Yet you continue to make assumptions about me, implying that I'm uneducated, when you have no knowledge about me. You're trolling.
My point was this isn't useful as a genetic line. It is useful as a genetic tool if applied to existing lines. Based on your most recent response you at least acknowledge this although you continue to be insulting.
"The industry has embarked on massive changes in the emetics of pigs before. The average pig today measures back fat in milimeters at slaughter."
mm is the measure but that is simply a definition of the units, you're failing to specify the quantity so it isn't meaningful.
That said I will agree with you that the commodity market pigs are too lean. This problem started back in the 1970's as pork became "The Other White Meat" and too lean losing flavor as it lost fat. That was a mistake by the industry that they chose to feature rather than fix.
"A century ago we measured it in inches and routinely got around a foot of back fat."
Again, your statement is not meaningful. The metric is not the measure.
But, besides these details, I know a lot about this. I raise thousands of pigs on pasture. Pig genetics is a deep interest of mine both as part of my profession as a farmer, as a butcher and simply because I'm interested in the field of genetics. I chose to raise pigs largely because their genetics are so plastic, they reproduce so quickly, in such large litters and my "mistakes" taste like bacon.:)
So you're not telling me anything I don't know but rather reinforcing my impression that you're an armchair quarterback pushing a pencil, or keyboard as it were, rather than working from real real work. Your PhuD doesn't impress me and my years of field work exceeds yours by a large multiple and my list of papers written likely exceeds yours as well.
Try not preaching so much, especially to someone you don't know.
I have a, er, uh, ah, a friend, who has this. It is a very persistent and realistic sensory illusion. But if you examine the skin, while the sensation is going on, nothing is there. There are no mites, no spiders, no insects, nada.
It can be a symptom of an oncoming migraine. Some forms of migraines are depression of activity in some parts of the brain. Some types of migraines are like electrical storms in the brain, like seizures in parts of the brain. I think the spiders on the skin sensation is part of the second, the brain storms.
With a lot of training you can learn to ignore the sensations, just as in the military you get trained to ignore an itch. But the sensation is still there and very real to the person experiencing it.
There are medications that help with migraines, such as Valproic acid, which appear to reduce the sensation or at least make it less realistic and more tolerable.
"You don't have to throw out your progress. Just select sires and sows who are immune. Yes, that'll require some trade offs, but breeding selection has always required tradeoffs."
Based on your response I think you don't understand how genetic selection works and how GMOs work. This article was about doing genetic engineering to solve PRRS, a disease of pigs. That solves the PRRS in the single genetic line that the scientists work with. To move those genetics into other lines will take decades of work. Furthermore, it requires doing genetic testing or exposure to PRRS which is highly undesirable.
What would be useful is if they offered a method of editing farms existing genetic lines to remove the PRRS susceptibility so that we could then apply that to our entire herds of breeders. Unfortunately, this is not such a solution.
Based on your entire response I get the feeling that you have a small understanding of genetics and that you're extremely overconfident in your understanding rather than actually understanding pigs and genetics. I've been doing this for decades. You're like the man pushing a pencil and thinking that he's farming.
You are correct. But the problem is it means replacing our pigs. This solves just one problem (PRRS) but there are many other issues. I've spent decades breeding our nine genetic lines of hogs on our farm to thrive in our climate, be able to eat pasture as the main component of their diet (80%DMI), for good temperament and 33 other criteria.
So I can now throw out decades of work for a single solution (PRRS) resistance? Not going to happen. Their PRRS resistant pigs will die in our climate (USDA Zone 3) so it is pointless to replace our genetics with their genetics.
What we need is the ability to edit our existing pig genetic lines to fix the PRRS susceptibility, as well as other things. Then it becomes interesting.
"engineers quibbled over whether IBM's machine and the new Michigan design could really be called computers, since the data gets wiped as soon as it's turned off."
Um, that was normal for almost all computers until not too long ago. Loss or retention of data at power off is not part of the definition of being a computer.
Einstein, whom you're trying to quote, was simply wrong. The reality is that in an analog universe it works to do the same thing over and over because there is a cumulative effect.
Oddly enough Einstein was against quantum mechanics...
"Complete bullshit. The only real value is what somebody is willing to pay for something."
Real value means I can do something with the thing other than trade it. For instance, beans can feed me, firewood can heat my home, a tractor is a tool I can use to do things with, a pig can be bred to produce piglets and thus more pigs that will grow on my pastures so that I can slaughter them and eat them and sell them. Those are all real values.
I can't eat bitcoins. I can't build a house out of bitcoins. I can't drive a bitcoin down the road. I can't breed bitcoins to make more bitcoins. Bitcoins don't keep me warm. Although, the bitcoin mining machine will keep you warm but that is a side effect of burning electricity that must be paid for and the computer must be paid for and the house must be paid for that contains the mine.
There is a lot of potential and not just on the road. Out here on the farm and in the forests self-driving tractors, skidders, buncher grabbers, conveyers, wagons and delivery vehicles have a lot of potential. They are levers that amplify us. Just as it is easier to hammer in a nail with a hammer than your hand it is easier to move round bales of hay with a tractor than by hand. Self driving tractors would let me instruct them to put out hay to our pastured pigs in the winter (hay replaces fresh pasture) rather than my having to drive the tractor. Then I am freed up for other tasks.
None. I plant legumes in my pastures which suck nitrogen from the air. All the plants suck carbon dioxide. I don't have cattle. I don't feed corn/soy or other commercial animal feeds but rather use pasture plus 'waste' from a local dairy (whey).
We don't receive a tax break for not developing. Instead what is going on is we get taxed as the land is used, for forest and agriculture, rather than if it was developed into housing tracts. Your confusion is an unfortunate misunderstanding by the public about how that works. Consider, should your house be taxed as a house that it is or as a $100,000,000 hotel? Well, you don't want to pay the taxes on the hotel do you.
"$15 charge on each metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted"
I own a farm and forest land. My forests and fields absorb about 1,400 tons of carbon dioxide a year from the air as well as cleaning the air of dust, filtering the water (I'm at the top of the water shed) and other benefits to society.
If they are going to charge $15/ton to emit carbon dioxide then then they should be sending me a check for $21,000 for my services of removing said carbon dioxide. Fair is fair.
Yes. That was my point. The EU will lose those companies, individuals, creativity and have general brain drain. They've done this before and suffered for it each time.
I'll agree with you about tech-illiterati however it won't kill the Internet because the EU doesn't control anything outside the EU. It will mean simply a brain-drain from the EU to other countries. European countries have done this sort of thing over the centuries and each time the real literati leave. The result of such brain drains is a loss of creativity for the EU.
Wow. You're talking to someone you don't know about something you don't know but you're so sure you're right that you take to insulting them? Or are you insulting people because you're unsure of yourself and insecure?
1. He lived in Boston. But you don't know enough history to be aware that I suppose. Just because he crossed the English Channel with a hot air balloon does not mean he lived in England, France or the Channel.
2. They were tracking hurricanes. The process was a bit slower than today.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet you continue to make assumptions about me, implying that I'm uneducated, when you have no knowledge about me. You're trolling.
My point was this isn't useful as a genetic line.
It is useful as a genetic tool if applied to existing lines.
Based on your most recent response you at least acknowledge this although you continue to be insulting.
Two different issues were being confused in the article and you went down one path.
"The industry has embarked on massive changes in the emetics of pigs before. The average pig today measures back fat in milimeters at slaughter."
mm is the measure but that is simply a definition of the units, you're failing to specify the quantity so it isn't meaningful.
That said I will agree with you that the commodity market pigs are too lean. This problem started back in the 1970's as pork became "The Other White Meat" and too lean losing flavor as it lost fat. That was a mistake by the industry that they chose to feature rather than fix.
"A century ago we measured it in inches and routinely got around a foot of back fat."
Again, your statement is not meaningful. The metric is not the measure.
But, besides these details, I know a lot about this. I raise thousands of pigs on pasture. Pig genetics is a deep interest of mine both as part of my profession as a farmer, as a butcher and simply because I'm interested in the field of genetics. I chose to raise pigs largely because their genetics are so plastic, they reproduce so quickly, in such large litters and my "mistakes" taste like bacon. :)
So you're not telling me anything I don't know but rather reinforcing my impression that you're an armchair quarterback pushing a pencil, or keyboard as it were, rather than working from real real work. Your PhuD doesn't impress me and my years of field work exceeds yours by a large multiple and my list of papers written likely exceeds yours as well.
Try not preaching so much, especially to someone you don't know.
I have a, er, uh, ah, a friend, who has this. It is a very persistent and realistic sensory illusion. But if you examine the skin, while the sensation is going on, nothing is there. There are no mites, no spiders, no insects, nada.
It can be a symptom of an oncoming migraine. Some forms of migraines are depression of activity in some parts of the brain. Some types of migraines are like electrical storms in the brain, like seizures in parts of the brain. I think the spiders on the skin sensation is part of the second, the brain storms.
With a lot of training you can learn to ignore the sensations, just as in the military you get trained to ignore an itch. But the sensation is still there and very real to the person experiencing it.
There are medications that help with migraines, such as Valproic acid, which appear to reduce the sensation or at least make it less realistic and more tolerable.
"You don't have to throw out your progress. Just select sires and sows who are immune. Yes, that'll require some trade offs, but breeding selection has always required tradeoffs."
Based on your response I think you don't understand how genetic selection works and how GMOs work. This article was about doing genetic engineering to solve PRRS, a disease of pigs. That solves the PRRS in the single genetic line that the scientists work with. To move those genetics into other lines will take decades of work. Furthermore, it requires doing genetic testing or exposure to PRRS which is highly undesirable.
What would be useful is if they offered a method of editing farms existing genetic lines to remove the PRRS susceptibility so that we could then apply that to our entire herds of breeders. Unfortunately, this is not such a solution.
Based on your entire response I get the feeling that you have a small understanding of genetics and that you're extremely overconfident in your understanding rather than actually understanding pigs and genetics. I've been doing this for decades. You're like the man pushing a pencil and thinking that he's farming.
You are correct. But the problem is it means replacing our pigs. This solves just one problem (PRRS) but there are many other issues. I've spent decades breeding our nine genetic lines of hogs on our farm to thrive in our climate, be able to eat pasture as the main component of their diet (80%DMI), for good temperament and 33 other criteria.
So I can now throw out decades of work for a single solution (PRRS) resistance? Not going to happen. Their PRRS resistant pigs will die in our climate (USDA Zone 3) so it is pointless to replace our genetics with their genetics.
What we need is the ability to edit our existing pig genetic lines to fix the PRRS susceptibility, as well as other things. Then it becomes interesting.
"engineers quibbled over whether IBM's machine and the new Michigan design could really be called computers, since the data gets wiped as soon as it's turned off."
Um, that was normal for almost all computers until not too long ago. Loss or retention of data at power off is not part of the definition of being a computer.
So... we live out in a rural area where there is no cell service. Does this work without access to the net?
What if the net goes down as has happened? Everyone's locked out of their cars?
Seems like a bad idea made worse.
"Facebook reportedly won't be getting a cut of the subscription fees."
Wow! I'm shocked.
Sort of like BitCoin...?
Einstein, whom you're trying to quote, was simply wrong. The reality is that in an analog universe it works to do the same thing over and over because there is a cumulative effect.
Oddly enough Einstein was against quantum mechanics...
If I understood correctly you were saying I trade in bitcoins. I don't. Ergo you are wrong. Whoosh yourself.
Nope. You're making assumptions.
I never had bought nor sold any bitcoins.
Conartistry... You're very good.
"Complete bullshit. The only real value is what somebody is willing to pay for something."
Real value means I can do something with the thing other than trade it. For instance, beans can feed me, firewood can heat my home, a tractor is a tool I can use to do things with, a pig can be bred to produce piglets and thus more pigs that will grow on my pastures so that I can slaughter them and eat them and sell them. Those are all real values.
I can't eat bitcoins.
I can't build a house out of bitcoins.
I can't drive a bitcoin down the road.
I can't breed bitcoins to make more bitcoins.
Bitcoins don't keep me warm.
Although, the bitcoin mining machine will keep you warm but that is a side effect of burning electricity that must be paid for and the computer must be paid for and the house must be paid for that contains the mine.
There is a lot of potential and not just on the road. Out here on the farm and in the forests self-driving tractors, skidders, buncher grabbers, conveyers, wagons and delivery vehicles have a lot of potential. They are levers that amplify us. Just as it is easier to hammer in a nail with a hammer than your hand it is easier to move round bales of hay with a tractor than by hand. Self driving tractors would let me instruct them to put out hay to our pastured pigs in the winter (hay replaces fresh pasture) rather than my having to drive the tractor. Then I am freed up for other tasks.
Bitcoin has no value. It is just smoke and mirrors.
Paper money is only mildly better, especially now that it has no gold backing.
Gold backed was also not real.
Gold in fact has no real value other than what it can actually be used for to make things of use.
To find something with real value we need to go back to beans, firewood, pork, tools, etc. These sorts of things have real value.
None. I plant legumes in my pastures which suck nitrogen from the air. All the plants suck carbon dioxide. I don't have cattle. I don't feed corn/soy or other commercial animal feeds but rather use pasture plus 'waste' from a local dairy (whey).
We don't receive a tax break for not developing. Instead what is going on is we get taxed as the land is used, for forest and agriculture, rather than if it was developed into housing tracts. Your confusion is an unfortunate misunderstanding by the public about how that works. Consider, should your house be taxed as a house that it is or as a $100,000,000 hotel? Well, you don't want to pay the taxes on the hotel do you.
Lastly, stop being a coward.
"$15 charge on each metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted"
I own a farm and forest land. My forests and fields absorb about 1,400 tons of carbon dioxide a year from the air as well as cleaning the air of dust, filtering the water (I'm at the top of the water shed) and other benefits to society.
If they are going to charge $15/ton to emit carbon dioxide then then they should be sending me a check for $21,000 for my services of removing said carbon dioxide. Fair is fair.
Yes. That was my point. The EU will lose those companies, individuals, creativity and have general brain drain. They've done this before and suffered for it each time.
I'll agree with you about tech-illiterati however it won't kill the Internet because the EU doesn't control anything outside the EU. It will mean simply a brain-drain from the EU to other countries. European countries have done this sort of thing over the centuries and each time the real literati leave. The result of such brain drains is a loss of creativity for the EU.
Wow.
You're talking to someone you don't know about something you don't know but you're so sure you're right that you take to insulting them? Or are you insulting people because you're unsure of yourself and insecure?
Check again...
1. He lived in Boston. But you don't know enough history to be aware that I suppose. Just because he crossed the English Channel with a hot air balloon does not mean he lived in England, France or the Channel.
2. They were tracking hurricanes. The process was a bit slower than today.