cloned angus bull

Help Support CattleToday:

dun":vx0klfa7 said:
Geneticly modified corn and soybeans have been on the market for years. That's what some of the stink from japan and the EU is about with our beans and corn.
When it gets to cloning I have a totally different take. As someone once said, just because you can do it doesn;t mean you should!

dun

dun
dun
==============
agree. However, this memo gives some reasons why I guess it will become the thing here soon;


COLLEGE STATION -- In a groundbreaking procedure, researchers at the College of Veterinary Medicine at Texas A&M University successfully cloned what is believed to be the first animal specifically cloned for disease resistance. The month-old calf, named 862, was cloned using cells that were frozen for 15 years, representing the longest time ever that genetic material has been maintained by cryopreservation, thawed and then successfully used in cloning.
The calf, named 862 due to his exponential genetic potential, was born three years after the death of Bull 86, his genetic donor.
After testing hundreds of cattle, Bull 86, was found to be naturally disease-resistant to brucellosis, and under laboratory conditions resistant to tuberculosis, and salmonellosis - all serious diseases in veterinary and human health. Until Bull 86 was no longer able to breed, he was extensively studied as part of a breeding research program conducted by Drs. Garry Adams and Joe Templeton from the College of Veterinary Medicine at Texas A&M University and the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station (TAES).
In 1985, cells from the tip of Bull 86's ear were frozen for future genetic study. Fifteen years later, Drs. Taeyoung Shin and Mark Westhusin, also from the College of Veterinary Medicine and TAES, were able to clone Bull 86. A DNA analysis showed that Bull 862 is a genetic clone of Bull 86.
Brucellosis , tuberculosis and salmonellosis are infectious bacterial diseases that can be transmitted from one herd to another and even to humans. Although nearly eradicated in the United States and Canada, brucellosis and tuberculosis are widespread elsewhere in the world and could find their way back into U.S. herds.
"The impact of cloning disease-resistant cattle is potentially monumental,"added Dr. Garry Adams. "For example, in countries where they are unable to pasteurize milk to kill the bacteria or process meat appropriately, breeding disease-resistant cows could greatly contribute to a safer food supply, especially pre-harvest. The potential to combine natural disease resistance with the outstanding production traits of US cattle increases the market value of our cattle in the world market."
"Brucellosis and tuberculosis are prevalent in Mexico and could easily be brought into the United States by stray cattle that swim across the Rio Grande River, or by any of the approximately one million cattle that are imported annually from our neighbors under the NAFTA treaty," said Dr. Joe Templeton. "That's why the potential to purposefully breed this natural resistance into cattle will be an important addition to current disease control methods which have not been 100 percent effective in the United States and abroad."
Vaccinations, testing, quarantine, and even destroying infected herds has not resulted in the worldwide eradication of these diseases. "This research will benefit ranchers in many countries who cannot afford to vaccinate or test their herds for these diseases. These unprotected cattle are a potential reservoir for re-infection of herds in the United States and specifically in Texas since most imports pass through Texas," said Templeton. Once a single infected cow is imported, the disease will be re-introduced and will spread. Even in a disease that does not significantly affect the health of cattle but affects humans, such as Salmonella, the ramifications of the research will be profound.
The College of Veterinary Medicine at Texas A&M University is believed to be the only institution currently using cloning technology as a tool to specifically clone disease resistant animals. Established in 1916, the Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine is one of the world's leading institutions in animal health care and research.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contact: Diane Oswald (979) 845-1780.
For the latest information: http://www.cvm.tamu.edu/news/bull86/
 
Interesting about the original being disease resistant for certain things, wonder if there are others that aren't known just because this one was where he was.
My primary problem with the whole cloning deal is that the clones even though they're geneticly the same seem to pass different traits from their clones. ABS had 2 bulls that were split embyo clones, that has to be as close as you can get to identical, yet the offspring from both bulls were very different. The bulls themselves didn;t even resenble each other except that they were both black.
Then there was the cloned cat that wasn't marked anything like the donor cat. If the genes are the same why are they different? I maintaine it's how they develop that alters things as much as the orignal DNA. That's also why I'm not crazy about flushing. Just because the original building blocks are the same, it's how they get put together that governs the outcome.
But I'm just a crotchety old fart that resists some of the changes that are made in the name of progress.

dun
 
dun":7ibtelce said:
Interesting about the original being disease resistant for certain things, wonder if there are others that aren't known just because this one was where he was.
My primary problem with the whole cloning deal is that the clones even though they're geneticly the same seem to pass different traits from their clones. ABS had 2 bulls that were split embyo clones, that has to be as close as you can get to identical, yet the offspring from both bulls were very different. The bulls themselves didn;t even resenble each other except that they were both black.
Then there was the cloned cat that wasn't marked anything like the donor cat. If the genes are the same why are they different? I maintaine it's how they develop that alters things as much as the orignal DNA. That's also why I'm not crazy about flushing. Just because the original building blocks are the same, it's how they get put together that governs the outcome.
But I'm just a crotchety old fart that resists some of the changes that are made in the name of progress.

dun
==========
dun

Most changes are good. I agree this gives me some problems. To many to delve into. The moral one stands out.

Cloning of bulls ...the subject here...will no doubt results in cross cloning.

You know there is a scientist/research group(s) out there that wants to take the best of many and make one. Thats gotta be where this will go...eventually. It is easy to think.....soon.

When that is achieved...i'm afraid it's not..if..... the best bull(s) now known will become obsolete. All the desired components will be available in one animal....that everyone would want.

What say you...and others?
 
preston39":3kij6vru said:
You know there is a scientist/research group(s) out there that wants to take the best of many and make one. Thats gotta be where this will go...eventually. It is easy to think.....soon.

When that is achieved...i'm afraid it's not..if..... the best bull(s) now known will become obsolete. All the desired components will be available in one animal....that everyone would want.

What say you...and others?

The good part is that it won;t happen in my lifetime. When the beef producers started AIing there was a fear among some that the days of selling bulls would come to a halt because of the genetic superiority of the AI bulls. That never came to pass. There are just oo many variables to thinnk that someone will generate a bunch of super bulls that will take over the beef community. But my clairvoyance powers have been known to be pretty poor in the past.

dun
 
Three years ago a cloned Angus bull was on display at A & M at their yearly Beef Short Course. I asked about the cost and was told cloning a bull would run approximately $25,000+ now (three years ago) but they were projecting costs as little as $10K in 5-10 years.

Of course the man that cloned the "Bramer" did it because it was a PET. That gives all you "ranchers" a whole new perspective, doesn't it?
 
Just out of curiosity- Isn't there something about these animals functionally being the same age as the source of the genetic material they come from when they are born? Seems like that Dolly the sheep didn't live very long and as I recall at the time they said that she was physiologically the same age as the sheep she was made from, so I guess you could say she was born old. :? I don't know-none of this be nice makes sense to me. Not the same as AI or even transfer, there we aren't changing the biological process, just choosing who is involved. Hope we don't get bit in the ass down the road for messing with things we should leave alone. Like Dun said, just because we can, doesn't mean we should.
 
Caustic Burno":1vfz7jan said:
preston39":1vfz7jan said:
Does anyone know where this cloned disease resistant angus bull is? What he is doing? What is going on with him? Has anyone.....HEY TEXAS!!...seen him?

" COLLEGE STATION, Texas (April 27) - A team of French and American researchers has successfully cloned a horse, Texas A&M University officials announced Wednesday. The foal was named Paris Texas......
..........The first cloned cat was born at the school Dec. 22, 2001. Since then, the university has cloned several litters of pigs, a Boer goat, a disease-resistant Angus bull, the first Brahma bull and a deer."


Its playing God in my book.

Aint right.
Heres some food for thought. If a human was cloned would it have a soul? I think not since God(yes I spelled it)did not create it. I would not want to be that cloned person come judgement day.
 
Caustic Burno":b3ud8hz7 said:
If it's dangerous to talk to yourself, it's probably even
dicier to listen, careful on pondering
I still say it aint right

amen
 
dun":22mdrdjq said:
.
Then there was the cloned cat that wasn't marked anything like the donor cat. If the genes are the same why are they different? I maintaine it's how they develop that alters things as much as the orignal DNA.

dun

Ok, I hope I don't confuse things...There is a difference between genotype (genetics) and phenotype (appearance). Just because the spots are in a different place doesn't make them genetically different. Colouration is dependant on the migration of cells carrying pigment in the development of the fetus. The colours will be the same, the placement somewhat different.

And environment definitely has a hand in forming character, personality and abilities. Genetics can give a predisposition, but doesn't stamp non physical traits in concrete.

As for flushing, I have NO problems with that. I just wouldn't ever do it to a virgin heifer, since so many have permanent damage to their cervixes from it...

V
 
Wewild":2zzxbqf5 said:
Caustic Burno":2zzxbqf5 said:
If it's dangerous to talk to yourself, it's probably even
dicier to listen, careful on pondering
I still say it aint right

amen

A post from the Copy and Paste King.... It's wrong and I don't want to here any more about it.
 
dun":2o3skpck said:
ABS had 2 bulls that were split embyo clones, that has to be as close as you can get to identical, yet the offspring from both bulls were very different. The bulls themselves didn;t even resenble each other except that they were both black.
Then there was the cloned cat that wasn't marked anything like the donor cat. If the genes are the same why are they different? dun

Good Question. Having spent many years breeding a highly inbred strain of performance dogs I have seen that all of them; though closely related, and maybe even very similar to progenitors, are unique individuals. What most folks don't realize is "identical" on paper is far different than the actual real life performance and physical traits and production ability that an animal inherits. Cloning is going to be no more "exact" than a super tight inbreeding with a high Wright's Inbreeding Coefficient IMO. Some clones may prooduce the average of the breed, some above, and some below it, just like 2 full brothers or sisters who may have very different EPD's.

This is my question to the "Pro-Cloning" faction out there though. If you are a seedstock producer and are committed to improving your breed, why stay stuck in the mud with yesterday's model? Shouldn't you or some other breeder have improved the breed by producing a new great and defining bull (or cow) by now? If said bull (or cow) did not produce offspring that equaled or superceded him/her in ALL areas of performance, then why breed to that individual via AI today, or worse yet his clone?

Animal husbandry is about going forward! I don't want to stay stuck in time breeding yesterday's old news, I want to be producing tomorrow's legends. I see guys that when the quality of their stock diminishes to a certain point, they go to the semen tank to "correct" what went wrong, and essentially start over again. I always wonder what makes them think they are going to get it right this time around when they fouled up last time and had to go backwards in their program in order to move forward? :roll: Food for thought.
 
MY":2topqr4f said:
This is my question to the "Pro-Cloning" faction out there though. If you are a seedstock producer and are committed to improving your breed, why stay stuck in the mud with yesterday's model? Shouldn't you or some other breeder have improved the breed by producing a new great and defining bull (or cow) by now? If said bull (or cow) did not produce offspring that equaled or superceded him/her in ALL areas of performance, then why breed to that individual via AI today, or worse yet his clone?

Animal husbandry is about going forward! I don't want to stay stuck in time breeding yesterday's old news, I want to be producing tomorrow's legends. I see guys that when the quality of their stock diminishes to a certain point, they go to the semen tank to "correct" what went wrong, and essentially start over again. I always wonder what makes them think they are going to get it right this time around when they fouled up last time and had to go backwards in their program in order to move forward? :roll: Food for thought.

The question this brings to mind is, how to measure if something is superceded and what makes tomorrows legend? In other words, "what consitutes an improvement?"
Too often I see sky high weaning and yearling weights as a goal. With those being too high you start to decrease other traits that may be necessarry for maternal abilitys or longevity. The traits that are highly desired in a steer are frequently the opposite of what is desirable in a cow and probably vice versa.

dun
 

Latest posts

Top