.

Really? Since humans have started breeding animals for their own ends I'm not so sure the mortality rate hasn't been that low. Of course I'm speculating here (as are you for that matter) we can't possibly know how many died in the early days of farming. It started before recorded history after all. So I suppose your hyperbole could be accurate.

If in the beginings of farming and cattle breeding a 1/3 of all cattle died before reaching maturity I doubt we would have continued farming them because people would have starved to death, remember that number doesnt include the ones that were born dead or failed to be carried full term.... I used to live on a farm with beef cattle if you lost one in a hundred calves born alive you'd consider yourself unlucky.

The whole point of the cloning is to take cattle that have a really good dead carcass and then clone it to breed with those desirable genetic characteristics but can't be done naturally as it is already dead.

well clearly it was possible to produce that animal in the first place by the traditional method or am I missing something?

If it breeds deformed or weak cattle farmers will not use it.

is the whole world unable to read, when they find that perfect specimen they clone it, a 1/3 of the clones that get across the death rate before birth will die young, before they get a few healthy breeding stock. This rate will no doubt reduce as the technology improves but is the huge sufferring of those that didnt make it worth it when the original animal was made the traditional way and so can many more, its just a short cut in which loads of animals suffer.

I also was born on a beef farm and my dad and brother still have lots of beef cattle. Saying if 1 out of 1 hundred calves die would be unlucky is a funny way to look at it. My dad is not very happy when any of his calves die but I would say 1 in a 100 for deaths is low.

The current way of selecting and breeding cattle is bad by the same standards as calves produced can be too big or difficult to calve.

Personally I have no problems with cloning as I am quiet happy to eat meat so it would be a bit hypocritical. If it produces rubbish gene stock then why would anybody use it? I would be worried that the low genetic diversity in clones but then current breeds are not so genetically diverse. It will be worse when Monsanto genetically alter the genes, patent it and all the farmers have to pay to use their "genes" or use specific drugs to keep them alive.

My dad is not very happy when any of his calves die but I would say 1 in a 100 for deaths is low.

Depends on the animals for the Herefords we kept it wouldnt be unlikely for some of the bigger breeds as you say problems occur with calves being too big, especially with dairyxbeef cattle.

If it produces rubbish gene stock then why would anybody use it?

as I keep saying but no one seems to grasp its the wastage to get that 1 good animal thats the problem.

I would be worried that the low genetic diversity in clones but then current breeds are not so genetically diverse. It will be worse when Monsanto genetically alter the genes, patent it and all the farmers have to pay to use their "genes" or use specific drugs to keep them alive.

true

The death risk of calves less than 6 months of age in 2002 was 1.76% in Inverness, 5.83% in Cheshire and 4.8% in Norfolk

not quite a third!

I heard a very interesting R4 program called [url= http://beta.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00tgwlr/The_Report_26_08_2010/ ]"The Report"[/url] about this last night. Well worth a listen.

I think that there is a danger of this thread confusing cloning with gene manipulation. The aim of cloning, as GEDA pointed out, is to be able to recreate, many times over, a single prize winning beast. In this way when breeders produce a particularly high quality beast that single animal can be recreated many times over. The aim of this is to produce many beasts of the highest quality for consumption, not for them to be used in turn for further breading.

It was notable that the R4 program did not mention at all any issues relating to animal welfare caused by deformities. Given that it did not shy away from any of the other tough questions needed to be asked was this a journalistic failure or was it because there simply is not a problem of the scale suggested by a_a?

a_a, do you have proof that this practice does cause the animal welfare issues you suggest are likely or are you just jumping to conclusions based on the type of generic cloning info available you've quoted from the web? I'm not having a go, I'm genuinely interested to know. In this thread you've yet to back up these suggestion with hard facts or direct examples.

If in the beginings of farming and cattle breeding a 1/3 of all cattle died before reaching maturity I doubt we would have continued farming them because people would have starved to death, remember that number doesnt include the ones that were born dead or failed to be carried full term....

Oh I don't know. In the beginnings people didn't eat the same quantity of meat as we do now so higher death rates would be more acceptable. Maybe cattle were a luxury item back then, maybe there primary diet was vegetable, or game meat based. Who knows. Even so if 66% of their cattle did survive they'd hardly starve to death.

I used to live on a farm with beef cattle if you lost one in a hundred calves born alive you'd consider yourself unlucky.

Well, it's obvious you're coming at this from a more knowledgable perspective about the industry than me, naver having been involved in it.

not quite a third!

True, but that only goes back to 2002! Not exactly representative of the thousands of years that we have been messing around with cows is it?!

I think that there is a danger of this thread confusing cloning with gene manipulation. The aim of cloning, as GEDA pointed out, is to be able to recreate, many times over, a single prize winning beast. In this way when breeders produce a particularly high quality beast that single animal can be recreated many times over. The aim of this is to produce many beasts of the highest quality for consumption, not for them to be used in turn for further breading.

Ah, okay. I'm comparing apples with oranges then. My mistake.

So, this begs the question why are the death and deformity rates so high and can they be reduced? Clones should be genetically identical to their parent so why is it that these mutations are occuring? Could it be a similar mechanism to that which causes cancerous cells to mutate? If so there may well be interesting medical aspects to learn from this too. Which I suppose puts a whole new ethical/moral spin on it!

Clones should be genetically identical to their parent so why is it that these mutations are occuring?

Cloning afaik takes the cell nucelus and propogates it. There's more to DNA than just the cell nucleus however (mitochindrial DNA) and there's also more to an individual than just the DNA. DNA is the design, but the implementation can vary on a host of factors.

Seems to me there's plenty of room for complex and as yet unknown interactions between nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA and the developing environment.

Hi Peyote, the other part of my point is that I simply do not believe that the death and abnormality rate for calves produced by these cloning methods is anything like what a_a has suggested. I too am from a farming background and a death/deformity rate of anything like 1/3rd would be horrific and no farmer would want to be involved in it. The farmer in Scotland had a herd of 92 healthy heifers in his fields, no suggestions of high death rates or deformities. I suspect that a_a is predisposed to assume the worst of farmers and the farming industry and that a_a's arguments, whilst appearing based in fact, are in fact no more than conjecture.

Unless a_a can provide direct proof that there is actually a problem with this method of food production I'll continue to assume that a_a has put the urge to get in a froth about animal rights ahead of the facts. And please don't assume that I don't care about animal rights, I do.

I was re-reading what I'd first written and just wanted to clarify one point. I said that the clones were

not... ...to be used in turn for further breading.

[url= http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/tech/cloning/cloningrisks/ ]have a look at this[/url]

FEDERATION OF VETERINARIANS OF EUROPE

At present
there are serious prenatal losses of cloned embryos and fetuses, especially in cattle and
other ruminants. Losses are still considerable during the neonatal period and serious
welfare problems can still occur up to 3?6 months. These losses will impact on the welfare
of the surrogate dam when there is a high incidence of dystocia and Caesarean section due
to ‘Large Offspring Syndrome’ in ruminants.

[url= http://www.fve.org/news/position_papers/animal_health/09_001_animal_cloning_final.pdf ]yep your right I got myself into a froth about nothing!!![/url]

[img] ?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1268239803986[/img]

yum yum who's for corned beef fritters?

My understanding is that they clone top quality cattle and make the clones available for breeding. Essentially they are making more high quality breeding stock available at a lower price. So the overall quality of cattle is improved i.e. more and better milk and meat.

Arguably, this speeding up of the selection process reduces diversity in the gene-pool and makes the cattle population more vulnerable to extinctions from disease. But that's always the balance with any specialisation, whether it's evolutionary pressure, selective breeding, clones or whatever.

The farmer in Scotland had a herd of 92 healthy heifers in his fields, no suggestions of high death rates or deformities

you really dont get it do you..............I give up

sorry cant leave it!!!

Unless a_a can provide direct proof that there is actually a problem with this method of food production I'll continue to assume that a_a has put the urge to get in a froth about animal rights ahead of the facts

FEDERATION OF VETERINARIANS OF EUROPE

At present
there are serious prenatal losses of cloned embryos and fetuses, especially in cattle and
other ruminants. Losses are still considerable during the neonatal period and serious
welfare problems can still occur up to 3?6 months. These losses will impact on the welfare
of the surrogate dam when there is a high incidence of dystocia and Caesarean section due
to ‘Large Offspring Syndrome’ in ruminants.

any response?

tyres?