Need Milk? Get Yourself A Supercow.

GM OOOO writes "Sydney Morning Herald is reporting the birth of three 'supercows.' Interesting thing here, besides the potential for milk, is the fact this was done via selctive breeding and genetic selection via embryonic implantation -- not adding the gene of a sea cucumber of something to modify it to produce as it does now. Supercows - kinda reminds me of the Mootrix movie now (FEAR)."

Comments

Mooo v'on. Nothing to see here.

[muirhead]

Three 'supercows' with the genetic potential to produce more than 14,000 litres of milk ...
The calves, born two weeks ago, were...

There might be a story here when these animals grow up and prove that the researchers are actually worth their stock options. In the mean time, don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

What do you think cows are?

[Otter]

Interesting thing here, besides the potential for milk, is the fact this was done via selctive breeding and genetic selection via embryonic implantation -- not adding the gene of a sea cucumber of something to modify it to produce as it does now.

You do realize that's how current dairy cattle and every other agricultural plant and animal were generated, right? A lot of the people freaking out about "genetically modified" whatnot seem to think God created Holstein cattle and Vidalia onions in the garden of Eden.

Re:Need Milk?

[WTFmonkey]

Junk food if you're lazy. Old-school bodybuilders (back when they were cool, not the dorks on the covers of shit like MuscleMag and Flex nowadays) used to recommend a gallon of milk per day due to a good mix of protein, carbs (lactose is NOT as bad as fructose, sucrose, etc.) and fat. True, most of us would just get fat on a full gallon per day, but milk's fine.

Dairy products do contain calcium, but it is accompanied by animal proteins, lactose sugar, animal growth factors, occasional drugs and contaminants, and a substantial amount of fat and cholesterol in all but the defatted versions.

They say "substantial amount of fat and cholesterol" like that's a bad thing. Eating fat does not make you fat. Studies have shown (I'll cite them, if you really want) that diets in excess of 70% fat can still result in fat loss (and that's without ANY cardio--nothing but weight lifting 3-4 times per week). Cholesterol is extremely important in building testosterone, estrogen, growth hormone, lots of others. Low cholesterol=low testosterone in men, which is very bad. As far as "occasional drugs and contaminants," that's no different than any other food-- buy the good stuff, not the crap. If you're in good shape, your body can handle whatever you throw at it.

If you're really worried about calcium, take a calcium carbonate supplement. It's the kind most easily absorbed by the body. Follow that with a potassium supplement (most multivitamins are low in potassium) to aid in calcium abbsorption and you're good to go.

Wow, how did that ramble get started?

Re:(Yawn) Nothing to see here, move along

[Bowling Moses]

There's also another detail that's relevent. If these cows actually produce 3x the amount of milk, and the costs of doing this are low then it becomes interesting. Not to most of us nerds but to dairy farmers. I'm not a dairy farmer, but I do know that transporting a cow isn't too bad, but naturally gets more expensive and difficult with the distance. Transporting a bull for stud services is a bit different. Bull size depends a lot on variety, some can clear 2500 pounds or more. They are often transported sedated, but when the bull wakes up it's a ton plus of pissed-off horny beef that is trying to decide whether to kill or hump everything in sight. Embryo implantation might be/become cheaper than traditional stud services, allowing the premier beef/milk genes to get passed around more easily. It doesn't cost that much more to send a dewar full of liquid nitrogen and embryos across a state or across the country. Downside: more genetically homogeneous cow herds, and another crash in milk prices if everybody grabs "supercow" embryos to produce 3x the milk.