|
|
 Extreme Veteran
Posts: 486
 
Location: CentralTexas | It depends on what bloodlines you are cloning. Everything in the breeding industry can either be helpful or harmful. I never said it was the smartest thing in the world, but in some cases it can help diversify the gene pool. | |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 486
Location: CentralTexas | FlyingHigh1454 - 2016-04-20 10:01 AM
hannavashays - 2016-04-20 10:37 AM
Well I'll put my 2 cents in since this is exactly what I'm going to college for, about to get my Master's in. You don't clone animals to compete on them. You can't clone grit, you can't clone heart, or try, or toughness. No, you clone to carry on good genetics. Do I think it's smart? In my opinion, not really. I can't afford it, even though i would love to clone my nice horse who only has one full sister left alive and no brothers. Too much money with no guarantees. But if you have the money to do it, go ahead! The reason you clone is to keep those genetics alive. That's the main reason. It's very rarely about personal attachment or the fact that they want them as a pet for when the original dies. Red Man Bay, Latte, Hot Shot, Scamper. They were cloned to carry on those genetics since they were and are all geldings. Only one of these horses is still alive. I don't care if you agree with it on an ethical level, but for keeping the gene pool fresh, I'm all for it. There is too much inbreeding going on in our industry anyway.
I understand why one would clone a gelding, especially one that isn't from major bloodlines. It does make for an outcross sire that has proven athletic ability.... but come on. They cloned frenchman's guy, not just once. That was probably the stupidest thing IMO. He has thousands of foals.... his time came and now his time needs to leave for the gene pool to survive.
I agree with that one. You shouldn't clone high producing stallions. That is unhelpful and just wasteful. The gene pool doesn't need it. If there are good genes that are dying out with great geldings, decide if those genes are worth saving, and clone them. That is what makes the most sense about cloning. It's all about selection! | |
| | |
 Not Afraid to Work
Posts: 4717
 
| hannavashays - 2016-04-20 11:36 AM
FlyingHigh1454 - 2016-04-20 10:01 AM
hannavashays - 2016-04-20 10:37 AM
Well I'll put my 2 cents in since this is exactly what I'm going to college for, about to get my Master's in. You don't clone animals to compete on them. You can't clone grit, you can't clone heart, or try, or toughness. No, you clone to carry on good genetics. Do I think it's smart? In my opinion, not really. I can't afford it, even though i would love to clone my nice horse who only has one full sister left alive and no brothers. Too much money with no guarantees. But if you have the money to do it, go ahead! The reason you clone is to keep those genetics alive. That's the main reason. It's very rarely about personal attachment or the fact that they want them as a pet for when the original dies. Red Man Bay, Latte, Hot Shot, Scamper. They were cloned to carry on those genetics since they were and are all geldings. Only one of these horses is still alive. I don't care if you agree with it on an ethical level, but for keeping the gene pool fresh, I'm all for it. There is too much inbreeding going on in our industry anyway.
I understand why one would clone a gelding, especially one that isn't from major bloodlines. It does make for an outcross sire that has proven athletic ability.... but come on. They cloned frenchman's guy, not just once. That was probably the stupidest thing IMO. He has thousands of foals.... his time came and now his time needs to leave for the gene pool to survive.
I agree with that one. You shouldn't clone high producing stallions. That is unhelpful and just wasteful. The gene pool doesn't need it. If there are good genes that are dying out with great geldings, decide if those genes are worth saving, and clone them. That is what makes the most sense about cloning. It's all about selection!
But going foreword with that theory, there are a lot of DFP horses out there. In regards to breeding Latte (gelding). His Dam isn't bred anything uncommon. | |
| | |
  Champ
Posts: 19623
Location: Peg-Leg Julia Grimm | euchee - 2016-04-19 3:12 PM
I don't like the idea of cloning but that is besides the point. We only have geldings with no desire to own a mare so I don't know all the ins and outs of it but one thing that I keep thinking is that everyone says that 80 to 90 percent of the colt is due to the mare and not the stud. I'm not talking health, I mean ability, attitude and such. If so why do we see such high stud fee's. Shouldn't it be the other way around.
I don't know who those people are that think the stallion has little genetic input in a foal (physical, mental and everything else), but I don't think they have bred/foaled many mares and had a hand in raising those foals. The mare gives just a little more genetic material to the foal and any environmental input comes from her. I'd guess at 55% coming from the mare. 45% coming from the stallion. HOWEVER, there are a LOT of behavior and disposition traits that comes from the stallion in spite of the fact he doesn't have an active roll in raising the foal. Just ask anyone who has raised many half 3/4 & full siblings.
I'm as sure as I can be that it's EQUALLY important to have as close to the desired outcome both top and bottom of the mating. Don't take a short mare to a huge stud and think you're going to get something in the middle. It just doesn't happen that way very often. You can improve on a mare with a stallion who has exceptional consistent genetics for whatever you want to change. But even that isn't 100%. The art of breeding is about combining two individuals to get the blend right for the endeavor you are producing for.
| |
| | |
 Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
| stayceem - 2016-04-20 9:26 AM rodeomom3 - 2016-04-20 9:11 AM 1DSoon - 2016-04-20 8:50 AM stayceem - 2016-04-20 9:35 AM And this might open up a new can of worms. I am not in the breeding business but I like to keep up on it and dream about it. I personally wont breed to an unproven stud. I think if more people felt this way, the cloning would dissipate. I believe in good bloodlines but I also believe in good heart, work ethic, natural athletic ability. I have seen some FWF studs who are incredible athletes, calm & collected and just plain nice. I have seen others that are NOT impressive. Whether it is training, atmosphere, bloodlines, none of us know. But it separates the great stallions from the mediocre ones. I do know that there are studs out there with injuries and had to be retired. Those I feel a bit different about mainly because they didn't get the chance to prove themselves. I would probably still breed to something proven over that injured stud but I wouldn't rule it out. But I will rule these clones out, not because they're clones but because they refuse to run them. Without naming names, there are a few other studs who never hit the arena themselves for one fear or another. Yes, I have seen unproven studs throw some incredible winners... but we don't know what they got from their stud. Was their success based on the mare power? An incredible trainer? Were they just a freak of nature? Just my two cents. I finally get the disconnect.
These animals are not being bred and marketed as a sire prospect.
They are being bred, marketed and stood as the "ORGINAL" these owners are selling you(the breeding public) on the fact that this clone is not a seperate individual that is being offered as a sire. IT is "latte" it is "hot shot" or "Frenchmans Guy" etc
That is why it is unwise to attempt to compete on these animals.
I agree with others that there are more than genetics that make that amazing competitor. Apparently the owners of some of the clones might agree or you would see them in competition. As much as I don't agree with not competing on them, I do understand how it is a smart business decision not to. Too much risk. And I guess no matter how they spin it, I wont breed to Hotshot's clone based on Hotshot's winnings. They're too separate horses in my mind and if they were really that confident in their genetics, they'd ride them. JMO. Again, I get why they don't... but I still think they should.
I agree!! | |
| | |
Champ
Posts: 19623
Location: Peg-Leg Julia Grimm | AllAroundRider - 2016-04-20 7:54 AM
I didn't read the whole thread and my opinion doesn't really matter but I feel like cloning is a perfect example of the way the world is now.
We don't have any more original ideas. We remake the same dang movies and shows a hundred times over. I remember when it was a big deal a movie got a sequel, now they just keep going and going. Books are the same. Tack and product makers copy each others ideas to the point everybody looks the same. We clone sires that have had huge, successful, long lists of progeny. At some point we have done away with originality and advancement which is ironic in a society that preaches to be those things.
It is equally amazing and horrific to me our scientific abilities to do things like cloning. I also see it as entirely unneccesary.
LOL no you're just getting older. I'm 60 and one thing I noticed is that all things in life have already been done and said. They're coming around again. Low rise jeans were butt ugly when we wore them in the 70's. Yet they have come back and are just as ugly as they ever were. I wish they'd go AWAY. I've seen enough buttcracks to last another 60 years.  | |
| | |
 I Want a "MAN"
Posts: 3610
Location: MD | OregonBR - 2016-04-20 3:05 PM AllAroundRider - 2016-04-20 7:54 AM I didn't read the whole thread and my opinion doesn't really matter but I feel like cloning is a perfect example of the way the world is now.
We don't have any more original ideas. We remake the same dang movies and shows a hundred times over. I remember when it was a big deal a movie got a sequel, now they just keep going and going. Books are the same. Tack and product makers copy each others ideas to the point everybody looks the same. We clone sires that have had huge, successful, long lists of progeny. At some point we have done away with originality and advancement which is ironic in a society that preaches to be those things.
It is equally amazing and horrific to me our scientific abilities to do things like cloning. I also see it as entirely unneccesary.
LOL no you're just getting older. I'm 60 and one thing I noticed is that all things in life have already been done and said. They're coming around again. Low rise jeans were butt ugly when we wore them in the 70's. Yet they have come back and are just as ugly as they ever were. I wish they'd go AWAY. I've seen enough buttcracks to last another 60 years.
I thought 70's were high rise? | |
| | |
Champ
Posts: 19623
Location: Peg-Leg Julia Grimm | CE's wrapn3 - 2016-04-20 1:08 PM
OregonBR - 2016-04-20 3:05 PM AllAroundRider - 2016-04-20 7:54 AM I didn't read the whole thread and my opinion doesn't really matter but I feel like cloning is a perfect example of the way the world is now.
We don't have any more original ideas. We remake the same dang movies and shows a hundred times over. I remember when it was a big deal a movie got a sequel, now they just keep going and going. Books are the same. Tack and product makers copy each others ideas to the point everybody looks the same. We clone sires that have had huge, successful, long lists of progeny. At some point we have done away with originality and advancement which is ironic in a society that preaches to be those things.
It is equally amazing and horrific to me our scientific abilities to do things like cloning. I also see it as entirely unneccesary.
LOL no you're just getting older. I'm 60 and one thing I noticed is that all things in life have already been done and said. They're coming around again. Low rise jeans were butt ugly when we wore them in the 70's. Yet they have come back and are just as ugly as they ever were. I wish they'd go AWAY. I've seen enough buttcracks to last another 60 years.
Don't make me go back and look at those old pictures. I'm pretty sure I have a pic of myself on a paint mare from the early 70's wearing low rise polyester pants. OMG Yuck! | |
| | |
 Hugs to You
Posts: 7551
Location: In The Land of Cotton | OregonBR - 2016-04-20 4:14 PM CE's wrapn3 - 2016-04-20 1:08 PM OregonBR - 2016-04-20 3:05 PM AllAroundRider - 2016-04-20 7:54 AM I didn't read the whole thread and my opinion doesn't really matter but I feel like cloning is a perfect example of the way the world is now.
We don't have any more original ideas. We remake the same dang movies and shows a hundred times over. I remember when it was a big deal a movie got a sequel, now they just keep going and going. Books are the same. Tack and product makers copy each others ideas to the point everybody looks the same. We clone sires that have had huge, successful, long lists of progeny. At some point we have done away with originality and advancement which is ironic in a society that preaches to be those things.
It is equally amazing and horrific to me our scientific abilities to do things like cloning. I also see it as entirely unneccesary.
LOL no you're just getting older. I'm 60 and one thing I noticed is that all things in life have already been done and said. They're coming around again. Low rise jeans were butt ugly when we wore them in the 70's. Yet they have come back and are just as ugly as they ever were. I wish they'd go AWAY. I've seen enough buttcracks to last another 60 years. Don't make me go back and look at those old pictures. I'm pretty sure I have a pic of myself on a paint mare from the early 70's wearing low rise polyester pants. OMG Yuck!
We had low rise polyester pants and high rise jean material pants. I had them too.
What is scary is that jumpsuits and culottes are back in style. | |
| | |
 A Somebody to Everybody
Posts: 41354
Location: Under The Big Sky Of Texas | OregonBR - 2016-04-20 3:05 PM AllAroundRider - 2016-04-20 7:54 AM I didn't read the whole thread and my opinion doesn't really matter but I feel like cloning is a perfect example of the way the world is now.
We don't have any more original ideas. We remake the same dang movies and shows a hundred times over. I remember when it was a big deal a movie got a sequel, now they just keep going and going. Books are the same. Tack and product makers copy each others ideas to the point everybody looks the same. We clone sires that have had huge, successful, long lists of progeny. At some point we have done away with originality and advancement which is ironic in a society that preaches to be those things.
It is equally amazing and horrific to me our scientific abilities to do things like cloning. I also see it as entirely unneccesary.
LOL no you're just getting older. I'm 60 and one thing I noticed is that all things in life have already been done and said. They're coming around again. Low rise jeans were butt ugly when we wore them in the 70's. Yet they have come back and are just as ugly as they ever were. I wish they'd go AWAY. I've seen enough buttcracks to last another 60 years.
Agree on the buttcracks, they are butt ugly to see. lol | |
| | |
 Color Coordination Director
| There is already a FULL brother, Danny Ray owns him so WHY? The gentics are already out there still with the boys in tack so the above to keep the gentics becomes invaild at that point. I stick to my belief that one shouldnt play God its never turns out well. | |
| | |
 Lived to tell about it and will never do it again
Posts: 5409
| 3canstorun - 2016-04-20 3:29 PM OregonBR - 2016-04-20 4:14 PM CE's wrapn3 - 2016-04-20 1:08 PM OregonBR - 2016-04-20 3:05 PM AllAroundRider - 2016-04-20 7:54 AM I didn't read the whole thread and my opinion doesn't really matter but I feel like cloning is a perfect example of the way the world is now.
We don't have any more original ideas. We remake the same dang movies and shows a hundred times over. I remember when it was a big deal a movie got a sequel, now they just keep going and going. Books are the same. Tack and product makers copy each others ideas to the point everybody looks the same. We clone sires that have had huge, successful, long lists of progeny. At some point we have done away with originality and advancement which is ironic in a society that preaches to be those things.
It is equally amazing and horrific to me our scientific abilities to do things like cloning. I also see it as entirely unneccesary.
LOL no you're just getting older. I'm 60 and one thing I noticed is that all things in life have already been done and said. They're coming around again. Low rise jeans were butt ugly when we wore them in the 70's. Yet they have come back and are just as ugly as they ever were. I wish they'd go AWAY. I've seen enough buttcracks to last another 60 years. Don't make me go back and look at those old pictures. I'm pretty sure I have a pic of myself on a paint mare from the early 70's wearing low rise polyester pants. OMG Yuck!
What is scary is that jumpsuits and culottes are back in style.
I'm thinking that the 70's were hip huggers and bell bottoms, mid to later 80's were the high rise Rocky Jean craz. Everything makes it rounds again from time to time. | |
| | |
 Extreme Veteran
Posts: 494
| Honestly, I am not against the cloning idea. If you all had a proven horse just like the ones that have been cloned and had the money to clone them, I bet you would in a heartbeat. Who says that they didn't clone them for their personal purposes, but are generous enough to open the gene pool that they have won thousands on to the public? IMO clones do not necessarily need to prove themselves in the pen. YES- thee clone may not perform to the caliber that the original did but you run that risk with every offspring. AND the owners are not showcasing the clone, the clone is showcasing the original athlete. By breeding to one, you get a dip into those golden genetics.
Ive seen plenty of DTF and FG duds out there and they were from the real thing.... By standing a clone to the public, the owners are CHOOSING to give YOU a chance at those genetics. They have already had their fair share of fame with the original gene pool, why wouldn't they just keep the clone for their personal mares? Clones are for people that want the bloodline that would no longer exist without the original. | |
| | |
 Elite Veteran
Posts: 899
Location: Idaho | I'm not much for debating. I am not against the idea of a clone, it is science and if people have enough money to put out to make one.. then hey, they should go for it. But I think that is someone were to clone say their really expensive, world champion geldings (Say Latte or Scamper), they should have a rule that those horses should be ridden, trained and competed on. There are a lot of stallions out there that are bred strictly due to their bloodlines, but I think if your cloning something to breed and are saying "Oh yes, it will just like breeding to Latte.. or scamper.. or whoever", a supposive horse of that caliber they should be proven in the arena so people know what they are getting. Sure it would be a risky gamble, but why make such a statement if you're not willing to take that risk to prove what you are telling the public? Mary didn't just fall in love with Latte for being Latte.. she fell in love with him because they were a team, because he is an amazing barrel horse, because they had a connection and are still on this incredible journey together. Did you ever think that maybe he was cut, because he WOULDN'T make a good stallion? What if he would pass on a bad disposition as a stallion? Same thing with Scamper. He was an unruly gelding that bucked everyone off when Charmayne bought him. Who's to say that he wouldn't pass that down to his offspring? Gelding's are gelding's for a reason. My colt is well bred and behaves, but he wouldn't of made a good stud because he can be a bit of a bully, can be testy and pushy sometimes and needs a reminder. Imagine if he had all that testosterone? That's why I would think about.
I'd want to see them in the arena. Competing, and living up to their bloodlines that the owners are saying are so great. There are many NICE Dash Ta Fame and Dash for Perks out there that are PROVEN in the arena.. I'd breed to them any day over a clone that hasn't stepped foot or even been given a chance.
Edited by DashNDustem 2016-04-20 9:24 PM
| |
| | |
 Queen Bee Cat Owner
Posts: 3629
Location: Way up North | epoh - 2016-04-20 8:33 PM Honestly, I am not against the cloning idea. If you all had a proven horse just like the ones that have been cloned and had the money to clone them, I bet you would in a heartbeat. Who says that they didn't clone them for their personal purposes, but are generous enough to open the gene pool that they have won thousands on to the public? IMO clones do not necessarily need to prove themselves in the pen. YES- thee clone may not perform to the caliber that the original did but you run that risk with every offspring. AND the owners are not showcasing the clone, the clone is showcasing the original athlete. By breeding to one, you get a dip into those golden genetics. Ive seen plenty of DTF and FG duds out there and they were from the real thing.... By standing a clone to the public, the owners are CHOOSING to give YOU a chance at those genetics. They have already had their fair share of fame with the original gene pool, why wouldn't they just keep the clone for their personal mares? Clones are for people that want the bloodline that would no longer exist without the original. No. And even more no.
No, even if I had all the money in the world I would not clone. It is a personal and ethical issue for me as it is for many others. Most people value things that are special, unique, different. When you duplicate you take at least some of that away.
I do not for one minute believe people that are cloning and choosing to stand them to the public are being generous. That is a business decision. A smart one to try to recoup the costs of cloning but most certainly not an act of generosity.
Edited by AllAroundRider 2016-04-20 9:40 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Not Where I Want to Be | DashNDustem - 2016-04-20 10:22 PM
I'm not much for debating. I am not against the idea of a clone, it is science and if people have enough money to put out to make one.. then hey, they should go for it. But I think that is someone were to clone say their really expensive, world champion geldings (Say Latte or Scamper), they should have a rule that those horses should be ridden, trained and competed on. There are a lot of stallions out there that are bred strictly due to their bloodlines, but I think if your cloning something to breed and are saying "Oh yes, it will just like breeding to Latte.. or scamper.. or whoever", a supposive horse of that caliber they should be proven in the arena so people know what they are getting. Sure it would be a risky gamble, but why make such a statement if you're not willing to take that risk to prove what you are telling the public? Mary didn't just fall in love with Latte for being Latte.. she fell in love with him because they were a team, because he is an amazing barrel horse, because they had a connection and are still on this incredible journey together. Did you ever think that maybe he was cut, because he WOULDN'T make a good stallion? What if he would pass on a bad disposition as a stallion? Same thing with Scamper. He was an unruly gelding that bucked everyone off when Charmayne bought him. Who's to say that he wouldn't pass that down to his offspring? Gelding's are gelding's for a reason. My colt is well bred and behaves, but he wouldn't of made a good stud because he can be a bit of a bully, can be testy and pushy sometimes and needs a reminder. Imagine if he had all that testosterone? That's why I would think about.
I'd want to see them in the arena. Competing, and living up to their bloodlines that the owners are saying are so great. There are many NICE Dash Ta Fame and Dash for Perks out there that are PROVEN in the arena.. I'd breed to them any day over a clone that hasn't stepped foot or even been given a chance.
I understand why
| |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 1631
Location: Somewhere around here | AllAroundRider - 2016-04-20 8:39 PM
epoh - 2016-04-20 8:33 PM Honestly, I am not against the cloning idea. If you all had a proven horse just like the ones that have been cloned and had the money to clone them, I bet you would in a heartbeat. Who says that they didn't clone them for their personal purposes, but are generous enough to open the gene pool that they have won thousands on to the public? IMO clones do not necessarily need to prove themselves in the pen. YES- thee clone may not perform to the caliber that the original did but you run that risk with every offspring. AND the owners are not showcasing the clone, the clone is showcasing the original athlete. By breeding to one, you get a dip into those golden genetics. Ive seen plenty of DTF and FG duds out there and they were from the real thing.... By standing a clone to the public, the owners are CHOOSING to give YOU a chance at those genetics. They have already had their fair share of fame with the original gene pool, why wouldn't they just keep the clone for their personal mares? Clones are for people that want the bloodline that would no longer exist without the original. No. And even more no.
No, even if I had all the money in the world I would not clone. It is a personal and ethical issue for me as it is for many others. Most people value things that are special, unique, different. When you duplicate you take at least some of that away.
I do not for one minute believe people that are cloning and choosing to stand them to the public are being generous. That is a business decision. A smart one to try to recoup the costs of cloning but most certainly not an act of generosity.
Agreed. They aren't doing it our of the goodness of their hearts, they are doing it for business and money making reasons. Also, if I did have an amazing gelding who took me to the NFR multiple times I still wouldn't agree on cloning. If he did die, I would be sad and cry, then look at all the wonderful prospects in my barn that I was able to afford and smile. That's it, life goes on. Cloning is just setting us back in the breeding world. | |
| | |
Hungarian Midget Woman
Location: Midwest | cecollins0811 - 2016-04-21 7:35 AM AllAroundRider - 2016-04-20 8:39 PM epoh - 2016-04-20 8:33 PM Honestly, I am not against the cloning idea. If you all had a proven horse just like the ones that have been cloned and had the money to clone them, I bet you would in a heartbeat. Who says that they didn't clone them for their personal purposes, but are generous enough to open the gene pool that they have won thousands on to the public? IMO clones do not necessarily need to prove themselves in the pen. YES- thee clone may not perform to the caliber that the original did but you run that risk with every offspring. AND the owners are not showcasing the clone, the clone is showcasing the original athlete. By breeding to one, you get a dip into those golden genetics. Ive seen plenty of DTF and FG duds out there and they were from the real thing.... By standing a clone to the public, the owners are CHOOSING to give YOU a chance at those genetics. They have already had their fair share of fame with the original gene pool, why wouldn't they just keep the clone for their personal mares? Clones are for people that want the bloodline that would no longer exist without the original. No. And even more no.
No, even if I had all the money in the world I would not clone. It is a personal and ethical issue for me as it is for many others. Most people value things that are special, unique, different. When you duplicate you take at least some of that away.
I do not for one minute believe people that are cloning and choosing to stand them to the public are being generous. That is a business decision. A smart one to try to recoup the costs of cloning but most certainly not an act of generosity. Agreed. They aren't doing it our of the goodness of their hearts, they are doing it for business and money making reasons. Also, if I did have an amazing gelding who took me to the NFR multiple times I still wouldn't agree on cloning. If he did die, I would be sad and cry, then look at all the wonderful prospects in my barn that I was able to afford and smile. That's it, life goes on. Cloning is just setting us back in the breeding world.
It's not setting anyone back that doesn't buy offspring from or breed to a clone, so I don't get this statement. Nor do I understand the anger folks have for cloning. (unless it is a religious thing, which I can understand, though do not agree with).
I'm not super keen on buying offspring of or breeding to a cloned animal. (Just a personal preference.) However, I'm not angry about the fact there are clones or what their owners do with them, no do I presume to tell people what they should do or not do with their stock.
Their actions don't exactly affect me in any way, so I choose to live and let live (or die). I might suggest this approach to some of the more fervent posters- it will help your blood pressure!
I just feel there are different issues in our industry that deserve more of our attention- issues that actually affect a much larger number of people. | |
| | |
Hungarian Midget Woman
Location: Midwest | Not implying this issue is not worthy of discussion BTW, because I feel it is... I just don't get some of the more.. um... "strong" reactions to the subject.
Edited by barrelracr131 2016-04-21 8:47 AM
| |
| | |
 Toastest with the Mostest
Posts: 5712
Location: That part of Texas | Tdove - 2016-04-20 9:51 AM hannavashays - 2016-04-20 9:37 AM Well I'll put my 2 cents in since this is exactly what I'm going to college for, about to get my Master's in. You don't clone animals to compete on them. You can't clone grit, you can't clone heart, or try, or toughness. No, you clone to carry on good genetics. Do I think it's smart? In my opinion, not really. I can't afford it, even though i would love to clone my nice horse who only has one full sister left alive and no brothers. Too much money with no guarantees. But if you have the money to do it, go ahead! The reason you clone is to keep those genetics alive. That's the main reason. It's very rarely about personal attachment or the fact that they want them as a pet for when the original dies. Red Man Bay, Latte, Hot Shot, Scamper. They were cloned to carry on those genetics since they were and are all geldings. Only one of these horses is still alive. I don't care if you agree with it on an ethical level, but for keeping the gene pool fresh, I'm all for it. There is too much inbreeding going on in our industry anyway. Cloning will cause more inbreeding, not deliver us from it. If cloning ever becomes cheap enough, the gene pool with disappear into a puddle.
I think the gene pool is going to be okay even if it gets cheap enough. What's the market for a cloned stud out of a 100 breeders? I have no idea (maybe Blake has some stats) but it's probably 10 or less in number of people who would actually chose a clone over an original stallion and to go this route (and yes, I'm being generous on that 10). How many years have we now been throwing this topic around on here now and how many people always, always point out other reasons why they won't breed to a clone and pretty much none of them have to do with stud fee? Maybe in 50 years or so it might be the next thing -- like invetro has become for human babies (I know, not alike but technology wise comparable) but it's still not the preferred method of having kids. The use of AI is killing the gene pool more than cloning ever will. | |
| |
| |
Folks on-line