BoarTaint, a new source of Androstenone

**Gegogi** · 01-12-2006, 02:10 AM

Androstenone is the active ingredient in BoarTaint, a commercial product sold to pig farmers to test sows for

timing of artifical insemination. Apparently, when sniffed by a female pig in heat, she immediately assumes the

mating stance (I wish it were that simple with human females!). It must be some killer sh!t. But, if you wear it,

stay clear of pig farms and areas known for wild boar. I wonder if it smells as good as deer musk (deer ass)?

**catlord17** · 01-12-2006, 09:17 AM

I would imagine it smells just

like.... androstenone! What else would be in it?

And if smelling NONE made human females freeze in a mating

stace, can you imagine how it would affect males? We'd fight to the death in the presence of it.

**oscar** · 01-12-2006, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Gegogi

"Androstenone is the

active ingredient in BoarTaint, a commercial product sold to pig farmers to test sows for timing of artifical

insemination."

Gegogi,

Searching "BoarTaint" I was a little confused when the search result

included the quote you posted above, but the Wikipedia Androstenone

page didn't mention it. I did however find it in

the

cached version of the page.

It's likely it was edited out because the actual product being referenced is

probably Boarmate, a marvelously entertaining aerosol can

of Androstenone used for the purpose mentioned above, and discussed quite a bit over the years here on the forum.

"Boar Taint" on the other hand is a condition

affecting the meat of uncastrated boars where high levels of Skatole and Androstenone render their meat unsuitable

for consumption (sans processing.)

See:

The "Pork Roll" thread.

Oscar

**Gegogi** · 01-12-2006, 05:45 PM

What really is odd is the Wiki

has two slightly different entries for the same pheromone. This one mentions BoarTaint as a product but I guess

it's a mistake!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androstenone

**oscar** · 01-12-2006, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by Gegogi

What really is odd is

the Wiki has two slightly different entries for the same pheromone. This one mentions BoarTaint as a product but I

guess it's a mistake!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androstenone

Gegogi,

Just goes to show you that a reference source where any Tom, Dick, or Harry can post erroneous stuff

as "fact" ain't much of a reference source.

Oscar

**belgareth** · 01-12-2006, 08:08 PM

Wiki isn't bad as a starting

point. A lot of good people post there but a lot of fruitcakes do as well. Anything you read there whould be

verified through some other resource before considering it correct.

**Mtnjim** · 01-13-2006, 10:40 AM

But...But...But!

It's on the

internet...so it must be true!!

**Gegogi** · 01-13-2006, 02:28 PM

The print media is almost as

bad...

**belgareth** · 01-13-2006, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Gegogi

The print media

is almost as bad...

Almost?

**catlord17** · 01-14-2006, 12:16 AM

Well, whatever else is in

Boarmate, they clearly don't want you using it to attract female humans...

**Gegogi** · 01-14-2006, 02:39 AM

The

recommended application method of application

Spray BOARMATE at the gilt or

sows snout for two seconds from a distance of approximately two feet( 60 cm), then apply pressure to the back of the

sow (the "back pressure" test)

might get you slapped senseless. If not, you're in like

Flint, especially if she passes the the "back pressure" test.

**bjf** · 01-14-2006, 09:49 AM

the print media is no less bad at

their job then you are at yours

**belgareth** · 01-14-2006, 10:15 AM

The print media are very good

at writing. That doesn't in any way mean they write what should be written or that they are unbiased. The latter

being an issue with me.

I've got a substantial reputation for being good at what I do, rather my company has

but its based on my business philosophy. Some newspapers have the same reputation. However, the news frequently only

tells one side of the story and is sensationalistic because that's what sells papers. It isn't even really the

media's fault as they'd be out of business if they didn't do busiess that way. The same with me. I may not like

certain software companies but if I refused to do business with them I'd be out of business.

**Gegogi** · 01-14-2006, 12:20 PM

the print media is no less

bad at their job then you are at yours

Of course that depends. A peer refereed scholarly journal is

in a different class than a student newspaper or political pamplet. I meant print media as all printed

materials--Jehovah Witness Watch Towner, Pentecostal tracts, Advertising supplements, etc.--not merely newspapers or

monthy rags. Nevertheless, I think print media as a whole is slightly--very slightly--more reliable than the

internet. Anyone can have a blog, post on a forum or publish a website. Print media requires more toil and financial

backing, so it has a weak filter of sorts.