|
|
Miss Southern Sunshine
Posts: 7427
   
Location: South Central Florida | dhdqhllc - 2013-12-13 12:42 PM OregonBR - 2013-12-13 11:29 AM Swannranch - 2013-12-11 6:19 PM ride n slide - 2013-12-11 3:16 PM Mighty Broke - 2013-12-11 3:07 PM ride n slide - 2013-12-11 3:01 PM I like the idea of having those bloodlines such as Scampers again, but can't help but wonder if some breeders aren't going to abuse the system. Example, say you have a big time stallion still alive with clones already produced. This is already happening. If you pay for an expensive breeeding to the said big name stallion , what's to keep them from sending you semen of the clone? No way to prove it ISN'T the big name stallion's semen. I'd like to think people would be honest and not do that but have seen too many crooks to be niave. This is strictly a hypothetical and not meant to be true.
BUT, Frenchmans Guy could be sterile and they could be collecting off a clone and who would ever know. AGAIN, I am not saying this is happening or accusing anyone---just an example.
As for the law and the government ruling, there was already anti-trust laws in effect in Texas and when a company violates them, this is what happens. I don't like big brother overstepping bounds, but existing laws cannot be broken. This same ruling happened during the beginning of the embryo transfer days.
So next question, if there is no way to tell the difference in cloned or original.....and there is no difference in the colt born...what difference does it make?
Although I have read several articles that clearly explain how the DNA can be identified as from cloned animal or original animal, but it's expensive and would have to be performed on every straw that went out. Not very likely.
There will be those that will (and have) found a way to cheat. So a registeration seperate from AQHA or part of AQHA would at least give them incentive to do it correctly and legally.
The curiosity to me is not if they can read the DNA of the donar, but if they can tell a difference in the foals DNA.
Isn't there a story that Easy Jet was possibly not sired by Jet Deck but by Iron Bird? There was some question about this and I have read that it was fairly common in the old days for breders to name the wrong sires. I have no idea if that's true, but I have read a few books and even read people here talking about "hearing" about it back in the day.
Well I have the possible sire wrong, but there is still a story that a lot of people believe, that Jet Deck was not the sire of Easy Jet. I read it for the first time on here. Sorry I can't remember who the other sire is suspected to be.
I do find the cloning interesting, and look forward to reading more about the science as well as the registration information. | |
| | |
 Veteran
Posts: 208
| Swannranch - 2013-12-13 11:46 AM ride n slide - 2013-12-12 10:10 PM Swannranch - 2013-12-11 9:19 PM ride n slide - 2013-12-11 3:16 PM Mighty Broke - 2013-12-11 3:07 PM ride n slide - 2013-12-11 3:01 PM I like the idea of having those bloodlines such as Scampers again, but can't help but wonder if some breeders aren't going to abuse the system. Example, say you have a big time stallion still alive with clones already produced. This is already happening. If you pay for an expensive breeeding to the said big name stallion , what's to keep them from sending you semen of the clone? No way to prove it ISN'T the big name stallion's semen. I'd like to think people would be honest and not do that but have seen too many crooks to be niave. This is strictly a hypothetical and not meant to be true.
BUT, Frenchmans Guy could be sterile and they could be collecting off a clone and who would ever know. AGAIN, I am not saying this is happening or accusing anyone---just an example.
As for the law and the government ruling, there was already anti-trust laws in effect in Texas and when a company violates them, this is what happens. I don't like big brother overstepping bounds, but existing laws cannot be broken. This same ruling happened during the beginning of the embryo transfer days.
So next question, if there is no way to tell the difference in cloned or original.....and there is no difference in the colt born...what difference does it make?
Although I have read several articles that clearly explain how the DNA can be identified as from cloned animal or original animal, but it's expensive and would have to be performed on every straw that went out. Not very likely.
There will be those that will (and have) found a way to cheat. So a registeration seperate from AQHA or part of AQHA would at least give them incentive to do it correctly and legally.
The curiosity to me is not if they can read the DNA of the donar, but if they can tell a difference in the foals DNA.
Isn't there a story that Easy Jet was possibly not sired by Jet Deck but by Iron Bird? There was some question about this and I have read that it was fairly common in the old days for breders to name the wrong sires. I have no idea if that's true, but I have read a few books and even read people here talking about "hearing" about it back in the day.
So if a colt by a famous stud and a colt by a clone are genetically identical. . . (sire's side) what is the difference? So registration (not necessarily AQHA) would be incentive to register then and stay honest. No registration could be a reason to sell as an original in stead of being honest.
As far as announcing Gills Bay Boy as the sire, hmmmm perhaps there is no other way to list them at this time. Technically, he is genetically the same animal...sort of just in a test tube to receive seman. If anyone ever registers Clones, the lineage will be interesting, but I think the parentage needs an addendium in the name.
How did he do?
Interesting points on this thread, but as for above post,I don't think you are comparing apples with apples. A stud is bred to different mares: different genes and even twins/full siblings have varying genetic make-up. But a clone has ABSOLUTE identical genetic make-up as the donor, doesn't it? So shouldn't it be identicl in every way? Including its siring abilities? But then you get different markings than the donor, as in Clayton, so I must admit the more I think about it the more confused I am! | |
| |
| |
Folks on-line