It has been revealed that some of the cattle cloned to help food production in the US used cells from dead animals.
The technique was used because only after the deceased animal's carcass has been examined can the quality of the meat be determined, exceptional subjects are then picked for use in the cloning process.
Gaige wrote:I just find cloning awesome, we're able to utilize science, religious people just hate it because we act like gods even more now, and they can't handle themselves
| 
| Tarnished Coast
Ror wrote:Would cloned meat taste exactly the same? :o
. meat is meat, but what's gone into the meat matters as well.
Day[9] wrote:"Tea is a lot like gold expansions - it helps you kill people."
- Day[9] Daily 337 -
Just Meh!... It's not quite as simple as it sounds and cloning is expensive.Gaige wrote:I just find cloning awesome
They say few consumers will ever eat a cloned animal anyway,
because they are expensive -- up to $20,000 compared to $1,000 for
a normal cow -- and are used for breeding.
That doesn't sound so good, does it?Cloning is the final assault on their well-being and dignity. When the FDA held a public meeting on animal cloning in November 2003, researchers reported a graphic list of problems for clones and their surrogate mothers in cattle, pigs, sheep, and goats—a string of developmental abnormalities and a host of deaths before, during, and after birth. The cloned animals exhibited grievous welfare problems, such as cows with grossly enlarged udders, major leg problems, and other forms of lameness. And these are the very animals trumpeted as success stories.
At the same meeting, researchers reported that among the 134 embryos that survived to term in the largest sample of clones to date, nearly a third of them died before or after birth or within the first year. The FDA put a nice spin on this when it said, "The proportion of live, normal births appears to be increasing." In other words, the situation has improved from atrocious to very bad.
NuclearSilo wrote:Well, genetic information is one thing. How it growths, caught virus during its lifetime is a different story.
Beside, the cost spends in cloning is much more higher than the cost to make the cattle have sex and reproduce naturally.
woutR wrote:Squirt, you're a genius when it comes to raping women.
*BlackFox wrote:Just Meh!... It's not quite as simple as it sounds and cloning is expensive.Gaige wrote:I just find cloning awesomeThey say few consumers will ever eat a cloned animal anyway,
because they are expensive -- up to $20,000 compared to $1,000 for
a normal cow -- and are used for breeding.That doesn't sound so good, does it?Cloning is the final assault on their well-being and dignity. When the FDA held a public meeting on animal cloning in November 2003, researchers reported a graphic list of problems for clones and their surrogate mothers in cattle, pigs, sheep, and goats—a string of developmental abnormalities and a host of deaths before, during, and after birth. The cloned animals exhibited grievous welfare problems, such as cows with grossly enlarged udders, major leg problems, and other forms of lameness. And these are the very animals trumpeted as success stories.
At the same meeting, researchers reported that among the 134 embryos that survived to term in the largest sample of clones to date, nearly a third of them died before or after birth or within the first year. The FDA put a nice spin on this when it said, "The proportion of live, normal births appears to be increasing." In other words, the situation has improved from atrocious to very bad.
You thought it would be an alien? didn't you? lulzGaige wrote:The research and development was, the process, not so much. Like Tsume said, it's a simple process. When I learned the basics on how to clone I was disappointed because its almost just giving birth to a animal, its not a machine pumping them out.
.curve wrote:Unless Silkroad has a hole I can stick it in, I prefer spending money on the girlfriend.
), but hopefully when technology increases the cost of it would go down. 
NuclearSilo wrote:cloned animals possess the same DNA?
*BlackFox wrote:Cloning is Just wrong and insane!
Goseki wrote:The thing about cloning that's so difficult and results in dying clones is that they're cloning starting from old and inserting it into new. As you age, your DNA changes. The biggest problems is there are still parts of the DNA that can't be fixed. Hence, a lot of clones experience problems they normally would have later in life, or even accelerated aging.
Deadsolid wrote:Cloning may save your life one day.
Love wrote:I just wanted to share that I don't think feeding ourselves "cloned food" is even remotely a good idea. What I know about food aside I will just say that our meat/cattle is good/healthy enough as is ( if you ignore the garbage they feed them that turns them also into garbage that is ) and blah blah, cloning hasn't been studied enough and once again our animals are fine ie there is zero need for this garbage and stop not questioning your food sources.
Tsume wrote:The process of cloning is very simple, it just comes down to morals. The question is not 'can we clone' but instead it's 'should we'.
