Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Clone Sheep With 'Good' Fat

redletterdave writes "Chinese scientists have cloned a genetically modified sheep containing a 'good' type of fat found naturally in nuts, seeds, fish and leafy greens that helps reduce the risk of heart attacks and cardiovascular disease. The gene, which is linked to the production of polyunsaturated fatty acids, was inserted into a donor cell taken from the ear of a Chinese Merino sheep. The cell was then inserted into an unfertilized egg and implanted into the womb of a surrogate sheep. With any luck, this process could be replicated in the future to clone more animals for safe and healthy consumption."

233 comments

  1. Genetically Modified Hogs next? by tomhath · · Score: 4, Funny

    Healthy bacon. Mmmm.

    1. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Health food will still taste like shit.

      Seriously, though, really? I love bacon, but back off on the meat consumption and you'll be better. Veg? not so much, but eat like a person, not like people of walmart.

    2. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by erroneus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I kinda disagree with that. Yes, current meats are kinda... bad in large amounts but that is largely because of the way the body works... if you live on mostly meats without much in the way of carbs, you'll be just fine and your body will consume those "bad fats." Problem is, it is really hard to eat that way... really hard. It's good to mix things up. So if we can have meats without the negative health impact when mixed with other things, we will get the benefits of the protiens and all the good things meat offers and still be able to eat it with things more carby... like spaghetti in meat sauce... :)

    3. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by base3 · · Score: 1

      You mutton make that kind of extrapolation.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    4. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Of course, it will smell like fish when you fry it...

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    5. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is already a reality with naturally-fed animals. For example, beef can provide us with all the healthy fats and oils we need when the cow is grass-fed and range raised. When chickens are raised on a diet or worms that grow in fresh cow dung, the consistency, flavor, and overall health of their eggs is substantially higher than what is generally available in the supermarket.

      --

      I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

    6. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd love to get my hands on some meat that simultaneously tastes like pork and fish.

    7. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Omigawd!

      Thinking about that, I think I just had a droolgasm!

    8. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

      There already are GMO pigs. A Canadian group created them about a decade ago, and last I heard they were trying to get regulatory approval in Canada to sell them for meat. They were modified to more efficiently digest phosphorus from grain, thus reducing their environmental impact. I believe the trade name they intend to use is Ecopig, or something like that.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    9. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Genda · · Score: 1

      But first you have to catch before it flies away!!! Watch out for the tentacles.

    10. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they're not bad fats, and living "mostly on meat" is very easy.

    11. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Genda · · Score: 2

      I'd love to get my hands on some meat that simultaneously tastes like pork and fish.

      Her name is Shiela, and she's not all that interesting... really.

    12. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Genda · · Score: 5, Funny

      ECOPIG!!! Swine of environmental justice!!!! Wherever evil agro-corps commit atrocities against the natural landscape ECOPIG and his sidekick PIGGY-SUE will snort in the face of danger and send those business hogs back to Wallstreet squealing!!!

    13. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by user+flynn · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Why the hell did they do this with sheep first!!@#$! So what if it's more difficult to clone other mammals.

      --
      In the distance you hear an ominous moo.
    14. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How is it difficult to eat "that way"?

      IMO it's very easy to have a diet which is primarily meat. You don't have to eat a large pork rind for breakfast or a side of bacon every other week, but if you've got good quality meat available, short of filling up your cart with lots of different meats and a handful of odd veggies at the grocery, it's really not that hard.

      You need less food (in volume) if you're eating meat than if you were eating a 'mixed' carb-heavy diet, too, which certainly helps. Judging from what I've seen vegans or even vegeterians deal with, it's certainly easier (in terms of food prep and quantity) and less costly.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    15. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      He was eating grain-fed animals, though. And not following his diet (if you're referring to Atkins).

      Native Americans ate primarily animal meat and vegetables. They didn't have any significant heart disease until we started introducing them to cultivated grains (and alcohol).

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    16. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by kamapuaa · · Score: 2

      Jim Fixx popularized jogging with "The Complete Book of Running," then died of a heart attack at age 52. An autopsy revealed a cornorary artery that was 95% blocked. Sample size of 1 and all that.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    17. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by value_added · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Worth pointing out that the same applies to vegetables and fruits. Winter tomatoes grown in the sandy soils of Florida can't really be compared nutritionally to what someone can get out of their own garden.

      Ultimately, it's all about the "ingredients". That's long been considered a truism for chefs in the kitchen as it is for someone involved in raising animals. That this is routinely overlooked, glossed over or otherwise dismissed in the pursuit of economic interests and efficiencies is both funny and tragic. Funny in the sense of "What the hell did you expect?", and tragic in the sense of engaging in (and wasting time and effort with) tortured discussions of good/bad ideas and practices which, ultimately, are workaround to workarounds.

    18. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by moortak · · Score: 1
      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    19. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by RulerOf · · Score: 4, Informative

      Then you die like the doctor who came-up with this "eat lots of fat" diet.

      If you think that his diet was the cause of the fall and resulting head trauma that killed him, I've got some news for you: you're a fucking moron.

      --
      Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
    20. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Oswald · · Score: 5, Funny

      When chickens are raised on a diet or worms that grow in fresh cow dung, the consistency, flavor, and overall health of their eggs is substantially higher than what is generally available in the supermarket.

      For some reason, the more you talk up animal products, the more I want to become a vegan.

    21. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Nursie · · Score: 1

      I think it's probably because most of the world loves eating lamb. Roast lamb is a thing of joy. It's delicious if quite fatty.

        I'm not sure why it's not so much of a thing in the US. I understand it's regarded in a similar way to how I regard goat - no majpr objections to the idea but it's a bit weird.

    22. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they also didnt do the same things they did before we fucked with them.

      At all.

      That wouldn't have anything to do with it though, nahhhh. Native Americans also weren't known for their perfect diet. Also, it depends on the tribe, since not all Native Americans were the same. (much like French are not the same as Norwegian)

    23. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by sunspot42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >Then you die like the doctor who came-up with this "eat lots of fat" diet.

      If you're referring to Atkins, he died after slipping on the ice, falling, hitting his head and going into a coma. Diet had nothing to do with that (unless he was drunk at the time!).

      I dropped carbs pretty much completely out of my diet a year ago, and started eating meat with every meal after having been a vegetarian for over 20 years. I've dropped from about 215 to 165lbs, and my cholesterol has dropped from over 250 to 200. My "bad" cholesterol has plummeted, and my "good" cholesterol has skyrocketed. My triglycerides are way down. So's my blood pressure. So all of my markers correlated with heart disease have improved, dramatically. And I sleep better and have more energy.

      Atkins was right. I just gotta be more careful than he was when I step on icy sidewalks!

    24. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen to that!
      oh, wait...I AM vegan!

    25. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      tomatoes grown in the sandy soils of Florida can't really be compared nutritionally to what someone can get out of their own garden.

      I can't tell the difference. I'm east of Orlando, right near the beach. My garden even has nice clean soil, white as sugar.

    26. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by neonmonk · · Score: 1

      Good soil isn't white.

    27. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by jpate · · Score: 1

      woosh!

    28. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Wholly crap! You're right! If I keep this up, I'm going to slip on the ice and crack my skull! Atkins died in good health... except for that accident.

    29. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Try going to McDonald's or any place where "I need to eat and get back to work ASAP" serves up food. You can't get what you're looking for. Back in Texas, we have "Souper Salad." Those places are awesome... get what you need/want and fast and cheap. Out here on the east coast, that chain and none like it exists out here. This, then, necessitates planning and extra individual energies and time consumption on my part.

      It's the accessibility problem that is a big part. Another big part is the social component. Since most people don't eat that way, you can't easily go out to lunch with people ... or dinner or breakfast. To eat that way means you have to compromise social activity. THAT makes it hard.

    30. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's okay, that's only free-range. Feel free to continue eating chicken highly industrialized chicken creation factories! No need to worry about them eating worms from cow dung.

    31. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Oh shush! Let Darwin do his work.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    32. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Careful Citizen, Your article is available in North Carolina, and may be seen as offering nutritional and/or dietary advice. Please present yourself to the board within 72 hours, be sure to bring identification and a notarized copy of your license to practice.

      That is all.

    33. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Morky · · Score: 1

      No, next up are sheeple.

    34. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I dropped carbs pretty much completely out of my diet a year ago, and started eating meat with every meal after having been a vegetarian for over 20 years. I've dropped from about 215 to 165lbs

      Yes, but you're 3' 6".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    35. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      For some reason, the more you talk up animal products, the more I want to become a vegan.

      I favor meat licenses. You should have to tour a slaughterhouse or kill and cook an animal before you're allowed to eat meat. Let's have a little recognition of where our food comes from and what happens to it on the way. I've killed, skinned, cut up and cooked a deer, I've caught and killed a goose by hand and it went in the stew... I understand I'm eating life, and what that actually means, and I'm cool with it. I know that when you cut them, stuff comes out you don't want on your hands, and yet after you grill them they are goddamned delicious, and good for you. If I eat a typical meal (notably including a little carb bomb) I feel stuffed and weighted down. If I just eat a big fucking steak I feel great, full of energy, have a nice crap the next morning and I'm up and at 'em. Meat, it's what's for dinner.

      BRING ON THE CRAPWORMS

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Try going to McDonald's or any place where "I need to eat and get back to work ASAP" serves up food. You can't get what you're looking for. Back in Texas, we have "Souper Salad." Those places are awesome... get what you need/want and fast and cheap. Out here on the east coast, that chain and none like it exists out here.

      On the West Coast, where culture and technology comes from, we have an invention known as "Fresh Choice" where you may assemble your own salad and eat it at your own pace, yea verily, even back in your cubicle. We've had Souper Salads out here in California, too, not sure if any are left. Regardless, I'll have the soup. Iceberg fail.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    37. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When chickens are raised on a diet or worms that grow in fresh cow dung, the consistency, flavor, and overall health of their eggs is substantially higher than what is generally available in the supermarket.

      For some reason, the more you talk up animal products, the more I want to become a vegan.

      Funny you would say that. Have you seen the crap that vegetables are grown in? As someone who grows his own vegetables, let me tell you how to make the most healthy soil available.

      1) Start with fresh manure from a herbivore. That's crap from a vegetarian to you city folk. Bunny crap works the best when mixed with urine soaked saw dust. Horse manure mixed with urine soaked bedding, cow, goat,llama or other large, herbivore mammal will also work.
      2) Allow it to rot for a few months. (This is a good additive as is, but we can make it better)
      3) Feed the rotted manure it to worms. Red Wigglers are the most common.
      4) Separate the live worms from the worm crap.
      5) The crap that is left is the best soil you will ever run across and it will produce the greatest vegetables on the planet.

      That's right. Crap from crap fed worms is the best soil imaginable. Of course, that re-crapped crap is what is absorbed into the plants, mixed with water, CO2 and sunlight to make the vegetables you eat. And they are delicious!

      Of course, some animal products can be beneficial as well. Bone meal (ground up animal bones), blood meal and fish emulsion are also beneficial, but nothing compares to good old worm shit.

      Don't think that just because you are vegetarian that you are not eating crap. Manure is the most important product in agriculture behind sunlight and water.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    38. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      It comes down to this simple fact. Americans eat too much meat.
      I am not advocating Vegetarianism, But we really normally only need 2 servings of meat (or other high protean) a day.
      We tend to have closer to 6 servings.
      Breakfast: A Bacon, Egg and Cheese sandwich. That is your two servings already.
      Lunch: A Ham Sandwich (thats Three, Four depending on the size of the sandwitch)
      Dinner: Steak Mash Potatoes and Green beans. (Most steaks we eat may be 2 more servings so that brings us up to 6 servings) Plus the Cheese and Wheat and other stuff we eat adds more protean.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    39. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by jandersen · · Score: 2

      You need less food (in volume) if you're eating meat than if you were eating a 'mixed' carb-heavy diet, too, which certainly helps. Judging from what I've seen vegans or even vegeterians deal with, it's certainly easier (in terms of food prep and quantity) and less costly

      Eh? Less costly? Of course, I don't know what kind of vegan you have seen, but I assume they are the kind that live on this planet (as opposed to Vegans, if you know what I mean).

      Personally, I have gone from eating loads of meat about 6 years ago to eating very little of it - I've just lost the appetite for meat, somehow. I can cook a very good bean curry, which will provide my lunch for about 3 or 4 days, for as little as 2 GBP. It takes longer to cook, but the actual work involved is about 10 minutes - can your meat diet beat this on price and effort?

    40. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      >>>if you live on mostly meats without much in the way of carbs, you'll be just fine and your body will consume those "bad fats."

      What BS. The bad fats will simply accumulate in the walls of your arteries, giving them a "foam" appearance until a clot is formed. Then you die like the doctor who came-up with this "eat lots of fat" diet.

      You mean that eating lots of fat will cause you to slip on ice in a snow storm? Dr. Atkins died from a head wound at the age of 73. He slipped on ice and bashed his head against concrete.

      Also, there is nothing in the Atkins diet that forbids the consumption of fruits and vegetables. The trick is to limit carbs. You could actually maintain an Atkins lifestyle and still remain a vegetarian, although you will be eating an awful lot of leafy green vegetables.

      Disclaimer: I tried the Atkins diet for about a year. Not only did my weight dropped to a healthy level, but my blood work actually improved. I had a physical before I started Atkins and then again a year later. My blood pressure dropped from normal-high to normal. My cholesterol level dropped to normal levels. My BMI was excellent. My doctor was amazed and complemented me on my exercise healthy diet. Of course, I was not exercising and the doctor thought I was eating nuts and twigs. I was in great shape and all I did was eat nothing but bacon, eggs, chicken, cheese, beef, salad and other low carb foods such as berries and salad. A typical lunch when someone else was paying was a fatty ribeye with butter and a salad drenched in Ranch dressing. Or, I might opt for a hamburger, minus the bun with blue cheese and a salad with blue cheese dressing.

      I had to get off of the Atkins diet when the economy turned south. Pasta, rice and bread is cheap. Ribeye steaks are expensive.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    41. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Try going to McDonald's or any place where "I need to eat and get back to work ASAP" serves up food. You can't get what you're looking for. Back in Texas, we have "Souper Salad." Those places are awesome... get what you need/want and fast and cheap. Out here on the east coast, that chain and none like it exists out here.

      On the West Coast, where culture and technology comes from, we have an invention known as "Fresh Choice" where you may assemble your own salad and eat it at your own pace, yea verily, even back in your cubicle. We've had Souper Salads out here in California, too, not sure if any are left. Regardless, I'll have the soup. Iceberg fail.

      It's called a salad bar and they can be found all over the US.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    42. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll pay for it later.

    43. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a vegetarian, not even close, but occasionally I get a massive craving for lentils & eat nothing else for a day and a half.

    44. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      adds more protean

      It makes it more versatile or changeable?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    45. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Worms, pah! How about indirect cannibalism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Ilkla_Moor_Baht_'at#Lyrics

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    46. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by swalve · · Score: 1

      And in those six years, how's your weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels been?

    47. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically if he had had more fat on this head and face he might have survived.

    48. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fair enough, but just to balance things out lets also get people to have a vegetable licence. You should have to grow a field full of vegetables, by hand & no machinery, before you are allowed to eat vegetables. Also you have to clear the land as well & put up hedgerows. Watering, harvesting etc all done by hand. You also have to learn about soil management and soil destruction as part of the license.

      I agree with you on the eating a steak and the energy bit. The fat content of the steak is what gives you that energy. I just don't about the licensing though.

    49. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I don't REALLY want a license, I just think it would produce more vegetarians, which leaves the steak for me

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    50. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>if you live on mostly meats without much in the way of carbs, you'll be just fine and your body will consume those "bad fats."

      What BS. The bad fats will simply accumulate in the walls of your arteries, giving them a "foam" appearance until a clot is formed. Then you experience poor circulation in your legs/arms (causes pain), and eventually die of stroke or heart attack when they are starved of blood.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    51. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Why not just cut out the middleman and eat the worms from the cow dung! Yum!

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    52. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by bura · · Score: 1

      Its all relative, isnt it? After all, all that you described is soil at that stage. You dont eat the crap, but a vegetable that grew in that soil. Compare eating vegetables grown with that soil vs cracking up the reproductive stuff of a chicken for breakfast. Or eating an animal whose life style you have no idea of... the carcass that was dragged in its own crap, etc.

    53. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by dentin · · Score: 1

      This is already a reality with naturally-fed animals. For example, beef can provide us with all the healthy fats and oils we need when the cow is grass-fed and range raised. When chickens are raised on a diet or worms that grow in fresh cow dung, the consistency, flavor, and overall health of their eggs is substantially higher than what is generally available in the supermarket.

      Please post research papers backing this statement. This is a rather exceptional claim that requires more than your assertion as evidence. Simply because something is 'naturally-fed' doesn't mean it's healthy, and beef is really big on being unhealthy by default.

      --
      Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com
    54. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Try cooking pork in (Thai) fish sauce. That should work.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    55. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

      Since you're one of those who requires a scientific study to make a decision, here's a list you can start with. For me, it makes sense that if I eat what my body evolved to eat, then I will be more healthy, and that this logic works best when it is also applied throughout my food chain.

      --

      I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

    56. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by dentin · · Score: 1

      [For the record, just because there is scientific fraud and error, does not mean that science and research should be ignored. It means we should give it lower weight as evidence, but the simple fact of the matter is that it is still the best evidence we have. You could have simply provided your last link without adding the snide implication that all science sucks; the other two links contributed nothing to the conversation.]

      Thank you for the last of the three links. That contains some interesting papers and is good evidence for your statement, even given the vested interest of the publisher.

      --
      Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com
    57. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > How is it difficult to eat "that way"? IMO it's very easy to have a diet which is primarily meat.

      Some of us have taste buds. Meat by itself tastes absolutely wretched. You can eat it in an emergency, but pretty much only if you haven't had anything to eat in so long your stomach things your throat's been slit. Even then, you take a couple of bites and immediately go, "Uggh. Why am I eating this? Sure, I'm hungry, but am I really *this* hungry?"

      Drown that same meat in ketchup and cheese, pile a whole bunch of lettuce and tomato and cucumber and stuff on top, and serve it between slices of multi-grain bread, and now you've got yourself a tasty sandwich. Or you can cut the meat up into small pieces and stir-fry it with vegetables and rice, and that's good. Or put it in soup, with a whole bunch of vegetables and some noodles and/or potatoes. Or grind it up and put it in baked pasta, or use it as a pizza topping. There are a lot of things you can do with meat that make a meal you *want* to eat.

      But just plain meat by itself? Blech. You'd better just kill me now, if my other choice is to eat like that for the rest of my life.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    58. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > I'm not sure why [mutton is] not so much of a thing in the US.

      Historically, when most of the settlers came here, the land hadn't been cleared yet. Everything was forest as far as the eye could see. They started clearing land right away, but they initially needed much of the cleared land for planting grain. Milk cows can be kept in a barn most of the time, as can pigs (which you can even feed on slops), and chickens do just fine where you haven't cleared the trees yet. What grazing land was available was needed for horses (important for transportation until the early twentieth century) and cows (which you *have* to have, for the milk). Sheep are rather hard on grazing land, because they eat the grass right down to the roots, instead of just clipping off the tops like most grazing animals, so you need a larger amount of cleared, fallow grassland if you're going to raise sheep, as compared to most other livestock. Land that's too hilly to farm efficiently is ideal for sheep (because you can afford to let them have quite a bit of it without feeling like you're missing the opportunity to grow five times their value in wheat), but there's not very much of that kind of land east of the Rockies, and almost all of it was covered with forest. Cows need a lot less grazing land than sheep, for the amount of food they produce. As the frontier advanced westward, this situation continued to obtain for a fair percentage of our history -- by which time a lot of our national cuisine was pretty well established, at least in basic terms. Sheep have always been around too (as well as goats and all manner of other livestock) but in rather smaller numbers. By the time an area had enough available cleared land to let it go to grass and use it for sheep, all our grandmothers' recipe books were focused on beef and pork and chicken as the major kinds of meat.

      The other thing is, Virginia established a cotton economy rather early, so the market for wool was never particularly great over here. That made sheep less attractive to raise than they might have been otherwise.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    59. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's fatty then you're eating the wrong lamb. Try a "primitive" breed instead of a commercial "meadow maggot". Jacob sheep are my favorite, personally. They're smaller, but the quality of the meat is far superior. Oh, goat makes great taco meat, btw. :)

    60. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Not sure about cholesterol, since I haven't followed it closely, but I have lost about 10kg and my blood pressure is around 115 - 125 when I measure it (i'm 54 this year).

      As I said, I eat like this primarily because I find it much more satisfying; I do eat meat still, and many more kinds than before - silk worms, anyone? :-) - just not very much or very often. Somehow, when I eat meat, it quickly begins to taste foul, and it isn't about the quality either, because now that I eat it so rarely, I tend to buy more expensive and better quality meat.

    61. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A salad bar of equivalent quality typically costs a lot more than Souper Salad did. Probably why none of them are left around here. You can't run a salad bar for $6.95 a person.

    62. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction: can't run an all-you-can-eat salad bar for $6.95 a person. If you limit portion sizes, maybe.

    63. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      I suppose it depends on where you're from (in my experience, California has some of the worst meat in the country - and the Northern Midwest, the best).

      A good cut of meat tastes just fine with a touch of salt and course ground black pepper. I'm not talking prime rib or backstrap on a trophy cow here, just a common lean sirloin from a healthy animal, cooked correctly. The same largely goes for poultry and (to a lesser degree, because I'm not fond of the 'better' cuts) pork.

      Some people say grain/corn-finished meat tastes best. Personally? I like full range meat - the stuff that tastes "gamey". It really does taste better. The grain fed stuff tastes mealy.

      I also completely agree with you regarding the 'meat only' statements. No, I don't eat 'only meat'. But primarily meat? Yes, please. If it's good meat, at least. There's a big difference between a meat sauce on pasta and pasta with meat sauce: one tends to be, well, primarily meat; the other tends to be primarily pasta. I'll leave it to you to consider which is more filling.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    64. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment is so true. Everyone eats the other person's shit.

    65. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be one of those people who cooks their meat until it resembles leather, then you find it strangely unappetizing.

    66. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      I'm from Ohio.

      > A good cut of meat tastes just fine with a
      > touch of salt and course ground black pepper.

      Admittedly, black pepper isn't something we use very often around here.
      The standing joke people from other parts of the country tell is that Ohioans
      only use three spices: salt, pepper, and ketchup. The joke doesn't work
      so well *in* Ohio. In practice, we use onion powder, sometimes garlic,
      and of course desert spices (cinnamon especially, but also nutmeg,
      cloves, and from time to time even ginger) but very few Ohioans ever
      eat pepper. More people around here eat sauerkraut than black pepper.
      Black pepper is "hot", don't you know.

      Nonetheless, I *do* know what pepper tastes like (I've lived in two
      other states besides Ohio; I also use cayenne), and of course
      everyone uses too much salt, yet there's no way that's enough to
      fix beef. Chicken or fish *maybe* (although fish could really do
      with some lemon), but pork has got to have ketchup or barbecue
      sauce on it, and as for beef... beef with just salt and pepper would
      be completely inedible, as far as I'm concerned. Add some
      worchestershire sauce, ketchup, brown sugar, cheddar, ketchup,
      pickle, a slice of provalone, lettuce, tomato, ketchup, maybe some
      mushrooms, a couple of slices of nice multi-grain bread, and now
      you've got something I'll eat. Did I mention ketchup? Red meat
      isn't ready to eat until it has ketchup on it -- or barbecue sauce.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    67. Re:Genetically Modified Hogs next? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      Well I'm sure as everliving [bad word] not going to eat *raw* meat. Do I *look* Japanese to you? Are blue-grey eyes and light brown hair and skin approximately the same color as Cool Whip the usual signs of being Japanese? No? Well, there you are, then. I don't eat raw meat.

      I've bitten into undercooked meat by mistake a handful of times in my life. Undercooked chicken is merely tasteless and poorly textured. Undercooked fish is actively disgusting. Undercooked eggs are worse yet. Undercooked beef will throw your gastro-intestinal tract into reverse gear really, really fast. I consider myself fortunate not to have ever inadvertently bitten into undercooked pork, but I have a hard time imagining it would be very good.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  2. my wife... by crutchy · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...gets a bit of "good fat" occasionally

    1. Re:my wife... by jhoegl · · Score: 2

      So... your neighbor?

    2. Re:my wife... by Hartree · · Score: 1

      "So... your neighbor?"

      Nah. It's why all his kids look like either the mailman or the plumber.

    3. Re:my wife... by game+kid · · Score: 1

      Well, I'll admit that's "found naturally in nuts" too...

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    4. Re:my wife... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, most look like Tyrone the thug.

    5. Re:my wife... by crutchy · · Score: 1

      omg how did you know?!

      its usually while i'm doing your mom and your sister

  3. First clone of first post! by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Funny

    HeaIthy bacon, Mrnrnrn,

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:First clone of first post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your clone appears to have developed a deleterious mutation.

    2. Re:First clone of first post! by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      They already have that. It's chicken or turkey strips flavored like bacon. Very good with almost no bad fat.

      They already have that. It's chicken or turkey strips flavored like bacon. Very good with almost no bad fat.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    3. Re:First clone of first post! by Nursie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would dispute 'very good'.

    4. Re:First clone of first post! by modernzombie · · Score: 2

      I eat turkey bacon regularly and it tastes nothing like real bacon. It tastes more like Bologna than bacon.

    5. Re:First clone of first post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I concur.

    6. Re:First clone of first post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Healthy my arse! Look at the ingredients list on turkey-bacon. They have lots of additives added to it. Same would go with the chicken bacon as well!

      And bad fat = polyunsaturated fat. The idea of automatically having it in livestock is atrocious. If people consume these monsters then you will find that the rates of chronic diseases will absolutely sky rocket. The idea is to eat natural foods not these monstrous frankenfoods! Natural foods do not have an ingredients list, or if they do then that ingredients list contains one item - the product!

    7. Re:First clone of first post! by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you're eating the wrong stuff then. The turkey bacon I buy tastes identical to bacon, minus all the nasty grease (ick).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    8. Re:First clone of first post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "bacon" you mean "salty slightly meat-ish substance"... yes?

      If by "bacon" you mean "meaty solidified bacon grease"... NO.

  4. Somatic cell = old mitochondria by Svartormr · · Score: 1

    It's the same problem that killed Dolly the sheep early. Mammal female germ cells avoid activity prior to fertilization to minimize oxidation damage to their mitochondria. This may or may not be dealt with by then breeding normally thereafter.

    1. Re:Somatic cell = old mitochondria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're breeding for food purposes, I don't think longevity matters that much. Dolly lived for much longer than the usual term for lamb that are bred for meat.

    2. Re:Somatic cell = old mitochondria by NoKaOi · · Score: 2

      If you're breeding for food purposes, I don't think longevity matters that much. Dolly lived for much longer than the usual term for lamb that are bred for meat.

      Except that breeding the old fashioned way is probably a lot cheaper than cloning and genetic modification. I would think that ideally, you'd want to clone/modify a few and then breed them.

    3. Re:Somatic cell = old mitochondria by tragedy · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it's not the mitochondria, but the shortened telomeres in the older nuclear DNA.

  5. Re:Somatic cell = old mitochondria NOT by Svartormr · · Score: 1

    Erk. Just read the process again. Gene into somatic cell nucleus, then somatic cell nucleus into regular egg. Doesn't have that problem.

  6. Ethics of GMO animals? by MrEricSir · · Score: 2

    GMO plants is one thing, but animals? I can't quite put my finger on why, but someting about this seems... troubling.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Ethics of GMO animals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh, no doubt. Even GM plants is unsettling.

      As for the animals, they are healthy just not in the amounts that most are eating. It's bad enough all the hormones and antibiotics in meat as it is. 'Good' fat isn't going to change that.

      captcha: disgusts

    2. Re:Ethics of GMO animals? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Because you think modern livestock haven't undergone genetic modification?

    3. Re:Ethics of GMO animals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. Better than GM plants. We've already seen how hard it is to keep GM corn penned up. Oh, wait, "penned up...."

    4. Re:Ethics of GMO animals? by englishknnigits · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are you saying you would rather eat an animal that doesn't want you to eat it?

    5. Re:Ethics of GMO animals? by metrometro · · Score: 2

      Because you can't treat a plant inhumanely. Sheep can suffer. And we know how compatible capitalism and bioethics is.

    6. Re:Ethics of GMO animals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the genetic modification as such that worries me. Practically everything we eat, excluding bananas is genetically unique. We're adapted to it.

      The difference is the degree and kind of modification. Remember, potatoes and nightshade are genetically very similar. More so, perhaps than some of the GM stuff.

    7. Re:Ethics of GMO animals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just till we start cross breeding animals with humans. I think the Chinese will give a go first.

    8. Re:Ethics of GMO animals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't quite put my finger on why, but someting about this seems... troubling.

      Ingrained prejudices.

      There's really no difference except that we "feel" it's different.

    9. Re:Ethics of GMO animals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We've been doing GMO for centuries, many of them. The difference is now we're able to make specific, targeted changes much more rapidly, whereas before we had to breed features in and out of our food species over very (very very in some cases) long periods with only a partial ability to control the outcomes well. This whole argument is kinda like hearing someone say "You genetically modified a housecat to not have claws? That's so unnatural!" .. as if housecats are at all natural. We created what they are today over a long period (well, and some more modern breeds/features over a shorter period when we understood breeding properly). If you want a "natural" pet, trying having a cougar sit in your lap and purr every day (insert cougar dating joke here).

      All of the modern major food supply species: Cows, Pigs, Chickens, etc... are all incredibly unnatural species already, even before the advent of proper GMO. They'd go extinct in a heartbeat without us growing/farming/protecting them until we eat them. We engineered them as food sources, they're not natural!

    10. Re:Ethics of GMO animals? by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      Not if you genetically modify out it's ability to feel pain...
      and maybe the sheep can also be modified to be super strong and resilient...
      and maybe we can make them breed faster...
      and maybe we can make them eat meat so we don't need to feed them as often...
      and maybe we can make them smart so they can find their own meat...

      I can't think of any reason that would be ethically wrong but if you pay me to study it, maybe I could... or couldn't.

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    11. Re:Ethics of GMO animals? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Cows, Pigs, Chickens, etc... are all incredibly unnatural species already, even before the advent of proper GMO. They'd go extinct in a heartbeat without us growing/farming/protecting them until we eat them.

      Right. That must be why there aren't more feral pigs in Australia than there are people, dodos are still alive and there's no such thing as razorbacks.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:Ethics of GMO animals? by gorzek · · Score: 1

      Quite true.

      There is a stigma that anything "unnatural" is therefore wrong in some way. Even a lot of atheists tend to think this, despite the fact that its origin tends to be religious in nature. "God (any god, take your pick) made it this way, therefore we should not tamper with it!" Obviously, we shouldn't make genetically modified animals mainstream without understanding their implications--whether they pose any greater health risk to humans, for instance--but the fact that they are "unnatural" shouldn't really enter into it.

      Wearing synthetic fibers is "unnatural." Using birth control is "unnatural." Virtually all of modern medicine is "unnatural." Driving cars is "unnatural." Somehow, we manage to get by.

      Being against genetically modified animals/crops on principle is really just a version of, "There are some things man was not meant to do."

    13. Re:Ethics of GMO animals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm. An animal that wants to be eaten. Sounds familiar:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1nxaQhsaaw

    14. Re:Ethics of GMO animals? by dentin · · Score: 1

      I agree, and I'm all about unnatural. I disdain 'organic' anything, and will buy non-organic even against a price difference (which never happens.) I take a handful of supplements; every one has been manufactured in a laboratory. Pretty much the only 'organic' things I look for are deep sea fish, because that's the most effective way to get DHA and EPA. (Most farm raised fish has virtually none.)

      Personally, most 'organic' stuff creeps me out, especially when it comes to supplements. God only knows what's in that bottle of algae or your 'megavitamin natural supplement'. When I'm taking five grams of piracetam or a gram of ascorbic acid that was constructed in a lab, I know exactly what's in it - the assay sheet tells me. If I take the ginko root tonic provided by the local shaman, I could be ingesting liquified pig brains for all I know.

      --
      Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com
    15. Re:Ethics of GMO animals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is less the fact of GM, as you say we've been doing it in a crude fashion for millenia. The problems are more:

      * Unintended consequences - we're messing with things we don't really understand, we're at the fingerpainting stage of genetic modification, but the things we create are self-replicating and often have significant survival advantages, so once released into the world we can't recall them. If they turn out to be highly invasive, cause environmental damage, or hybridize with something to create a new organism that does so then we're up the proverbial creek - for example an invasive pesticide or antifungal producing plant could wreak havok on the lowest levels of ecosystem, to devastating effect.

      * Legal exploitation - We're already seeing this with the Monsanto lawsuits - some of the corn in your fields was fertilized by pollen from the nearby Monsanto crop? Plow under your fields and try again. What, that would bankrupt you? No problem, we'll buy your fields for pennies on the dollar and plant more Monsanto corn. Do you really want the worlds food supply to be controlled by a handful of corporations?

      * Genetic Monoculture - if all the corn in the world is Monsanto strain bx85, what happens when a disease evolves to infect it? Without significant individual differences to adapt to it could spreads through the worlds crops like wildfire. Even if by some miracle they engineer a new immune strain within a few years there's going to be an awful lot of hungry people in the meantime.

      * More unintended consequences - what happens when in 50 years that brilliant vitamin enriched rice or high-yield wheat is discovered to also produce a chemical that causes gradual neurological degeneration? In the meantime the gene has spread throughout the worlds food supply and we've got a major problem on our hands.

      * Transgenic vulnerability - when you graft genes from one organism into another, you create a hybrid organism that can potentially serve as a conduit for diseases to jump between species that would normally be too different, thus increasing the disease rates for both organisms.

      The big problem is we're messing with *life*, once it gets out of the lab we can't hope to control it. If anything goes wrong about the only thing we can do with any hope of success is to create some other new organism to keep it in check. and if something goes wrong with that... Just take a look at how successful Australia has been at trying to control rabbits or cane toads.

        It's like the difference between nuclear and biological weapons - A nuke is instantly devastating and the fallout has some with nasty medium-term consequences, but the damage is largely constrained to the immediate area by the fact that a finite weapon can only cause finite damage. A slow-working bio-weapon could potentially wipe out the entire species because it's self-replicating, all it takes is one a single germ to get things rolling and it can keep spreading until it runs out of hosts.

      Personally I think Monsanto had the right idea with their "kill switch" gene that prevented reproduction, even if their motivation was likely "evil". If we're going to be tinkering with life we should put in all the safeguards we can think of. In a century or two, once we (hopefully) start to understand the systems we're tinkering with, then we can start releasing things into the wild.

  7. Creepy mental image by Grayhand · · Score: 5, Funny

    The fact they got the fat gene from a round worm gave me this mental image of a 100lb round worm covered in sheep's wool. I doubt counting those wouldn't help me get to sleep and would likely give you nightmares.

    1. Re:Creepy mental image by xstonedogx · · Score: 2

      Wait until they cross them with cinnamon trees.

    2. Re:Creepy mental image by Solozerk · · Score: 2

      The Spice expands consciousness.

    3. Re:Creepy mental image by rs79 · · Score: 1

      Don't be daft. Mint.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    4. Re:Creepy mental image by Genda · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, long, fluffy, and fresh breath... I've got the mint, but no leg of larm!!!

    5. Re:Creepy mental image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they'd be a bit easier to shear.

    6. Re:Creepy mental image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bring on the sligs!

      Personally I think this would be a great way to go - giant worms that can convert biowaste to sweet succulent meat and rich black soil. While we're at it lets make sure it's defenseless and smells delicious so that there's no chance of it surviving in the wild. And let's be sure to remove the pain receptors and keep the regeneration, why have to slaughter it for meat? You could keep a few in your compost heap and just slice a bit off one of their tender, freshly regenerated tails whenever you want some meat.

      We could get really fancy and make them in different flavors, beef, pork, chicken, fish, elk, caribou, buffalo, you name it. And just imagine the cross-breeds "I'd like a caribou-lobster steak please.."

  8. "fat found in nuts, seeds, fish and greens" by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    So we'll soon have mutton that tastes like spinach?

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:"fat found in nuts, seeds, fish and greens" by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Or cashews.

      Could be a growth market - flavored cows. Spinach cows, cashew cows, trout cows, kale cows.....

      Dunno.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:"fat found in nuts, seeds, fish and greens" by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      I don't know where that nonsense came from. The fat gene comes from a worm.

    3. Re:"fat found in nuts, seeds, fish and greens" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need to mess with old flavorless spices, no need to check a recipe, new "Ease Roast" sheep are as simple as 1-2-3, 1) put "Ease Roast" in oven 2) Cook for 1 hour 3) serve. "Ease Roast" will taste like the roast mom used to make without all the work!

      captcha: funding

    4. Re:"fat found in nuts, seeds, fish and greens" by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Ok, mutton that tastes like worms.

      Where that "nonsense" comes from is that the fat is the type found in nuts etc. (i.e., the supposedly "healthy" kind).

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    5. Re:"fat found in nuts, seeds, fish and greens" by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      So we'll soon have mutton that tastes like spinach?

      Saag Gosht?

      Thanks, got a curry craving now.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  9. No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's not like this is a rare nutritional commodity. I think I'll just stick to eating the nuts, seeds, fish and leafy greens instead of the cloned sheep.

    1. Re:No thanks by Hartree · · Score: 1

      Good. Leaves more meat for the rest of us.

  10. Healthy by kamapuaa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Worth mentioning that humans evolved to eat animals with standard fat percentages, not margarine or mealworm-sheep. There is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD, and there are healthy populations that traditionally go 6-9 months with no fats except animals fats.

    --
    Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    1. Re:Healthy by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      and there are healthy populations that traditionally go 6-9 months with no fats except animals fats.

      Bear in mind these populations probably also get a good amount of exercise... Here in 'merica we want to have our fat and eat it too.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    2. Re:Healthy by slew · · Score: 3, Informative

      Worth mentioning that humans evolved to eat animals with standard fat percentages, not margarine or mealworm-sheep. There is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD, and there are healthy populations that traditionally go 6-9 months with no fats except animals fats.

      FWIW, the main advance with this announcement is not the omega-3/FAT-1 transgenic aspect, it is the new cloning technique BGI calls handmade cloning which apparently allows lower-tech facilities and higher transgenic clone yield. BGI has already done this transgenic modification with pigs and now they have done it with sheep. With this new cloning technique, however, it might be possible to do this at an industrial scale.

      However, If you are interested instead about this specific "fat-1" transgenic idea, it was done with mice way back in 2004.

      Although that is possibly true that saturated fats aren't corrolated with increased risk of CHD or CVD, omega-3 fatty acids are required for controlling blood clotting and building cell membranes in the brain and are assumed to be a necessary nutrient. The "healthy populations" you seem to be alluding to likley maintain their consumption of omega-3 fatty acids from seafood and nuts and oils for 6-9 months of the year.

    3. Re:Healthy by CAIMLAS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here in America, we also have processed grains in everything.

      We also have a very high percentage of our diets consist of processed GMO grains (corn, wheat). If you're having 2 hamburgers with a handful of corn chips and two white wheat buns, the meat isn't going to be the primary component of the meal.

      It seems that every couple months there's a news article about some old guy or gal who died after a fairly insignificant (not particularly active or sedentary, nothing really marked to note) life who spent their entire life having pork (ham/bacon) and eggs for breakfast every day. It wasn't until the inclusion of excess grains that Americans started to have issues in the late 1800s.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    4. Re:Healthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.

      This video adds more to the subject. It offers an excellent lecture describing how plant oils were adopted into the American diet over the last sixty years through shady dealings, and corporately mandated 'scientific' skull duggery.

      There's a lot more available on this subject. Making animal fats the main part our diet is perhaps the key to optimal health.

    5. Re:Healthy by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Worth mentioning that humans evolved to eat animals with standard fat percentages,

      Except we didn't evolve to eat animals every day in large amounts. There ARE significant studies that have correlated high LDL cholesterol with heart disease, and there are studies linking high saturated fats with an increase in LDL cholesterol.

      --
      AccountKiller
    6. Re:Healthy by sunspot42 · · Score: 2

      >Except we didn't evolve to eat animals every day in large amounts.

      Oh really? So what were we eating for the million or so years the human race evolved prior to the invention of agriculture?

      Of course we ate meat. It was the only thing an animal our size with a digestive system like ours could eat. Any study of primitive, hunter-gatherer societies will show that meat, eggs, fish and insects are the primary component of the diet in pre-agricultural cultures. Nuts, seasonal fruits, a few starchy tubers and select vegetables typically make up the remainder of the diet.

      There are plenty of traditional societies where meat is the overwhelming component of the diet (Eskimos, for example). Invariably these people were incredibly healthy prior to the introduction of the modern western diet, with its abundance of cheap carbohydrates and processed oils. Which are garbage that humans aren't designed to eat.

    7. Re:Healthy by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      Evolution did not happen in 3 or 4 generations... but processed foods and preservatives have.
      Pandoras box has opened.

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    8. Re:Healthy by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Yes, I can already imagine everyone switching to this new "healthy fat" meat and then, after a few decades, get diseases caused by the lack of some nutrient that they used to get from the "bad fat". Things switch from the good to the bad column and vice versa all the time, alcohol keeps switching back and forth, healthy margarines are suddenly dangerous, the list is endless.

      If we would just all eat a nice varied diet with natural products that contain a bit of everything without excess, and stay away from all the processed and manipulated light/diet crap that's advertised as being healthier than the natural stuff (until proven otherwise in a big scandal), we wouldn't have this sort of problem.

      Not that I'm against GM, but when we start genetically changing the contents of food crops and meat to achieve some kind of presumed health effect, I'm getting a bit worried. Especially given the track record of nutrition experts.

    9. Re:Healthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a complete tangent to the discussion at hand. You are refuting a point that nobody is making.

    10. Re:Healthy by swalve · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find an even tighter correlation between high saturated fats + high carbohydrate and increased LDL.

    11. Re:Healthy by kheldan · · Score: 1

      The question that immediately comes to mind upon reading your post is: Do the people you're referring to consume animals that are inherently free-range, or are they still farmed animals? My gut instinct is trying to tell me that it's not so much what animals we consume or how much of that we consume, but what the animals are fed on. Here in the U.S., the typical farmed animals are kept in pens (or worse if it's chickens), fed grains and even offal, and fed antibiotics, growth hormones, etc.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    12. Re:Healthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, good question. Oh, I have an idea, lets look at our closest living relatives, bonobos and chimpanzees and see what they eat. Hmm, looks like mostly ripe fruit and young leaves, with seeds, nuts, flowers, pith, and bark taking up the slack when fruit isn't available. Also insects and (mostly among the males) mammals, but that comprises less than 5% of their diet.

      Nope, not seeing anything to suggest a primarily carnivorous diet, quite the opposite in fact. Face it, meat isn't anything special as a food. Protein rich, but other than childhood and during pregnancy we don't actually need much protein we just need calories and trace nutrients. We can get that from meat, but it's generally easier to get it from plants, they're a lot easier to catch.

    13. Re:Healthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our closest living relatives are much farther apart from us than many extinct ones which were almost exclusively carnivorous.

  11. Peta's gonna be pissed ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Eating animals just got even healthier.

    If an animal has plant DNA, does that mean it is no longer an animal and even more delicious?

  12. AWESOME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want a Chai Latte straight from the cow!

    1. Re:AWESOME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need GMO then - just pour some hot water over some cow dung and you're done.

    2. Re:AWESOME! by Genda · · Score: 1

      You can get that today, just be warned the cow will kick you ass for burning her udder!!!

  13. What could go wrong? by jtotheh · · Score: 2

    I don't want to seem old or old fashioned but this seems like a really bad idea in numerous ways. Maybe they should feed the clone brains from another sheep to add another dubious aspect to this process.

    1. Re:What could go wrong? by siddesu · · Score: 2

      You're not scared enough. Just wait until the Chinese scientists get permission to do the breeding on that asteroid that Google is about to bring in Earth orbit. Anyway, I am off to stock up on some shotgun shells, plasma cells and rockets.

    2. Re:What could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slightly more worried that they'll think this process is 'good' for humans. We'll end up with genetically 'perfect' human beings, incapable of transcending humanity; although I believe by that point, they'll breed humans to be blind to the possibility of transcending. Let's face it: human beings were evolved to be weapons.

  14. Mmmm... Slig! by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

    When do we get Slig?

    --
    Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  15. Yum - Peng Peng Lamb by axonis · · Score: 1

    I wonder if it tastes anything like Mongolian Lamb ?, I'm sure the next step is Genetic marination - ready to cook !

    --
    bæ8Ã0sÃOE?5r©oÂÃ?âz:ÃÃAÃ?ÃOEÂ6fXÃ?]Â
    1. Re:Yum - Peng Peng Lamb by swalve · · Score: 1

      Combine that with the DNA from fat people, since they already make their own gravy on hot days.

  16. what about women? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    Can we genetically modify human women to not have any fat? I have one in particular that I'm pretty sure I have power over attorney over that I'd be willing to volunteer.

    1. Re:what about women? by siddesu · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid not everybody shares your anorexic fantasies. Most of us prefer natural women, with enough fat in the proper places.

    2. Re:what about women? by Genda · · Score: 1

      So you want a woman with no breasts and no ass... hmmm why not just find a guy?

    3. Re:what about women? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      I saw a woman today at the grocery store who looked like she had zero body fat. Not a pretty sight I can tell you. I wanted to drop six pounds of bacon in her basket as an act of charity, bit I thought she might take it amiss. Besides, it wouldn't have been enough.

    4. Re:what about women? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The scariest part is that she probably thinks she is fat. :(

    5. Re:what about women? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Fact: Few guys really like the skinny kind of woman.

      I mean, seriously, when was the last time you walked past a construction site and heard "Hey, Bob, ya seen the hip bones of the chick?"

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:what about women? by swalve · · Score: 1

      It's all about the muscle tone.

    7. Re:what about women? by gorzek · · Score: 1

      A woman without fat? What would be the point??

    8. Re:what about women? by gorzek · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Being shallow for a moment, the soft curves of a woman's body are probably one of their most physically attractive features. By contrast, the typical male body is more rugged and utilitarian--built to do work, not to look good. (Obviously, I am generalizing, all generalizations are wrong, blah blah, YMMV.)

    9. Re:what about women? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      You did not see this woman. It was about an unhealthily low amount of body fat.

      And I can totally clean and jerk more than six pounds of bacon.

  17. Disgusting by doston · · Score: 2

    Not eating cloned anything or anything that's been screwed around with. I know it's unpopular here, but I eat everything organic...everything. As far as meat, if it didn't eat what it was supposed to eat; pasture raised and organic at that, I avoid it. Chickens eat bugs and grass, not feed. They like to scratch around in dirt, not hang out idly in cages all day. Same with Beef, less the bugs. We're likely evolved to eat a paleolithic era type diet. Going to stick as close to that as possible. You aren't just what you eat, you're also what your food ate. Why would I support something like 800 million pounds of pesticide being dumped on the land every year? Now it's some pesticide killing the bees. I remember when my Father's doctor had him eating trans-fat for his heart trouble. What will researchers discover ten years after this cloned junk's been foisted on the public?

    1. Re:Disgusting by Genda · · Score: 1

      That the new race of superhumans that came from eating this mana from the gods is about embark on a long voyage to a distant new world they can see with their naked super eyes, and leave you sad organic nibbles to what's left of the earth.

    2. Re:Disgusting by doston · · Score: 1

      That the new race of superhumans that came from eating this mana from the gods is about embark on a long voyage to a distant new world they can see with their naked super eyes, and leave you sad organic nibbles to what's left of the earth.

      I've met quite a few of these "Gods" while drinking beer. Don't get your hopes up.

    3. Re:Disgusting by Vellmont · · Score: 1, Insightful


      Chickens eat bugs and grass, not feed.

      We domesticated chickens about 5000 years ago. They haven't been eating bugs and grass for a long time. (Actually I'm pretty certain birds don't eat grass at all, so you might want to brush up on your livestock knowledge). Chickens are entirely dependent on humans, and wouldn't survive a week without humans.

      If you really want to stop eating anything humans have created and changed, you should stop eating almost everything in the food supply. About the only food in your average supermarket that hasn't been completely created by human beings through selective breeding is fish and seafood.

      --
      AccountKiller
    4. Re:Disgusting by sunspot42 · · Score: 1

      >They haven't been eating bugs and grass for a long time. (Actually I'm pretty certain
      >birds don't eat grass at all, so you might want to brush up on your livestock knowledge).

      Chickens most certainly eat grass. My grandmother used to raise a few. They eat a lot of stuff. They seemed to love bugs the most. They'll eat seeds and grains too, but there's no way that's the bulk of their diet in the wild.

      We evolved to eat free range meat. Agriculture to produce farmed grains for livestock is a VERY recent invention in evolutionary terms.

    5. Re:Disgusting by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      I have never seen a wild chicken...even the wikipedia article for chicken that mentions wild chickes eat lizards, does not say that in the citation. Where do wild chickens live?!

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    6. Re:Disgusting by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      A little Google-fu reveals that domestic chickens are descended from Indian and Chinese Junglefowl.

      Planning a holiday soon?

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    7. Re:Disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life expectancy for a 15-year old in paleolithic times was 54 (33 at birth). Since a lot of lifestyle-related diseases manifest themselves at ages greater than 54, it does not make much sense to compare paleolithic to modern times. This is not to say that paleo diet is BS, but that evidence in favour of it is far from conclusive, and that more research needs to be made. It is also very hard to conduct such research, because one cannot (ethical issues aside) reliably and consistently have people follow a controlled diet for the 40 or so years that would be required for results to be obtained.

      source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

    8. Re:Disgusting by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Huh. So you eat chicken and beef, both animals that have been "screwed around with" by humans for tens of thousands of years?

      Maybe you eat grains (screwed around with)? Legumes (ditto)?

    9. Re:Disgusting by yabos · · Score: 1

      The domesticated chickens are so huge that they can barely stand on their own. This is how we get the huge chicken breasts you see in the store these days. Those chickens could not survive in the wild. However, there are still some breeds available that are more natural and can survive just fine in a natural environment.

    10. Re:Disgusting by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      sure... so like domestic cats should eat gazelles then. I think I get it.

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    11. Re:Disgusting by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Stop being facetious and look up Junglefowl on Wikipedia. It's just like a domesticated chicken; Eats seeds, fruits, grubs, scratches in soil, even aesthetically very similar. It's obvious, even to the untrained eye, that these are very similar species, much more so than your big cat / domesticated cat analogy.

      Wait, your UID... Yup, I got trolled.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    12. Re:Disgusting by doston · · Score: 0

      Huh. So you eat chicken and beef, both animals that have been "screwed around with" by humans for tens of thousands of years?

      Maybe you eat grains (screwed around with)? Legumes (ditto)?

      Same reason I wouldn't eat your mom.

  18. polyunsaturated animal fats? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

    Aren't they usually a liquid at body temperature? Going to make for some really squishy lambs...

    1. Re:polyunsaturated animal fats? by Genda · · Score: 1

      Try s sip, you might like it!!!

    2. Re:polyunsaturated animal fats? by CFD339 · · Score: 1

      no, you're thinking plant fats with one hydrogen atom vs. animal fats with two. the "hydrogenate" plant fats to make them taste and have the texture of animal fats but as a result, they're just as bad for you.

      This is more about the fatty acids and oils that are why fish are healthier to eat than beef (in that we eat too much beef and not enough fish, generally).

      The real question is ...how will it taste.

      --
      The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
    3. Re:polyunsaturated animal fats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't they usually a liquid at body temperature? Going to make for some really squishy lambs...

      As squishy as you. Unless you're rock hard ripped, in which case, they're as squishy as the average flabby guy.

  19. Re:knockoff handbags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot the link, man. How are people supposed to buy your knockoff handbags?

  20. Hmmm.. by Cosgrach · · Score: 1

    What could possibly go wrong?

    --
    Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
    1. Re:Hmmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you not see the part of the summary that said "with any luck"? I've always preferred my science with a healthy dose of luck, even before it was popular.

  21. Roundworm fat by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    The article says they successfully cloned the roundworm gene into a sheep but doesn't say how much it changes the fat in the sheep. Who knows if it's even significant? And who knows if it's OK for sheep's health to make a weird kind of fat and who know if people will like to eat wormutton?

    A lot of the taste of meat is in the fat. Will it taste wormy?

    1. Re:Roundworm fat by CFD339 · · Score: 1

      More than that, it will likely interact with the brain differently. You could conceivably be creating sheep with very different brain function.

      --
      The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
    2. Re:Roundworm fat by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      An influence on the brain function of a sheep could only be for the better though.

    3. Re:Roundworm fat by bughunter · · Score: 1

      Psycho Killer Sheep? Definitely better!

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    4. Re:Roundworm fat by bughunter · · Score: 1

      My thoughts, too. This article says practically nothing about the outcome of the experiment.

      The GM sheep "contains" good fat? Contains where? Does it replace all of the "bad" fat. Some of it? Is it in addition to the normal fats? Does the replacement or supplemental "good" fat change the physiology of the animal in any other fashion? Does the change in the genotype or phenotype have any other effects? Does the expression of the added flatworm gene harm the sheep or make it less hardy or vigorous? Can I cut the sheep in half and eventually wind up with two whole sheep?

      "Healthy sheep?" Healthy how? Healthier for the organism or healthier for its prey? Is this health effect measurable? Does the change have any other effects on the organism, or on the nutritional value of its muscle tissue? And, as you mention, does it have an effect on the taste, texture, color, or reaction to a cooking fire?

      These terms are used in a nearly meaningless fashion. I can make a sheep "contain" good fat by taking a syringe full of olive oil and shoving it up its bum. I can make a sheep "healthy" by giving it exercise, fresh air, and keeping it away from cigarettes and promiscuous rams.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    5. Re:Roundworm fat by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      Seems like most of your answers are best found through further scientific study. But first, the scientists are on the way to the grocery store and pick up supplies.

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
  22. Bad idea by dittbub · · Score: 1

    This seems like a bad idea. Why not just eat nuts and fruit!?

    1. Re:Bad idea by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      And not have to think about eating worms. Ewe!

  23. Good fat, bad fat, I'm the guy with the gun by WarSpiteX · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who thinks animals evolved with "bad fat" for a reason, other than clogging your cardiovascular system?

    Perhaps this "bad fat" isn't so bad? Remember when eggs were really bad for you, because they contained cholesterol, and now they're really good for you, because they contain good cholesterol?

    --


    I'm a little segfault, short and stout.
    1. Re:Good fat, bad fat, I'm the guy with the gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Saturated fat is the precursor to many essential body hormones, for example testosterone.

      Dietary science is abysmal. About all we can say is that dietary cholesterol and saturated fat and most other bugaboos are not at all bad for you. Also, that body seems to thrive under a great number of diets, and that no particular diet has been shown to be "best" for health or lifespan purposes.

    2. Re:Good fat, bad fat, I'm the guy with the gun by tbird81 · · Score: 2

      Food doesn't contain "good" or "bad" cholesterol. It's always good old (10R,13R)-10,13-dimethyl-17-(6-methylheptan-2-yl)-2,3,4,7,8,9,11,12,14,15,16,17-dodecahydro-1H-cyclopenta[a]phenanthren-3-ol (or C27H46O for short).

      Those terms refer to the way it is tested in the blood. Cholesterol travels around the body in little bubbles named after the proteins they're carried in. The low-density ones tend to be worse, because they deliver cholesterol to the tissues. If you just look at the total cholesterol in the blood, then you don't know if it's good or bad - nowadays labs will usually test which lipoproteins are carrying the cholesterol.

  24. Re:Fat? by jonnythan · · Score: 0

    Yeah, everyone knows that. What a bunch of retards.

  25. Re:Fat? by WarSpiteX · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think you may be wrong. Nuts and avocados are the most common plants to contain fats, but others do as well. Like olives.

    Unless you think you're frying your chicken on olive carbs, rather than olive oil?

    --


    I'm a little segfault, short and stout.
  26. Why stop at something like that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say you genetically modify the damn things to be walking grocery stands. Then in the other herd, you could genetically modify them to produce 'adult novelty items.'. Oh, I forgot, they already are.

  27. Absolutely no information by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2

    There is absolutely no information in the article. "Healthy fat found in seeds"?

    What it sounds like they're doing is they've figured out how to genetically modify animals to produce omega 3 and similar types of fats instead of the fats commonly found in grain fed or industrially raised meats. That's actually fairly big (good) news, I think.

    On the other hand, 'healthy' fat can be found in animals which are 'free range'. It's less environmentally intensive. The unhealthy fat found in animal meat is only unhealthy because of the way they're raised.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:Absolutely no information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even assuming your assertion about healthy fat in "free range" animals were correct, do you have any idea the implications of your well-intentioned suggestion? We have nearly 7 billion humans on this planet. We can't feed them all properly without animals raised in stock pens in massive commercial operations and GMO grains harvested at the highest possible efficiency. Even given all we can do in this area, we're still facing possible food supply shortages globally in the coming decades.

      If you want everyone to eat free range / "organic" -grown foods, you first need to drop the population back under a billion, maybe considerably less. What's your plan for telling 6 billion people that they have to commit suicide and/or neuter themselves? It's not happening any other way.

    2. Re:Absolutely no information by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      Actually what it sounds like is they are referring to are polyunsaturated fats since Omega 3 is hardly found in seeds. Generally are lower to non-existent in farmed meat and much higher in seeds and grains, and very concentrated in some seafoods. Polyunsaturated fats include Omega 3, 6, and 9. 6 is an inflamation promoting PUFA that is eaten in far too higher proportion in the western diet.

      Omega 3s (DHA etc) are pretty sparse in plants, and the types of it in plants are poorly absorbed and metabolized. Which is why seafood is such a great source and we'd all do well to eat some now and then. We may really be adapted to eat seafood even, or perhaps at least the species of animals we eat now just don't have the right balance of fatty acids we evolved to eat - for instance grass-fed ruminants have better levels of healthy fats than grain-fed animals.

      Polys are actually unhealthy, if you were just to bump up the proportion of them in your diet. Since we don't really need very much and ultimate eat them in entirely the wrong proportion in the western diet. Monounsaturated fat is fairly neutral and not thought to be problematic. Saturated fat isn't even actually bad for us since it's rather a metabolically clean source of energy too. Those in excess alone aren't actually the cause of cardiovascular disease and other things, there's too much new science not finding any link at all on the saturated fat issue. What turns out to be the problem is the ratios of these fats, and specifically the ratios of the different types of polyunsaturated fats.

      So I would say their product won't actually have the benefits they think, at least not without demonstrating usefully high levels of EPA, DHA, and the other fats in balance. Especially since some studies seem to point to excess consumption of PUFAs to be positively associated with heart disease, in the face of dwindling evidence for saturated fat being a problem. It would be interesting if an animal farmed for meat could be engineered to produce high levels of the good long-chain Omega 3s which are typically missing from land-based farming.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    3. Re:Absolutely no information by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Even assuming your assertion about healthy fat in "free range" animals were correct, do you have any idea the implications of your well-intentioned suggestion? We have nearly 7 billion humans on this planet. We can't feed them all properly without animals raised in stock pens in massive commercial operations and GMO grains harvested at the highest possible efficiency.

      [citation needed]

      I note that you are anonymous and cowardly. That is well, for Monsanto's whore.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Absolutely no information by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      What about multiple competing strains of gut bacteria that convert omegas in humans?

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  28. Re:Fat? by jonnythan · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well obviously the fats came from animals. Olive trees are notorious for eating squirrels and other rodents.

  29. Re:Fat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even for Slashdot, I'm somewhat amazed at this combination of immense ignorance and pretentiousness.

  30. Healthy consumption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Really?

    Irrespective of the chemical makeup of the animal, you are still exploiting another life form. Slavery of any sort should not be disguised as healthy eating.

  31. modified animals for dinner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GROOOOOOOOOSSS to the max! Your children will be born green with horns.

  32. Evolution is far from perfection in some cases by doug141 · · Score: 2

    Worth mentioning that humans evolved to eat animals with standard fat percentages, not margarine or mealworm-sheep.

    Worth mentioning that humans evolved with recurved spines that cause back pain. Evolved eating, breathing and speaking out of the same hole. Evolved all kinds of stupid, non-optimized features, of which our fat intake/heart disease relationship may be another. "The Panda's Thumb," by Stephen Gould, is a good read. In one of the many essays, he argues that the panda's screwy thumb isn't some highly optimized limb for stripping bamboo, it's just what evolution has managed to give the panda to date, with the poorly-suited wristbone it had to work with.

    1. Re:Evolution is far from perfection in some cases by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Worth mentioning that humans evolved with recurved spines that cause back pain.

      They also grant exceptional mobility, helping us to be some of the most versatile creatures on the planet, able to reach and survive in more environments than any other single species.

      Evolved eating, breathing and speaking out of the same hole.

      Only 5-10% of communication is verbal.

      Evolved all kinds of stupid, non-optimized features, of which our fat intake/heart disease relationship may be another.

      It looks stupid and non-optimized to you because you don't understand it. It's optimized for adaptation, which happened because we are semi-migratory in that we have had numerous substantial migrations and the resulting genes are eventually folded back in to the mixture.

      In one of the many essays, he argues that the panda's screwy thumb isn't some highly optimized limb for stripping bamboo, it's just what evolution has managed to give the panda to date, with the poorly-suited wristbone it had to work with.

      Yes, that is how evolution works. Indeed, it's how DNA works. There's only so many possible outcomes. They sometimes seem infinite but we're only seeing a tiny slice of infinity, that which is possible and also which has managed to happen.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  33. Sheep with roundworm fat? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

    Ewe!

  34. or, just eat "nuts, seeds, fish and leafy greens" by dAzED1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    any particular reason one can't do this? A much more direct approach, healthier, more environmentally friendly, and doesn't have that extra-added danger of eating the product of extreme genetic modification...

  35. What's the melting point of those sheep? by BlendieOfIndie · · Score: 1

    Seriously, though. Please correct my understanding. Aren't the "good fats" typically oils (ie. fats with low melting points)? If these things are full of omega-3s rather than saturated lard, why is their body structure going to look like? Could sheep be harvested for their omega-3s rather than dredging for fish?

    1. Re:What's the melting point of those sheep? by swalve · · Score: 1

      Body fat isn't just globs of lard. It's a cellular structure whose cells contain the fat molecules. If the fat in them wasn't melted, our bodies (and those of sheep) would be solid.

  36. Merinos are wool sheep, not meat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting that they used a Merino - not a sheep grown for meat.
    While it proves the process is possible, the genetics for merinos are all about wool - in particular fine wool.
    The fat distribution in meat sheep is a bit different. Not sure about the composition.

  37. We already have chep chicken tasting like fish by Hentes · · Score: 1

    Now we'll have lamb tasting like it, too.

  38. the password by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Baa Ram ewe, Baa Ram ewe,
    Sheep be true
    Baa Ram ewe,

  39. Re:or, just eat "nuts, seeds, fish and leafy green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and doesn't have that extra-added danger of eating the product of extreme genetic modification...

    Unlike, say, almonds, which were genetically modified to (mostly) not produce deadly cyanide anymore.

  40. why we hate lamb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Goat, pig, and cow are all tasty. Sheep are nasty. The melting point of the fat is all wrong, causing it to adhere all over inside the mouth.

    1. Re:why we hate lamb by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Then you must be doing something wrong, it's absolutely delicious (IMHO).

      We only eat the baby sheep of course.

    2. Re:why we hate lamb by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      We only eat the baby sheep of course.

      That leg we had two weeks ago was about 15" round - it sure didn't come off a baby one.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  41. Either Hitch Hikers or Dune comes to mind now by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    from cows that want to be eaten to genetically engineering animals to taste better and perform other tasks, I mean it cannot be far off before we engineer the livestock to eat bad stuff and convert it.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Either Hitch Hikers or Dune comes to mind now by gorzek · · Score: 1

      It's certainly possible. Bacteria that convert garbage into useful materials (such as plastic) are already in the works. As we understand more and more about genetic engineering, we could solve quite a few problems plaguing us today. We could engineer cows to produce less methane and eat less, limiting their environmental impact. There are plenty of possibilities. Although I think, in the end, we will move past actually raising animals for food at all, having found cheap ways to produce synthetic meat that's indistinguishable (or nearly so) from the real thing. Hey, there was also that guy that figured out how to turn shit into a burger. In the future, stuff like that will be reality, as we simply cannot continue to consume more and more with no regard for the fact that this is a planet with finite resources.

  42. Re:Fat? by dwpro · · Score: 2

    Agreed, I'm still hoping it's a joke.

    --
    Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
  43. Re:knockoff handbags by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    This is really sad. I mean, you know the Internet is really going down the tubes if even spammers are too stupid to use it right.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  44. China, land of the free (science)... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Be honest: You think this could have happened here? Where we get our panties in a knot if someone only DARES to mention the idea of cloning or "playing God"?

    I know a few people who actually went over to China to do some research without having to deal more with some religious nuts than with actual scientific problems. And, face it, if the Chinese can do it, they will do it. And that kind of food will be popular, think of it: Tasty meat without the associated health risks of eating too much of it. You want to bet that this will become a hit?

    Patented by a Chinese company, of course. Be prepared to see more money siphoned away from us because yes, we want the results but no, we don't want the research to reach them.

    Are we really that stupid?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  45. Can we save our bacon? by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    bacon cracklins chicharrones ... at 60yo, I really miss ....

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  46. Re:Fat? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    Thanks. Your startling ignorance spawned some really funny comments.

  47. ohh NOW you do it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...after half the people I know have already died of heart disease!

  48. BUT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but it also has lead in it.

  49. How long is this myth going to be perpetuated?? by plazman30 · · Score: 1

    The latest scientific research shows that there is absolutely no issue with saturated fat. Heck, high cholesterol levels are pretty much meaningless in the latest research. Shit like this just keeps old, invalid, nutritional opinions running through our population. End this already.

  50. ...and increases the risk of obesity by Voxol · · Score: 1

    ...and increases the risk of obesity by remodelling the lipid bilayer.

    http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000623

  51. polyunsaturated fat is unhealthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Polyunsaturated fat is unhealthy (vegetable oil?). That's pretty stupid.

  52. Re:or, just eat "nuts, seeds, fish and leafy green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except the cyanide is made inert by a sugar molecule.
    /Eats "deadly" apple seeds, apricot kernels, bitter almonds

  53. Here is what vegetables are good for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With tongue only partly in cheek, see:

    http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2012/03/fruit-and-vegetables.html

  54. Re: Atkins by Luckster7 · · Score: 1

    I had a similar experience, except I was I only vegetarian for about 4 months. I gained an inch a month on my waist during that time. I took the weight off as fast as I put it on after I went back to eating lots of meat. Also I realized how much my energy level had decreased during that time. My blood pressure went back down and I just plain felt better.

    --
    Deuteronomy 13:06-9
  55. References please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On what evidence are you basing your assumption?

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for ethical treatment of foodstock, be it animal or plant, but let's not pretend that just because a being doesn't display distress in a manner we understand that it's not in distress.

    Lets be honest. We don't like torturing animals, especially mammals, because they display distress in a manner we can relate to, thus triggering a feeling of empathy. The farther we get from mammals the less like us creatures become, and the less empathy we feel for them. Exhibit 1: many people don't like cooking live crabs because they scream when you dump them in the boiling water. Intellectually we may know the sound is hot gasses escaping from the shell, but the fact is they make a sound similar to what we'd imagine ourselves making in a similar situation, and our empathy is triggered.

    Plants don't demonstrate distress in anything like the manner we do, heck you can't even see most of them moving except through time-lapse video, so it's easy to assume they don't experience distress. But that's only an assumption, there is no evidence to back it up. In fact I bet you didn't know that it's recently been discovered that plants appear to have brains (plural, to several orders of magnitude)? Truth! A small section of each root tip, less than a millimeter, just behind the "digging head" is filled with cells that demonstrate complex patterns of electrical discharges very similar to neural networks in simple animals. The "brain" is wired to an array of sophisticated chemoreceptors providing it with a sense of "smell"/"taste" to rival anything in the animal kingdom, and controls the behavior of the root - watch a time-lapse video of a root tip trying to get past a barrier and it behaves much like a worm. Granted each "brain" is quite simple, a few hundred cells or so, not much better than a worm, but each plant has tens, even hundreds of thousands or more of them, and they appear to coordinate with each other, though the mechanism is still unclear. It's possible some form of distributed intelligence might arise in such a situation - think about that the next time you're looking at a mountainside covered in aspen!

        For those that don't know, aspens grow multiple "trees" from a single root system, an aspen grove will frequently actually contain only one or two aspen organisms, and a single organism can dominate a *very* large area, so that aspen-covered mountainside might contain a single massive distributed consciousness. Couple that with the fact that the root system is essentially immortal (at an estimated age of 100,000 - 250,000 years, the oldest documented organism is considerably older than the human species) and it's enough to send a shiver up the spine of anyone with an ounce of imagination.

  56. Mongolian Grill! by wikthemighty · · Score: 1

    We've got these wonderful places called Mongolian Grills / BBQs where you assemble your ingredients and they throw it on the grill for ya. All meat? No problem. All veggies? No problem. Little of both? Go all the way! Three bowls!

    --
    "There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
  57. Yes and no by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

    I can't deny anything you've said here, but "it's tradition!" isn't an argument in favor of something; it's an admission of defeat.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  58. Re:Fat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If "cashman" has anything to do with cashews, you'd think he probably knows they have oils in them.