TheBiologySpace.BioBlog

Yes it does look like it would be painful for the cows to have that kind of mass on them. But on the video they looked quite content. So i don’t know. they were just happilly chewing in the video so maybe being huge is just normal for them.

I agree with Ty and Angie, it isn’t unethical at all since these cows are being used for meat, even though I don’t believe in eating beef, but if you have to why not breed a cow for more meat so that you have to kill less cows in the process.

As long as the animal is not harmed in any way during the process, I see nothing wrong with it. If the animal is healthy and well-taken care of, and it doesn’t suffer, it’s alright by me. The bull provides twice as much meat as a regular bull. I also read on Wikipedia that the cows aren’t able to give birth without a c-section, so I don’t think that the cows should be bred for that, or if they are, that they aren’t allowed to reproduce.

If these were the only cows allowed to reproduce, the other genes in the pool would shrink as well. Only a limited number should be allowed to do so because then we’ll depend on both, not just one species.

My views are that of a very conservative christian. i believe that killing these animals just to kill them for food is unethical just like Isha said. but then i think more about and for the human race it might be needed. think about it some day the food source is going to begin to become scarce and maybe in the near future probably not in this generation but still soon. thsi planet can only hold us for so long. stephen out

My beliefs may be much different from other peoples, however, I strongly feel as though breeding any animal for the mere purpose of killing them and devouring them is completely unethical. Being put on earth to be killed makes completely no sense to me from an “ethical” standpoint. Passing a mutant gene is just another way for people in the business to make more money and lets face it… money is hardly ever ethical.

this would be unethical but if this can help the humans im all for it
but i have to say this the cow in the videso looks weird and i feel sorry for that cow

I too think that this is not an unethical issue at hand here. Especially that the cows are healthy.
But, looking at this in another way, ethics don’t play a role if this idea is practiced in third world countries. When people need to survive and have a chance they take it. They wouldn’t care about the ethics. So my question are ethics really a big deal? In this case especially because the cattle are bieng grown for meat. And if that is unethical then killing cattle for meat would all together extremely unethical be unethical.

How is it unethical to pass on a mutated gene? Other than doing it artificially to for the production of meat, which can be seen as unethical in itself, mutated genes are passed on more often than commonly believed. In fact, evolutionary biologists believe that all life forms mutated from single-celled organisms to the diverse life-forms of today.

I agree with Neil, but I also wonder that if the MSTN was the thing that was affecting their meat quality, then what would it do to humans? Make us tender and lower in fat and cholesterol?

I thought this was just a bit cool. It’s also a good thing that this is illegal in professional sports now because otherwise we’d have another Mitchell Report on our hands. But I wonder if the mutated MSTN works on other animals as well, and then I wonder if it functions heredically (no I am not Lamark), but I still think its pretty insain that the bull can weigh a TON.

Like most other defects back in the Hercules time, people didn’t know how to explain it and probably rejected him. So this sounds like a logical assumption.

I agree with Kaitlin, why don’t we do this more often? Obviously breeding super humans would be unethical, but what about other animals?

That animal is a beast.

In ethical terms (how interesting that science is becoming more and more controversial lately), it really depends on your views towards the lives of animals. There is no right or wrong answer and there will never be one; opinions on subjects like these can rarely be changed by facts.

I would fear, though, when human children start to be selected for, because it doesn’t seem too unlikely.

Another comment on the ethics behind this dilemna. While this gene probably isn’t present in plants there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t be able to select for mutant genes with those. Sussana had an interesting thought though. It may or may not be the case but cows that massive could have joint trouble. I don’t think they do because the knees on the cow look okay but I may not know.

The ethical problem is that we’re supposedly “playing god” by picking and choosing how we want the offspring to turn out. Personally I don’t think it’s unethical, I’m just saying that this is what some people would say.

I agree that this might benefit humans…but what about the cows? It must be difficult having that much bulk and heavy muscle, and yes they may die, but they are still alive before they die…

But if there are no bad side effects that really affect the animals, then I suppose we should do what we can to increase food production.

Just a thought- can myostatin affect steroids when people are taking them for gaining muscle mass? It seems like it would prevent the steroids from working, but do the steroids maybe prevent MSTN from functioning correctly?

What a meticulous process, extracting the sperm from the male, choosing the sperm with the defective gene and then using artificial insimination to facillitate reproduction. But what an outcome: a SUPER COW. And the meat able to be yeilded from the cow, what an amazing accomplishment. I wonder why we dont use this process more often.

(and who would want to do that guys job)

If the meat from Belgian Blues is more tender, has lower fat and cholesterol, and there’s more of it, there would be no reason not to breed them like crazy for food unless there was a negative result from it.

I have to say that these cows look pretty amazing. I truly don’t see anything unethical about breeding cows with this mutant gene. Unless the cows are suffering from knee problems due to the increase in muscle mass then I don’t see any disadvantages. The cows provide more meat per cow which means fewer cows are slaughtered; the meat is tender, lower in fat, and lower in cholesterol than the meat of traditional cattle breeds’ thus more profit for the provider, and more satisfaction for the consumer. If one considers artificial selection of the cows to be ethical, then how is it any different then breeding dogs, plants, or chickens? If the cows, are healthy, and happy (unfortunately up to the point until they are slaughtered for their meat) then I say an “okay” to using artificial selection of the mutant traits. I wonder if the use of this mutant gene in human form could be manipulated to help those who suffer from muscular dystrophy.

While I don’t think there is really an ethical dilemna here I see why some may not think this is ethical. However, a lot of this may be because of the negative connotation of the word “mutant”. Mutations happen all of the time. In addition to this, we’ve been breeding specific traits for years. Many are harmless, big crops, meatier animals, disease resistant crops, etc. A few are harmful but look good to some people, for example, pitbulls with shorter faces. There is, however, no ethical issue when the traits aren’t detrimental and especially when they are beneficial.

I do not find the breeding of the Belgian blue to be unethical. It is actually benefitial for the cow to have the myostatin protein. It makes the cow stronger and healthier. This is also beneficial to humans considering their meat has less cholesterol and is more lean. This gene brings new hope for patients who have been diagnosed with muscular distrophy. if they can activate or mutate the myostatin protien maybe their muscles will last longer if not for good with regular treatments.

I’m confused as to the “ethical dilemma” proposed in the article. The cows do not seem to be harmed in any way after being breed to have this trait. And like Brandi said, you don’t a mutation on your child, but it happens. I guess the difference between mutations occurring in children is a) it’s a human and b) we’re not mating mutant children to achieve a mutant baby army. I’m guessing that that’s where the ethics come into play with the cows- breeding cows who’ve had a “mistake” in their genes to achieve more of the same.

I don’t think it’s any more unethical than killing cows for food. I mean if we’re killing cows for food, how much worse can it be to kill mutated ones. They should probably be careful to keep these cows isolated though and not let them breed with other cows so the gene doesn’t become a big part of the overall genome. Maybe if life on earth had gone on without human interference for longer, all cattle would be stronger like that, because strength is definitely a favorable trait, as long as there aren’t any other harms (such as other diseases or inability to reproduce as efficiently).

My quetion is how is it unethical? Of course no one wishes that their child would have a mutation but it happens and you have to deal with it and get on with life. It doesn’t harm them and it happens naturally. Like the man on the video said people have been breeding animals with certain traits for centuries so it seems the people who hav the problem with this need to take it up with our ancestors.

This is really neat how much scientists can manipulate the sperm to combine the best genetics for the cow offspring. In a sense, it seems unethical to breed these huge abnormal animals just to slaughter them, but don’t we do that to several animals anyway? I do think that this could cause concern if we converted it to humans-breeding children to be a certain way, but I believe if we stick to livestock, it is only a benefit to humans.

Speaking of building a “better” chicken….I read an article last year where it talked about the breeding of featherless chickens so the poultry farmers don’t have to pluck them before slaughtering them which saves time and money. This is similar to the Belgian Blue situation where farmers are breeding the biggest cows with the biggest cows, so on and so forth. These situations where people are selecting for malfunctioning gene is tricky because certain situations don’t seem ethical but really I don’t believe at this level there is anything wrong with it; the animals aren’t harmed by this type of selection. It only makes the agricultural industries more efficient.

i have to agree with my fellow blogger here i don’t see anything unethical about breeding the animals if they posses a trait that the farming community likes. in fact it may even be good for the consumers. if the meat is shown to have less fat in it. i say go ahead and breed them like crazy. as long as the farmers aren’t mistreating the animals i don’t see a problem with it.

In this case I do not believe that selecting for this mutation is unethical. As angie said these cows are being bred to be eaten. Why not make these cows bigger and better so less cows have to be slaughtered to feed the world? In this case it seems that the selective breeding of these cows would save the life of countless others.

That is one interesting looking posterior shot of the cow…
Anyways I for one do not think that breeding these belgian blue cattle for their genes is unethical really. It is a gene that provides advantages not only for the cow herders but also for the people who consume their meat. It also does not harm the cow in any way. It helps them more of less because they are able to do more work with less effort because of their large size. If the gene hurt the cattle in any way I would say it is unethical, but seeing as it doesn’t and it is helping to further the studies of genes and natural selection and such then I see nor issue with it.

I don’ think it is unethical to select for a malfunctioning gene in this case because these cows are being bred to be eaten anyway. At least with double the muscle mass and a healthier product, more people can get more meat from one cow so maybe not as many cows need to be slaughtered. Sometimes a malfunctioning gene can be a benefit.