# Thoughts On Vegetarianism



## manticle (6/1/11)

I eat meat of all kinds (generally speaking).

I don't believe the term 'cruelty free' can be applicable to any type of meat. However I also believe that those responsible for raising creatures for slaughter are responsible for those creatures while they are alive. Yes it's cruel to kill (insofar as cruelty is a human concept) but it's unnecessary to torture or make something live in conditions that are unfathomable to anyone with the smallest conscience.

Intensive farming is quite sick, hen batteries are quite disturbing, forcefeeding geese for luxurious pate is plainly and simply fucked up.

The closer a person can get to the source of their food (whether farming or killing) the better. Not always possible I grant but somewhere I hope to get to one day.

I don't believe all life (any life really) is sacred. Worth protecting yes, but that's a different concept. Animals have, do and will kill other animals to benefit themselves. Has always been, will always be.

As humans we have a conscience and can make decisions based on that. Maybe we are unique in that - I doubt a whale has a moral quandary over whether it should eat krill. So make a decision we should - and I have. I'm comfortable with my position and accept my hypocrisy when I operate outside that position. The best I can do is to accept that hypocrisy and work towards eliminating it. If somebody else's choice is to avoid meat or meat based products then it is not my place to convince them they are wrong. It's not my place to point out the hypocrisy if they kill a mosquito - I have hypocrisy running out of my ears in streams.

I don't believe in absolutes but I do believe in progress and working towards improvement where you see it necessary. Start first with yourself before trying to encourage it in someone else. Recognise nothing and no-one is perfect but everything and everyone could probably be better.

Blah blah - my rambling thoughts but an effort to divert attention from a thread that should always have been about something else.

Have a rant, argue and call each other nutjobs, rednecks and fuckwits. Sorry for swearing.


----------



## Brown_hound (6/1/11)

Shit...

I reckon we tandem posted.... there was dead set milliseconds between the posts going up... :lol: 

Alot more effort's gone into yours, I will bow out sir...

Can I close my thread?


----------



## felon (6/1/11)

My wife is a vego (taste reason not ethical) so I don't get a lot of meat around here. But I really think the big question is... What about CATS?


----------



## Lecterfan (6/1/11)

I'm going to fight every primal urge I have here to respond to Felon's question in regards to eating pussy.

Instead I am going to say that I have been impressed with the thought that most people have put into their responses.

I won't waffle on because I don't claim to have any objective truth (and as Manticle suggests maybe there are no absolutes/universals), although I have thousands of words on the issue. It's rewarding to know thereare such thoughful people on the forum though.


I'm going to quit at the cat joke. Like George Costanza - get a giggle then just leave the room. :icon_cheers:



edit: I turned reagrds into regards


----------



## Pennywise (6/1/11)

Thanks for starting this manticle. Hopefully the mods delete all the crap that's detracted from my partners idea.

I've been in enough of these discussions to really have had enough of it, not even sure I give a **** anymore. I eat meat, whoopty fuckin doo. Others don't, whoopty fuckin doo. I respect othe peoples decisions that don't affect me, that's about it really.


----------



## Hatchy (6/1/11)

Nice work Manticle, I had started typing a post in the other thread & deleted it for being off topic. I never post anything off topic (where's my sarcasm font?)

When I met Mrs Hatchy she was vegetarian, not because she didn't like meat or because she thought it was cruel but because she didn't feel it was right to eat something that she wouldn't be willing/able to kill herself. It seemed like sound logic to me. Unfortunately for her she's too nice for her own good so would cook meat for me which lead to her "testing" the bacon which led her back to being an omnivore.

Anyway, while she was vegetarian she was watching something on TV about how the chooks that we eat are treated. I've been buying free range eggs for as long as I've been buying eggs but I'd never thought about the chooks that we eat. There's an argument that they're treated worse than battery hens. I think it was a lifespan of about 45 days being dosed with hormones so they'd grow quicker living in tiny pens. The roosters get killed at birth & sold to a reptile farm or something I think. I didn't eat chicken for quite some time after that but I'm back on it now.

While I don't think animal cruelty is right, I'm more concerned with the way a lot of humans get treated personally. Indigenous Australians, Palestinians & the Australian cricket team immediately spring to mind.


----------



## Effect (6/1/11)

These debates usually end up pretty messy...so from my experience of being in several of these discussions (usually start when everyone gets their meal at a restaurant and notice that my girlfriend's plate and my plate are vegan meals) we have just say one sentence and leave it at that.

If you could live a happy and healthy life without harming anything, why wouldn't you?


----------



## manticle (6/1/11)

Phillip said:


> These debates usually end up pretty messy...




Doesn't need to be a debate. Can just be an expression of what you believe in regards to your own behaviour.

Kind of what I'm hoping but my illusions are thin.

I'm not veg but I am friends with many and was one for a while (while working in kitchens too) so I know the looks and comments you mean. People rabbit (pun not intended) on about how vegetarians want to convert them but most of the waffling conversion attempts seem to come from omnivores in anti-vegetarian rants.


----------



## Effect (6/1/11)

manticle said:


> Doesn't need to be a debate. Can just be an expression of what you believe in regards to your own behaviour.



I'm happy to have a discussion with people that are open-minded, as in those situations opinions on many topics are able to be influenced. However, in an argument only one opinion is changed, and that is what one thinks of the other...

Cheers
Phil


----------



## Ronin (6/1/11)

Messy, pah! We're adults aren't we? More than willing to put my opinions out there in the interests of provoking discussion.

I don't think it was clear from the other thread, I've been vegetarian now for about 8 years. I'm completely healthy too! I really have come to think that it is a completely viable diet. I wasn't sure when I became vegetarian, but the more I learn and the wider my diet becomes the more healthy I feel. I truly think that becoming vegetarian is about education. I have met a lot of people who became vegetarian for all sorts of reasons, mostly ethical, yet gave it up after a year or so, claiming lack of energy. Digging a little deeper it became clear that vegetarian just meant cooking a normal meal for the entire family and then just leaving the meat out. 

That doesn't work. It is not an easy lifestyle, and it was much simpler when I just cooked meat, some veg and that was it. it requires a bit of education, normally some expanding of your palate and a bit more planning than a meat eating diet.

So why did I do it? A few reasons, which I'm willing to put out there for criticism. 

The first, which I'm not sure if people will understand, is that I kill animals for a living. I'm a research fellow in immunology and for those that don't know what that means, it usually means my day at work starts with killing mice for tissue analysis. This I can justify to myself, not because they are only mice, but because I truly believe that this sort of work is essential, not just for modern medicine but also for improving the welfare of livestock.

So why did this affect my decision to not eat meat? I couldn't justify the death of animals for my pleasure, which is essentially what I have come to believe eating meat is. Nutritionally it isn't necessary, so we eat meat simply because we enjoy the taste of it. I'm sure there's some hypocrisy in there somewhere, given what I do, but call it trying to balance the books, karma, whatever. I'm convinced that what I do at work is more important that killing animals for food. 

Over the years I've become more convinced that this diet is the right one for me. I've never tried to convert people who eat meat, although I do believe several things about eating meat, which I'll repeat here for discussion.

If you are going to eat meat, I believe you should be capable of killing the animal and preparing the carcass. I don't mean that people should raise their own livestock or hunt their own food, modern lifestyles have very little room for those activities. But I know many, many people who eat meat but are completely incapable of killing the animal for their own consumption. To me that is absolutely ridiculous. If you can't pull the trigger, you shouldn't eat the meat. I've come to think that given the work that I do, I could now kill an animal if I had to. But I have no desire to eat meat anymore.

The second this I believe is that people should respect what meat is. It isn't meat, it is an animal, and if you are going to take its life then you should care about it's life up to the point that the bolt was fired through it's brain. They should not be raised in unnatural environments, they should not be fed the meat of their own species, and they should not be pumped full of hormones to make them grow unnaturally fast. And if you can't afford to eat as much meat as what you want, given those points, then maybe you should eat less meat, it won't kill you.

the other point is that if you take an animals life because you enjoy eating it, then you should be prepared to use every part of the animal. Liver, heart, muscle, lungs, everything should be eaten. That's what used to happen historically, and it only doesn't happen anymore because meat is so cheap for the reasons in the above paragraph. Animals are raised not like animals, but like commodities.

I also believe that a vegetarian diet is more sustainable and has a lower impact on the environment. As was mentioned in the other thread, the energy cost of growing meat is simply not sustainable in a ever growing planet. Is the life I'm living flawless? Of course not. Is that a reason not to reduce my impact on the environment? Not by a long shot.

As far as beer is concerned, I've never used gelatine nor isinglass. I don't see a reason for it. I have used PVPP, and I now filter my beer. It is perfectly clear enough for me and nothing has died for me to enjoy it. Guilt free enjoyment...

I know this is very long, and if you are reading the thread you are probably interested in peoples opinions.

James


----------



## jonocarroll (6/1/11)

1. Eating meat is not at all required for health. There have never been any bulletins or recommendations saying that "we need to eat more meat (for health)". Not from the medical community, not from health agencies. Not even from the powerful meat industry that has ever dared to make such an outrageous claim. In face, the converse is true; every recommendation you have ever seen always stresses that we need to eat less meat and more fruits and vegetables.

2. There is no nutrient in meat that cannot be found in a vegetarian diet. No one can deny this.

3. There is no disease where eating meat is required for the treatment or cure of the disease.

4. Therefore, eating meat is absolutely unnecessary.

5. Eating meat causes death to other animals, obviously. And, despite attempts to make slaughter "humane", whether it be "kosher", "halal", or otherwise, it quite probably, even certainly, causes stress and pain as well.

6. Therefore, eating meat is immoral and unethical. And abhorently selfish, since the person who eats meat does so only for the hedonistic and temporary satisfaction of his taste buds. Especially when there are so many vegetarian and tasteful alternatives (from meatless and healthful soy products to traditional Indian dishes).

7. There is more than enough cruely in the world as it is; there is no need to add to it unnecessarily.


----------



## jonocarroll (6/1/11)

On the other hand...


----------



## Infinitee (6/1/11)

I wholeheartedly agree with QB.

I've tried vegetarianism (smartly, with all the sprouted nuts, beans imaginable; balanced protein quantities and a decent metabolism) and you can indeed survive.
I even think it's better for a clear state of mind.
But, I don't think the body of any vegetarian, vegan should be without the odd bit of cartilage, (chicken foot soup) cod liver oil or lard (or carnitine when avo's aren't in season).

There are some chemicals that our bodies have long been trained towards absorbing.
We were once fruit eating tree monkeys and developed a sense for the ethanol expressed by ripened and old fruit.
But for 200, 000 years intervening, we ate anything that moved, right down to the insects, upto mammoths and whales.
And their Unique, complex, dense proteins, absorbable fats and abundance of minerals

Have Acculturated us to meat.

So while vegetarianism is peacefully ennobled, i do honestly believe it Can malnourish and kill (if your body isn't fit to adapt to it) and I wouldn't take a chance on another human being.
My kids can be vego anytime they decide, but i'll forcefeed them cod liver oil and rendered bacon fat while they reside under my roof.
C'mon vego's, you deserve cod liver oil too, you know it's true.

This all from a man who slaughters, yet raises his own, insects, guinea pigs, chooks, fish and sheep.
And there is no reason I cannot be the best friend of my pet till the very second I well up the courage, leap up and bash the daylights out of another sentient mammal ... which gives me months more of practical, survival products in my real struggle for existence.

Love n respect to all, but that is how it is.
Anything else is hiding.


----------



## Brown_hound (6/1/11)

Ronin said:


> If you are going to eat meat, I believe you should be capable of killing the animal and preparing the carcass.
> 
> Liver, heart, muscle, lungs, everything should be eaten.



G'day there James... Hope you're doing well..

In response to the above I have a question... Why?

Why should you be capable of killing, gutting, skinning, filleting said animal just to eat it? 
Humans (society) have moved past that god bless our cotton socks...

Forgive me but is that not why abattoir workers are here? Good strong and solid industry...

I go to sleep at night resting assured that 100% of every single animal in an Australian abattoir, is used in some way... Returned to Mother Earth... Inedible bits and pieces are ground to create blood and bone for gardening for eg. 

Why in God's name should we eat offal? Why the hell should we eat anything? Oh, because we choose to... We can.... Offal? I don't like the texture and the taste.. So why the hell should I haved to eat it to be "politically correct"?

I'm healthy...

I may eat a bit too much crap, but for goodness sakes... I choose everything I eat according to my health..


The point you're missing is there's no right, and there's no wrong!!! The ideals you've outlined above are plain... Clean misinformed.


Hound


----------



## manticle (6/1/11)

Ronin said:


> If you are going to eat meat, I believe you should be capable of killing the animal and preparing the carcass. I don't mean that people should raise their own livestock or hunt their own food, modern lifestyles have very little room for those activities. But I know many, many people who eat meat but are completely incapable of killing the animal for their own consumption. To me that is absolutely ridiculous. If you can't pull the trigger, you shouldn't eat the meat. I've come to think that given the work that I do, I could now kill an animal if I had to. But I have no desire to eat meat anymore.
> 
> The second this I believe is that people should respect what meat is. It isn't meat, it is an animal, and if you are going to take its life then you should care about it's life up to the point that the bolt was fired through it's brain. They should not be raised in unnatural environments, they should not be fed the meat of their own species, and they should not be pumped full of hormones to make them grow unnaturally fast. And if you can't afford to eat as much meat as what you want, given those points, then maybe you should eat less meat, it won't kill you.
> 
> the other point is that if you take an animals life because you enjoy eating it, then you should be prepared to use every part of the animal. Liver, heart, muscle, lungs, everything should be eaten. That's what used to happen historically, and it only doesn't happen anymore because meat is so cheap for the reasons in the above paragraph. Animals are raised not like animals, but like commodities.




I couldn't fault these points.


----------



## barls (6/1/11)

wont somebody think about the cries of the carrots????


----------



## Brown_hound (6/1/11)

manticle said:


> I couldn't fault these points.



To re-enforce what I'm trying to say... I wouldn't for a second hesitate in killing any form of livestock (except my dog... Don't plan on eating it). I'd skin, gut, de-bone and fillet most creatures put in front of me without too much of a ruckus....

I cannot for a second understand why we should have to?

To have to eat the other bits and pieces? To justify an animals death? Ridiculous.... 

I will, however, happily eat the tomatoes, carrots, lettuce, onions and garlic, which these animal's nutrients provide us with...

As I said... 100 percent of the animal... Every animal goes either into our gut, our pets gut or the fertilisers required for our crops....

I'm not arguing Manticle... But I simply can't see a reason to eat something I don't like.... Why in God's name would I drink an infected brew? Because I've wasted my money otherwise? Maybe... For choice? Not a chance in hell...

Consumerism gives us a choice.... I don't choose liver....

Hound


----------



## Malted (6/1/11)

I see nothing wrong with 'debate' or 'argument', so long as they are reasoned. 
Well done Manticle for starting this thread (I don't agree with everything you have said but that is the beauty of discussion); I was concerned that the original topic had gone astray to the annoyance of Pennywise (I had said I meant no intentional offence).

There are some great and informative posts on various aspects and beliefs. Brilliant. 
Spirited discusion, I love it. I also love people posting 'emotional' _facts_; I am more empirical than emotional myself... {where's that dammed fists up emoticon?}


Edit: How the hell am I supposed to get any work done tomorrow when I will be thinking about how interesting this discussion is!!!?


----------



## manticle (6/1/11)

@brownhound:

You don't have to.

I have no inclination to make you or anyone ese do what they don't feel they should short of not killing others to make their bedroom look pretty.

I believe those things in regards to how they affect my own behaviour and conscience which was the point of my first post.

I have my conscience and everyone else hopefully has theirs. I make no claims to anyone else's conscience or behaviour.


----------



## DUANNE (6/1/11)

Brown_hound said:


> In response to the above I have a question... Why?
> 
> Why should you be capable of killing, gutting, skinning, filleting said animal just to eat it?
> Humans (society) have moved past that god bless our cotton socks...
> ...




so paying an assasin to do the dirty work is better? if you dont want the blood on your own hands then really should you eat meat?


----------



## bum (6/1/11)

Pennywise said:


> I eat meat, whoopty fuckin doo. Others don't, whoopty fuckin doo. I respect othe peoples decisions that don't affect me, that's about it really.


Absolutely. Personal decision, guys. _Personal_.

For those who are suggesting you shouldn't eat meat unless you deal with the animal yourself - you don't really understand our hunter/gatherer roots, do you?

For those who are suggesting that there is no nutritional reason to eat meat - you don't really understand the source of a number of our evolutionary improvements since the days prior to our hunter/gatherer roots, do you?


----------



## Brown_hound (6/1/11)

bum said:


> Absolutely. Personal decision, guys. _Personal_.
> 
> For those who are suggesting you shouldn't eat meat unless you deal with the animal yourself - you don't really understand our hunter/gatherer roots, do you?
> 
> For those who are suggesting that there is no nutritional reason to eat meat - you don't really understand the source of a number of our evolutionary improvements since the days prior to our hunter/gatherer roots, do you?



+12 Sir....


----------



## Brown_hound (7/1/11)

BEERHOG said:


> so paying an assasin to do the dirty work is better? if you dont want the blood on your own hands then really should you eat meat?




You've missed the point.

I would happily kill livestock whether I needed to survive or not... I do recall writing that...

The point I'm trying to make is that as we've developed as society we've eliminated the necessity to do so... Why should we then 'have to'?

Oh BTW... we don't technically need houses to survive... Should we abandon ours?

I'm not normally sarcastic or this way inclined but the argument is silly...

We're all given a choice, and nobody can really argue here what is right and what is wrong...


Do not for a second dare to tell me though, that because I _choose to_ eat steak, I have to eat cow liver, kidneys, tongue, tail or eyes.

The notion is absolutely ridiculous...


----------



## Brewing_Brad (7/1/11)

manticle said:


> The closer a person can get to the source of their food (whether farming or killing) the better. Not always possible I grant but somewhere I hope to get to one day.


I haven't read the rest of this thread yet, but I shall shortly, but I had to reply to this statement and say a wholehearted "**** yes!"

I grew up on a farm (as I may have mentioned previously) and have slaughtered my own meat from a reasonably young age. When I moved to the city, I moved away from the need to do so, but still remained conscious of the fact that the meat I bought plastic wrapped at the supermarket came from a living (possibly sentient) being.

My partner, Adam, on the other hand, grew up in the city, but held similar beliefs. He had never intentionally killed an animal (apart from bugs and things).

We went back to my parent's farm for Christmas and I asked my dad if we could have one of his prized Dorpa sheep to take back with us to stock our freezer. He said yes, on the condition that we kill it ourselves (he's getting on a bit and killing a sheep is hard work).

Adam and I had discussed the theory behind killing an animal for food previously, because we eventually want to raise our own, and he decided that if he was going to continue with the dream and, more importanly, continue being a meat eater, he wanted to be involved in the process from start to finish. So we rounded up the sheep and put them in the yard. 

There were three "killers" as dad calls them, sheep whose fate was decided the day they were born male. Dad asked Adam to pick one. He did.

He chose the animal he wanted, killed it, gutted and dressed it (with my dad's and my brother's guidance) and now it's all nicely cut up into chops and roasts in the freezer. 

He walked away from the experience a completely different man to when he started and for the better. 

Now, when he cooks with the meat he is careful not to burn it or ruin it in any way because that would lessen and disrespect the animal's death. We both knew that animal when it was a living being and we respect it now in it's death.

That probably sounds like a bunch of hippy wank, but it's true.

I think the point I'm trying to make is; everyone who eats meat needs to be at least aware of the process behind the killing. If you can't do it yourself then at least watch a show like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgKVg1uvwQQ)

My 2 cents.
Brad


----------



## DUANNE (7/1/11)

youve got me wrong. im not saying you have to kill the animal yourself ,what i am saying is that if you would not kill an animal yourself then are you really of the right conscience to be eating it.if you dont like the thought of having to do it yourself and then buy meat from the supermarket then you have to realise that animal did die because of you just the same as if it was by your own hand.i never said you had to eat every part of the animal taht was another poster, but actually do believe that every part of an animal should be used in some meanignfull way even if it is as i believe you said blood and bone.i think we both agree with a few things and also disagree on some .


----------



## DUANNE (7/1/11)

Brewing_Brad said:


> I haven't read the rest of this thread yet, but I shall shortly, but I had to reply to this statement and say a wholehearted "**** yes!"
> 
> I grew up on a farm (as I may have mentioned previously) and have slaughtered my own meat from a reasonably young age. When I moved to the city, I moved away from the need to do so, but still remained conscious of the fact that the meat I bought plastic wrapped at the supermarket came from a living (possibly sentient) being.
> 
> ...



i agree with the sentiment whole heartedly.pretty much what im trying to say but said a hell of a lot more clearly.


----------



## Hatchy (7/1/11)

I like sweet potatoes & spinach. I'm glad that my Mum doesn't like either because if she did she would've ruined them for me like every other vegetable.

I really should grow some sweet potatoes & some spinach. I'd also like some pigs, chooks & a big sharp knife. Maybe a goat as well for wool & milk. Some bloke at a pub once told me that the male goats have better milk, can anyone confirm/deny this?


----------



## Brewing_Brad (7/1/11)

BEERHOG said:


> i agree with the sentiment whole heartedly.pretty much what im trying to say but said a hell of a lot more clearly.


Ok, so I've finished reading the rest of the thread (and thanks BEERHOG for suggesting I write clearly...the few pints of homebrew I've had tonight would suggest otherwise!

But, after reading up until this point, the only addition I have to make is Offal. If you're a meat eater you don't have to eat it, but I reckon you're seriously missing out. 

I belong to the school of thought that every part of the animal should be used if you can...if you have a need. Steak & kidney pie, tripe, heart soup, deep fried brains on toast! My mouth is literally watering!

In the past we've even go so far as to make braun (or as the french call it, Fromage a la tete - head cheese) from the head. The intestine have been strung out, dried and used as twine, hooves boiled down to make gelatine and my aunties have used the bladders as water bags (I'm also aboriginal) - admittedly none of this happened with the sheep we killed at Christmas, we didn't have a need.

But we did keep the heart, kidneys and liver. We even made mince out of the usually wasted bits. It was a pain to do, but we did it, and ya know, it tasted fuckin' great with our tacos!

Anyway, again my 2 cents.


----------



## Brewing_Brad (7/1/11)

Hatchy said:


> Some bloke at a pub once told me that the male goats have better milk, can anyone confirm/deny this?


Totally true! I sware! Same with the cows with only one teet! Best milk you've ever tried. Go on...go try it. You'll love it!


----------



## philw (7/1/11)

I am a vegetarian, I only eat things that eat grass :icon_cheers: 


I personally don't care if people are Vegetarian / Vegan / Freegan it is there choice to do that 

my main issue are the people that have an issue with what I choose to do and eat and try to spend ages telling me how bad and wrong I am for eating animals 



also re cats I love cats, ( I just couldn't eat a whole one ) 


and there is a big different to animal welfare and animal cruelty a lot seem to get that confused


----------



## Zizzle (7/1/11)

It's interesting to hear peoples morals and justifications.

For me it's not about killing a sentinent animal and all that stuff.

I like a few here grew up in a family butchering our own sheep, beef, and poultry. We knew what those animal ate.

You do know your alive when you run a sharp knife across the jugular of an animal bigger than yourself.

In recent years I have greatly reduced my meat intake.

The reasoning is pretty simple. Firstly, it's just not sustainable to eat meat every day. We are part of a lucky few out of the 6.5 billion who can. The planet just doesn't have enough resources to support everyone doing it. Yes you are getting more than your fair share.

But mainly because I moved to the USA. The mighty dollar reigns supreme. Their meat industry has bought and owns the US Gov FDA. The industry has killed people here with bad beef with little to no consequences.

The image of the family farmer is mainly a myth propagated by marketing departments. Industrial agriculture is the norm - animals pumped full of growth hormones and anti-biotics. Industrial production means automation, which mean imprecision, which means sh!t gets on the meat. To get around that, it is irradiated to kill the bacteria. You are literally eating shit.

Drive across the US and you see the massive feedlots and far as the eye can see. Bulldozers drive around full time piling up the cow pats. It stinks.

Parts of the animals are routinely feed back to them. Mad cow anyone?

Cows have evolved to live on grass. But in the feed lot they are fed grain and a lot of (cheap, gov subsidised) corn. To save a buck and make them grow fat quickly.

The worst part is that marketing has convinced people that "Grain fed" beef is better.

The pork industry has poisoned a lot of the water courses. There is a lot of nitrogen and phosphates in the pig/poultry crap. It leaches into the rivers and into the ocean. The extra nutrient causes blooms which deplete the oxygen. Which hammers the fish stocks.

We've all seen picture of battery hens. You know what, free-range doesn't mean what you think it does either. They are just jammed into a big shed, doesn't mean they can actually move any more. There are too many of them. And besides that, they are pumped with hormones that grow their meat faster than their bones can support, so a lot of the time they can't walk anyway.



Now I'd like to think that things are different in Australia, and I'm sure they are to some extent (hey I still know some family farmers who raise beef). But I'm sure the trend is the same.


These days, since SWMBO is a pescetarian, we eat fish about once a week and that is it as far as meat goes. Now fish production is not really that different to the other meat industries. It hammers the environment, has bad chemicals (mercury, PCBs).

But the vege production situation isn't much better either. Ever heard of Monsanto? I'm sure a large proportion of what i eat is GMO and sprayed with round-up.
People in the US have been food poisoned due to fertilizer on their lettuce and tomatoes. Much of the fresh produce is grown so fast as to have very little nutritional value. A lot of it also come from south of the border where regulation is pretty much non-existent. God knows what they spray on it in central / south america to keep pests off before selling it as "organic" to some middle man in the US.

You are being fed whatever is cheapest to produce by some mega-corp. And probably barely within the law/regulations. Well that is until they throw enough lobbying money around to get the rules relaxed.

I know what you are thinking, crazy cynical hippy? Maybe.

But you know what, you should probably know better. You probably know what it is like to have a choice of crappy bland mass produced expensive lagers and told via marketting that they are the best in the world.

So what's the moral of the story?
Cut out the mega-corps.
Grow your own. Brew your own. Join a co-op.
Don't stick your head in the sand and follow the other sheeple.


----------



## InCider (7/1/11)

A poll would be good - carnivorous vs omnivorous vs herbivorous brewers.


----------



## zebba (7/1/11)

A bit of lambs fry (liver) in a rich curry adds an extra element that is to die for. As does chicken liver in any mince-based italian sauces. George Calomborous' restaurant also does a kick ass sweet bread... mmm....

I gotta agree with the "if you couldn't kill it yourself" argument. If you eat it, then you are responsible for it's death. If you can't pull the metaphorical trigger yourself, but don't think twice about drawing the knife across the grilled remains then you're not much of a moral thinker.


----------



## Ronin (7/1/11)

bum said:


> For those who are suggesting you shouldn't eat meat unless you deal with the animal yourself - you don't really understand our hunter/gatherer roots, do you?



Hi guys,

I quoted you bum, but many people have misunderstood my post, maybe because it was a long one and not everyone read it. :lol: 

I never said that you must deal with the animal yourself. That you must hunt and kill the animal yourself, I specficially said that I recognise modern life has no place for that. My point was that I believe you should be capable, capable, of pulling the trigger and getting your hands dirty. I know a lot of people who could never kill anything, yet happily eat meat.

Brewing_Brad's post is brilliant and I believe that is how people who eat meat should behave. I understand that not everybody has access to that sort of experience, but if you can't bring yourself to do what he and his friend Adama did, why are you eating meat? It does actually cause the death of an animal, you just don't need to see it?

Thanks to everyone who's posted opinions and for keeping it civil. It is amazing the passion that this topic can generate from both sides. My decision was very personal, and quite unique I believe. I simply believe that consumers should know (and care about) the consequences of their consuming. I'm sure I don't know everything about the consequences of my decisions. I don't know where the copper for the circuitry in my plasma TV came from. But where I can be informed, I like to be.

James


----------



## Ronin (7/1/11)

BEERHOG said:


> youve got me wrong. im not saying you have to kill the animal yourself ,what i am saying is that if you would not kill an animal yourself then are you really of the right conscience to be eating it.



Yes, there's been a lot of misunderstanding about that point.

There's a lot of people who choose to remain ignorant about the consequences of eating meat (ignorance is bliss, after all), and they are the people I can't understand.

For those of you who have informed yourself about how the meat ends up on your plate and are still OK about eating eat, I have no problem whatsoever. As long as you care about it.

James


----------



## Ronin (7/1/11)

Zizzle said:


> We've all seen picture of battery hens. You know what, free-range doesn't mean what you think it does either. They are just jammed into a big shed, doesn't mean they can actually move any more. There are too many of them. And besides that, they are pumped with hormones that grow their meat faster than their bones can support, so a lot of the time they can't walk anyway.



I'm lucky enough to be only two steps from where I get my eggs, and we've had long discussions with the person who runs the fruit market about the conditions of the chooks. He actually swapped suppliers recently because one of them had better conditions for their animals.



Zizzle said:


> These days, since SWMBO is a pescetarian, we eat fish about once a week and that is it as far as meat goes. Now fish production is not really that different to the other meat industries. It hammers the environment, has bad chemicals (mercury, PCBs).



Since becoming vegetarian, I've actually toyed with the idea of eating fish from time to time, but it was these sort of figures that stopped me. 



Zizzle said:


> But the vege production situation isn't much better either. Ever heard of Monsanto? I'm sure a large proportion of what i eat is GMO and sprayed with round-up.
> People in the US have been food poisoned due to fertilizer on their lettuce and tomatoes. Much of the fresh produce is grown so fast as to have very little nutritional value. A lot of it also come from south of the border where regulation is pretty much non-existent. God knows what they spray on it in central / south america to keep pests off before selling it as "organic" to some middle man in the US.



I am lucky enough to do my veg shopping at a place that makes as much effort as possible to buy local. Even still, we are in the process of getting together as big an area as possible to grow our own.

Great post,

James


----------



## Ronin (7/1/11)

Brown_hound said:


> You've missed the point.



lol, I think you missed a few too, I'll do my best, by Beer Hog has said it quite well too.



Brown_hound said:


> I would happily kill livestock whether I needed to survive or not... I do recall writing that...



Good, then you are the sort of person that I believe has the right to eat meat



Brown_hound said:


> The point I'm trying to make is that as we've developed as society we've eliminated the necessity to do so... Why should we then 'have to'?



Yes this is the point that many have misunderstood. You should be able to. You should be capable of. You should have no squeamishness about putting the gun to the side of the head and pulling the trigger, because that is what you are doing when you pick up the nicely wrapped steaks from coles (and possibly worse, I'm sure the cheap stuff you get from safeway and coles is pretty far from best practice). Nobody ever said you have to actually do it.

And it's good that we've dissassociated our food source from our plate? I believe it's one of the worst parts of our society.



Brown_hound said:


> We're all given a choice, and nobody can really argue here what is right and what is wrong...



Yep we are all given a choice and it's about whether you will be a blind consumer or an educated one. I personally believe that blind consumerism is not one of the highlights of modern life. I'm not trying to tell you what is right or wrong, my deciding to eat meat was a very personal decision and I am trying to explain that decision to provoke some discussion.



Brown_hound said:


> Do not for a second dare to tell me though, that because I _choose to_ eat steak, I have to eat cow liver, kidneys, tongue, tail or eyes.
> 
> The notion is absolutely ridiculous...



I personally don't see the difference, eating meat is eating meat. Why not eat as much as possible of the animal. 

James


----------



## Malted (7/1/11)

I'd like to delve deeper into the original issue. So how about *cruelty free beer*? What does it mean?
Should it be (animal) cruelty free beer, or beer that contains no traces of animal? 

(1) Just because it does not contain traces of an animal, is it ok to say that it is (animal) cruelty free? 
To expand this: Should we consider the potential impacts upon living things of the processes involved in making beer? As in what may happen to animals during the course of production of the inputs that go into beer. Should we consider the bigger picture right from soil through to bottle, or should we just look at what is actually in (or not in) the bottle? I say - Think bigger, for gawds sake, just think! Please disagree with me, if you have thought about some sound reasons why. Please also understand that your actions (or what you eat or drink) have bigger consequences (affect more things than just you and the thing you're consuming). There are quality posts from others in this thread that clearly outline such potential impacts.

(2) The most important aspect is: what else does a statement of *cruelty free beer* say? It says a lot more than at first glance. I think a lot of folks only gave it a first glance and did not think about it. *Cruelty free beer* is implying that because part of an animal is in a beer (most likely a by-product used as a fining agent of sorts) that animals suffered cruelty. Ergo, this statement implies that it is 'cruel to kill any animal'* and we do not support using any parts of dead animals in our beer. 

*I personally do not believe that such a philosophy can be supported (is not truthful). In some cases, the way in which an animal is treated or dispatched may be legally considered cruel, but you just *can't say* in all cases. 

So I got bagged for questioning non-meat eating philosophy. Do you see that it is intrinsically linked to the statement of *'cruelty free beer'*? I do not believe that you can rightly say that killing any animal is wrong (cruel) and that you should not use any part of a dead animal in beer (or consume it). Nor do I believe that beer should be marketed this way. 

Not a lot of folks said, do you know what, maybe they are saying that *cruelty free beer* means that they are also saying that it is wrong to kill animals, that is not a clear cut argument and probably should not be associated with beer. 

If you want to say 'beer that contains no traces of animals', that is a supportable fact. It is not argumentative; it is not making any moral claims. Conversely maybe you could say, may contain traces of animals that did not suffer cruelty. 


If someone makes some moral claims and associates this with beer, am I not able to question those morals and the associated underlying morals?

If you want to imply something about the relative morals of dispatching living animals for human consumption and roll it up into a statement such as *'cruelty free beer'* - well that will probably evolve into a debate of non-meat eaters vs meat eaters and become a pretty interesting thread.

So you don't agree with my views, that's fine. Have I at least explained them clearly?


----------



## Brown_hound (7/1/11)

manticle said:


> @brownhound:
> 
> You don't have to.
> 
> ...


 :beerbang:


----------



## Brown_hound (7/1/11)

InCider said:


> A poll would be good - carnivorous vs omnivorous vs herbivorous brewers.



Fire one up big fella??


----------



## manticle (7/1/11)

Malted said:


> snip




It's a marketting term, nothing more, nothing less. Same with Organic and green. You can find products that suit your notion of what organic and green are but the terms themselves mean little insofar as they are applied to labels.

You as a consumer are responsible for what you consume. If you accept that responsibility and desire a product of a certain type then you can decide what you expect cruelty free etc to mean and seek a product that fulfils those requirements.

I agree with Philip though - I don't see how killing an animal can be anything but cruel, depending on your definition of cruel. I don't believe in absolute moral values though so cruel for me doesn't necessarily = wrong. Even humane slaughtering of a sick or wounded animal has an element of cruelty to it. When my cat plays with a mouse it's both natural and cruel. The term cruelty free to me doesn't necessarily imply a moral stance. Possibly the inventors of the term would like it to but it's not inherent in the words.

Maybe vegetarian friendly beer or vegan beer would be a much better term but I guess the idea is to make the consumer question what and why.


----------



## Brown_hound (7/1/11)

QuantumBrewer said:


> On the other hand...




Yum!!


----------



## Ronin (7/1/11)

Malted said:


> I'd like to delve deeper into the original issue. So how about *cruelty free beer*? What does it mean?
> Should it be (animal) cruelty free beer, or beer that contains no traces of animal?
> 
> (1) Just because it does not contain traces of an animal, is it ok to say that it is (animal) cruelty free?
> To expand this: Should we consider the potential impacts upon living things of the processes involved in making beer? As in what may happen to animals during the course of production of the inputs that go into beer. Should we consider the bigger picture right from soil through to bottle, or should we just look at what is actually in (or not in) the bottle? I say - Think bigger, for gawds sake, just think! Please disagree with me, if you have thought about some sound reasons why. Please also understand that your actions (or what you eat or drink) have bigger consequences (affect more things than just you and the thing you're consuming). There are quality posts from others in this thread that clearly outline such potential impacts.



Yep I agree we should be looking at the biggest picture we are informed enough to "see". I found it interesting in the previous thread where someone claimed that there is no "no impact" choices, so vegetarians aren't actually vegetarians (I'm horribly paraphrashing here). I do find that an interesting concept (and apolagies because it's only vaguely related to your paragraph, but it made me think of it).

What is worth doing? If you can't rule out 100% of the negative consequences of your actions, is it worth taking any steps to reduce your impact on society, the planet etc.? Say, for example, a soy bean crop grown in south america. If you directly consume the soy beans, you are responsible for any pesticides etc that are used in raising the crop, any waterways that are damaged, and microbial organisms that are affected by their growth. So yep, a vegetarian diet does not directly remove your impact on the globe. There are nematodes that grow in vegetables and fruit that you can't help consume.

So is it worth doing? I believe it is. Reducing your impact by 80%, 50%, even 20% is better than not even trying because you can't reduce it 100%. If that same soy crop was used as pig feed, then not only is much of it wasted (16kg of grain for 1kg of meat), but you also have the extra agriculture and space required to raise the animals (especially if they are not raised in tiny cages).

I believe that any improvement that people are capable of making to their lives that reduces their impact is worth doing, even if it is tiny.



Malted said:


> (2) Another aspect is: what else does a statement of *cruelty free beer* say? It says a lot more than at first glance. I think a lot of folks only gave it a first glance and did not think about it. *Cruelty free beer* is implying that because part of an animal is in a beer (most likely a by-product used as a fining agent of sorts) that animals suffered cruelty. Ergo, this statement implies that it is 'cruel to kill any animal'* and we do not support using any parts of dead animals in our beer.



Yep this really does come down to what you define as "cruel". For me, it is the unnecessary death of an animal. I don't believe it is necessary to consume an animal for health reasons, we do it because we always have, it is our lifestlye, we enjoy the taste, it is our right as the sentient creature on the planet. For me, because it is unneccessary, it is cruel, regardless of how the creature is treated before death. 

Regarding beer, I have been making perfectly clear, stable beer without the use of isinglass or gelatine, irish moss and pvpp are perfectly acceptable. This makes me believe that using these substances is unnecessary and therefore causes the unnecessary death of these animals. For me that is how I define cruelty.



Malted said:


> *I personally do not believe that such a philosophy can be supported (is not truthful). In some cases, the way in which an animal is treated or dispatched may be legally considered cruel, but you just *can't say* in all cases.
> 
> So I got bagged for questioning non-meat eating philosophy. Do you see that it is intrinsically linked to the statement of *'cruelty free beer'*? I do not believe that you can rightly say that killing any animal is wrong (cruel) and that you should not use any part of a dead animal in beer (or consume it). Nor do I believe that beer should be marketed this way.



I really don't mind people questioning my beliefs, that's why I put them out there. I don't approve of vegetarians who try to convert people, I don't approve of meat eaters who find vegetarians threatening. I've found it is one of the most common responses, just because I've made a moral choice doesn't mean I believe you are amoral for not making the same one (although I'm sure there are vegetarians out there who think that way).

Again, I think we simply have different definitions of "cruel". For most people who care about the "cruelty free" logo, they assume it means that nothing was killed to create the product nor was it not tested on animals. If you don't care about the logo, then it means absolutely nothing to you.



Malted said:


> Not a lot of folks said, do you know what, maybe they are saying that *cruelty free beer* means that they are also saying that it is wrong to kill animals, that is not a clear cut argument and probably should not be associated with beer.
> 
> If you want to say 'beer that contains no traces of animals', that is a supportable fact. It is not argumentative; it is not making any moral claims. Conversely maybe you could say, may contain traces of animals that did not suffer cruelty.
> 
> If someone makes some moral claims and associates this with beer, am I not able to question those morals and the associated underlying morals?



Yep I agree, one is emotive and one is factual. I personally would go with the "no traces of animals" comment if I ever was to make commercial beer. It says exactly the same thing to those who care. And yes you have every right to question those morals, just as I have every right to question the morality of eating meat.

We are the only creature on the planet capable of questioning our own actions and the impacts they cause. And we are going to have to do some serious questioning in the upcoming generations about the sustainability of all of our actions, not just our consumption of meat.



Malted said:


> If you want to imply something about the relative morals of dispatching living animals for human consumption and roll it up into a statement such as *'cruelty free beer'* - well that will probably evolve into a debate of non-meat eaters vs meat eaters and become a pretty interesting thread.
> 
> So you don't agree with my views, that's fine. Have I at least explained them clearly?



Yes quite clearly, your more concerned with the implied morality of the label than with the actual practice? And that evolution is exactly what happened in the previous thread. It was inevitable. 

Enjoyable too.

James


----------



## Malted (7/1/11)

Ronin said:


> Snip




Thank you for such an informative post. Thank you for stimulating thinking.


----------



## MarkBastard (7/1/11)

I reckon it is cruel to withhold meat from someone, particularly me.


----------



## Katherine (7/1/11)

Lets knock this up a notch.....

Feelings on -

Live Sheep Trade...


----------



## MarkBastard (7/1/11)

Katie said:


> Live Sheep Trade...



don't care, they're sheep


----------



## Malted (7/1/11)

Katie said:


> Lets knock this up a notch.....
> 
> Feelings on -
> 
> Live Sheep Trade...




Who's knocked up? Look it wasn't me, I didn't touch that sheep, it is a liar!


----------



## Katherine (7/1/11)

very funny....


----------



## marksfish (7/1/11)

as far as the concept of cruelty free beer i still say how can you be sure nothing suffered during the growing, harvesting and storage of the ingredients in any product that we consume. And to the point of this thread i hunt, fish and grow some of the vegies i eat and the only thing i worry about is the taste of what i put in to my mouth.


----------



## manticle (7/1/11)

You can't know for certain but that shouldn't be an excuse for wilful ignorance or supporting practices you believe are unethical.

Just because there's no black or white doesn't mean you shouldn't make an effort or take responsibility. When you hunt or fish do you try and cause the creature you will be eating a lot of pain or do you simply try and kill quickly and efficiently?


----------



## marksfish (7/1/11)

the aim (pardon the pun) is a one shot kill and the fish are killed asap as well not on any ethical grounds as such but for better eating qualities.


----------



## tourist (7/1/11)

Mark^Bastard said:


> don't care, they're sheep


You speak the words of a fuckwit.


----------



## manticle (7/1/11)

marksfish said:


> the aim (pardon the pun) is a one shot kill and the fish are killed asap as well not on any ethical grounds as such but for better eating qualities.



Sure but I doubt (and hope) that you're so sadistic you would cause unnecessary pain were that not the case. You don't go out of your way to hurt the reature that will become your food.

It stands to reason that less distressed animals will make better eating.


----------



## bum (7/1/11)

manticle said:


> It stands to reason that less distressed animals will make better eating.


Depends to a certain extent on your cultural background. But, uh, let's not go there, shall we?


----------



## Katherine (7/1/11)

manticle said:


> You can't know for certain but that shouldn't be an excuse for wilful ignorance or supporting practices you believe are unethical.
> 
> Just because there's no black or white doesn't mean you shouldn't make an effort or take responsibility. When you hunt or fish do you try and cause the creature you will be eating a lot of pain or do you simply try and kill quickly and efficiently?



Ive always being against the live sheep trade, even though I love lamb nearly as much as I love pork. But the live sheep trade is horrible. First experienced it moving to WA and to the Fremantle area as that is where they leave from. The stench is un believable. Its not a nice sight watching them travelling in the trucks either. Its a disgusting practise. 

Only recently I found out there thinking about moving the trade to Kwinana, last year I brought a house in Kwinana. If you google Kwinana you will see its already filled with heavy industry. They are saying moving the trade to Kwinana will be for the sheep as it will be less travel on the roads as they are housed in Wellard and Baldivis... Come on they have to get there first. Its the three day boat trip, the unrecognisable food... (Shy feeding syndrome) most of the animals come from green pastures and are less likely to make the switch to the pellets. 47% die from not eating. Then after the stress of transportation, all the surving animals face death on foreign soil, most in counties which have no animal welfare laws or at best inadequate laws. They will almost all be killed without pre stunning and often without adequate restraint facilities. Most of the time the sheep is also not killed in the correct Halal way. 

Now the reason there wanting to move it to Kwinana really for the sake of the animals??? I dont think so. Or is if its in Kwinana out of sight out of mind. Initially I wanted to fight having it move to Kwinana but then though why not get involved in stopping the barbaric export altogether.


----------



## manticle (7/1/11)

@bum: I'm aware of certain practices that suggest the opposite. I can only go on my own senses and ideals (and cultural background).

@Katie - any practice that involves intense discomfort for sentient beings to further profit troubles me. Whether the sheep are transported in cramped conditions or bred here in cramped conditions and slaughtered before transport, I feel the same way.

I'm also surprised that the industry will accept a 47% loss of product.


----------



## Katherine (7/1/11)

manticle said:


> @bum: I'm aware of certain practices that suggest the opposite. I can only go on my own senses and ideals (and cultural background).
> 
> @Katie - any practice that involves intense discomfort for sentient beings to further profit troubles me. Whether the sheep are transported in cramped conditions or bred here in cramped conditions and slaughtered before transport, I feel the same way.
> 
> I'm also surprised that the industry will accept a 47% loss of product.



And that loss is only the ones not eating there are more. 

Our sheep in Australia also our cows are treated well in our farming practises its once they have left our shore where it goes wrong. Its all about the money.

Pigs are another story altogether but i beleive it is getting better. 

Without getting into the religious part of why they are transported live. Is it cheaper to send the sheep live??? Could you imagine how much it would cost to have a ship that size as a freezer?


----------



## MarkBastard (7/1/11)

tourist said:


> You speak the words of a fuckwit.



if you vegans care so much about sheep why do you want to export them dead? MURDERERS!!!!


----------



## MarkBastard (7/1/11)

Katie said:


> Is it cheaper to send the sheep live??? Could you imagine how much it would cost to have a ship that size as a freezer?



I would imagine it'd still be cheaper to send them dead because they could pack them in better etc.


----------



## manticle (7/1/11)

Katie said:


> And that loss is only the ones not eating there are more.
> 
> Our sheep in Australia also our cows are treated well in our farming practises its once they have left our shore where it goes wrong. Its all about the money.
> 
> ...



My understanding is that the meat simply will not be bought unless it is live (specifically to middle eastern countries) I haven't delved that far into it. Live trade exists because that part of the market will otherwise be removed.


----------



## Katherine (7/1/11)

Mark^Bastard said:


> if you vegans care so much about sheep why do you want to export them dead? MURDERERS!!!!




Im no vegan or vegetarian... Its about fair treatment...


----------



## Katherine (7/1/11)

manticle said:


> My understanding is that the meat simply will not be bought unless it is live (specifically to middle eastern countries) I haven't delved that far into it. Live trade exists because that part of the market will otherwise be removed.



That is correct, but if everybody stopped doing it what would happen then? 

We still need to have the lamb here, Australia Day is coming up!


----------



## manticle (7/1/11)

tourist said:


> You speak the words of a fuckwit.




Right up until this point, every post has retained an element of civility. Sure Mark's was a tasteless joke but in general the thread has held back from useless hurling of insults. It was a breath of fresh air for a while.

If you have a point, make it. Make it the best articulated point you can and make others consider it. Or call someone a fuckwit and be ignored.


----------



## manticle (7/1/11)

Katie said:


> That is correct, but if everybody stopped doing it what would happen then?
> 
> We still need to have the lamb here, Australia Day is coming up!



Presumably the middle east would raise their own and we would lose a market.

That wouldn't trouble me. I don't find that market justifiable by my own ethical standards.

Yes I eat lamb.


----------



## Katherine (7/1/11)

Now the PIGS...

Another barbaric practise which lead me to eat only organic or free range pork.

Pregnant pigs can be kept for their entire 4 month pregnancy in a tiny metal stall not much bigger than the size of their bodies. Nursing mothers are similary confined. Unable to interact with their babies they watch helpessly as their piglets have their tails cut off and teeth c lipped without pain relief. Male piglest are castrated without anaesthetic.

They can not turn around, they can not exersise. They have no bedding, they are forced to lie on hard floors.
Just prior to giving birth they are moved to a nursery (ha) .... Pending mothers are confined in an even small area where their body is incircled by metal bars to even further limite their movement. Once again no bedding. Nuturing and interacting with her young is impossible.

She will watch on helplessly as her babies have their teeth clipped, their tails cut off, and are castrated without pain relief. Her young are removed after 3 or 4 weeks, she is impregnated again, and the cycle of suffering and deprivation continues.

Pigs are very intelligent... not much different to your family dog. 

There are legal exceptions to pig farmers to prevent them from being prosecuted for animal cruelty so they can maximise their profits.


----------



## Katherine (7/1/11)

manticle said:


> Presumably the middle east would raise their own and we would lose a market.
> 
> That wouldn't trouble me. I don't find that market justifiable by my own ethical standards.
> 
> Yes I eat lamb.



Exactly the same feeling. It angers me that we allow it to happen to our animals just for a profit.


----------



## Dave70 (7/1/11)

Choosing not to eat meat - or any animal based protein for that sake - is like turning your back on 10,000 years of human evolution, which is clearly ******* idiotic.
Like that wanker celeb chef on the box at the moment telling us that ' Like me, 2 out of 3 Australians are trying to eat less meat'. People of his ilk would like to see all of us replace our lamb chop with a lump of plant semen (soy). 
Clearly he's a ******* idiot also.
Do your homework and you come to realize what a load of horse shit this whole campaign against meats and saturated fat is. This is the result of corporate propaganda and flawed science being manipulated into conventional, accepted wisdom.

Vegetarianism and its variations may be the new black in some circles, but it's retarded, ignorant, and I'm sure on some Freudian level, attention seeking behaviour. (I can say that cos my sister is vegan..)

Oh yeah, plants have feelings to you know.


----------



## Acasta (7/1/11)

I think people over estimate the human race. Animals eat other animals. We are animals, and we like to think we are alot more evolved, but really we just go with our instinct.


----------



## tourist (7/1/11)

manticle said:


> Right up until this point, every post has retained an element of civility. Sure Mark's was a tasteless joke but in general the thread has held back from useless hurling of insults. It was a breath of fresh air for a while.
> 
> If you have a point, make it. Make it the best articulated point you can and make others consider it. Or call someone a fuckwit and be ignored.


Manticle. Is A Fuckwit.....someone who would say something like "I don't care, they're sheep"? I thought so.

But I never called anyone such, let's make that clear.

Articulate enough? 

I'm a meat-eater who is moving on from this drivel.


----------



## .DJ. (7/1/11)

Dave70 said:


> Choosing not to eat meat - or any animal based protein for that sake - is like turning your back on 10,000 years of human evolution, which is clearly ******* idiotic.
> Like that wanker celeb chef on the box at the moment telling us that ' Like me, 2 out of 3 Australians are trying to eat less meat'. People of his ilk would like to see all of us replace our lamb chop with a lump of plant semen (soy).
> Clearly he's a ******* idiot also.
> Do your homework and you come to realize what a load of horse shit this whole campaign against meats and saturated fat is. This is the result of corporate propaganda and flawed science being manipulated into conventional, accepted wisdom.
> ...



How does someone being vegan/vego directly effect you though? Why do you care so much?


----------



## MarkBastard (7/1/11)

tourist said:


> Manticle. Is A Fuckwit.....someone who would say something like "I don't care, they're sheep"? I thought so.
> 
> But I never called anyone such, let's make that clear.
> 
> ...



Someone asked my opinion and I gave it. I don't remember asking for yours.


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (7/1/11)

Dave70 said:


> Choosing not to eat meat - or any animal based protein for that sake - is like turning your back on 10,000 years of human evolution, which is clearly ******* idiotic.
> Like that wanker celeb chef on the box at the moment telling us that ' Like me, 2 out of 3 Australians are trying to eat less meat'. People of his ilk would like to see all of us replace our lamb chop with a lump of plant semen (soy).
> Clearly he's a ******* idiot also.
> Do your homework and you come to realize what a load of horse shit this whole campaign against meats and saturated fat is. This is the result of corporate propaganda and flawed science being manipulated into conventional, accepted wisdom.
> ...




Choosing to respect black people - or to like homosexuals for that sake - is like turning your back on 10,000 years of human evolution, which is clearly ******* idiotic.
Like that wanker Martin Luther King on the box at the moment telling us that 'he has a dream'. People of his ilk would like to see us all share equal footing with monkeys!
Clearly he's a ******* idiot also.
Do your homework and you come to realize what a load of horse shit this whole campaign for gays and blacks is. This is the result of corporate propaganda and flawed science being manipulated into conventional, accepted wisdom.


Blacks and gays and their variations may be the new black in some circles, but they are retarded, ignorant, and I'm sure on some Freudian level, attention seeking. (I can say that cos my sister is gay and black).


----------



## Ronin (7/1/11)

Dave70 said:


> Choosing not to eat meat - or any animal based protein for that sake - is like turning your back on 10,000 years of human evolution, which is clearly ******* idiotic.
> Like that wanker celeb chef on the box at the moment telling us that ' Like me, 2 out of 3 Australians are trying to eat less meat'. People of his ilk would like to see all of us replace our lamb chop with a lump of plant semen (soy).
> Clearly he's a ******* idiot also.
> Do your homework and you come to realize what a load of horse shit this whole campaign against meats and saturated fat is. This is the result of corporate propaganda and flawed science being manipulated into conventional, accepted wisdom.
> ...



I agree with manticle, this has been a quite civil discussion, except for some. This post adds nothing to the discussion.

Do you have any idea of the science? How many journal articles have you read regarding the links between meat consumption and vascular disease, heart disease, stroke, colon cancer? Do you know how to access scientific literature? I'm assuming that you have some sort of institutional access to a database like pubmed to be making claims like that regarding scientific conspiracies funded by vegetarian societies aimed at preventing the consumption of meat.

People misquoting science pisses me off. There are very few, extremely few, papers out the that recommend the increased consumption of meat. And guess where the funding for those comes from? Meat industries.

So in our 10,000 years of evolution, for how long have we been intensively farming animals? For how long have pigs been raised in pens that prevent them from turning around? How long have chickens been bred to grow so fast and stuffed full of antibiotics under the guise of growth promoters that their bones can't keep up and they end up immobile?

You'll actually find that some people, vegetarians even, are remarkable well informed and have made conscious decisions not to support such practices. 

I have no problem with people eating meat and I recognise that it is a traditional part of our diet. However, modern practices leave a lot to be desired.

If you don't care about the source of your food and hava no empathy for those who lose their lives so that you can gorge yourself at a BBQ I pity you,

Now go away so that the rest of us can have a civil discussion,

James

PS, sorry to the rest of you for stooping to a response, but it annoyed me more than a little


----------



## Ronin (7/1/11)

JonnyAnchovy, I really couldn't have said it better myself,

amazing post,

james


----------



## MarkBastard (7/1/11)

JonnyAnchovy, there is no way it's the same thing. One is human rights and one is animal rights. His original argument, though unrefined, was based on diet and not ethics, and was at least partially correct.

The ethical debate surrounding this is philosophical and can be argued as such. The dietary side is scientific. It really annoys me when people try and use scientific arguments that they don't understand to back up their philosophical position. This goes for people on both sides.

What I would like to see is a vegan that admits to loving the taste of meat, missing the taste of meat, agreeing that it is good for your health, but choosing not to eat it based purely on the ethical considerations. I would respect this person a great deal indeed.


----------



## Malted (7/1/11)

I'll throw something in for interest (or more correctly for stirring); I'd bet that most, if not all vegetarians, vegans etc have canine teeth...


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (7/1/11)

Mark^Bastard said:


> JonnyAnchovy, there is no way it's the same thing. One is human rights and one is animal rights.



not sure I agree.... 

Doesn't the whole debate pivot around the politics of what we decide constitutes 'human', and why?

'human rights' sure has a lot of popular traction and appeal, but its a pretty vacuous concept, don't you think?


----------



## Malted (7/1/11)

Ronin said:


> So in our 10,000 years of evolution, for how long have we been intensively farming animals?



So we're just talking about Europeans? Seems like a short time frame that may exclude a fair bit of hunting & gathering on the Australian continent... 
Just a friendly stir; I am enjoying your reasoned responses.


----------



## MarkBastard (7/1/11)

JonnyAnchovy said:


> not sure I agree....
> 
> Doesn't the whole debate pivot around the politics of what we decide constitutes 'human', and why?
> 
> 'human rights' sure has a lot of popular traction and appeal, but its a pretty vacuous concept, don't you think?



Some people have the ability to have empathy for animals at a different level to how they have empathy for humans. The two aren't always linked. That's where the difference is IMO.


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (7/1/11)

Some people have the ability to have empathy for people with different skin colour, religion or sexual orientation at a different level to how they have empathy for people who look/feel/**** the same as them. That's why the logic is the same, IMO.


----------



## MarkBastard (7/1/11)

JonnyAnchovy said:


> Some people have the ability to have empathy for people with different skin colour, religion or sexual orientation at a different level to how they have empathy for people who look/feel/**** the same as them. That's why the logic is the same, IMO.



It's a slippery slope isn't it. I see a nicely defined line between other humans and animals. If you include them together, then are you inclusive of all animals? Does their size matter? Their intelligence? Their population? Their visibility to humans? Their usefulness to humans including as pets? This is becoming purely philosophical which is a good thing IMO. Would like to know your view on the matter. Is an animal life an animal life? Say whales and chickens were both under no threat of extinction and you had to feed a village of 1000 starving humans meat or let them die. Would you:

A) Kill one whale to save the 1000 humans.
B) Kill 500 chickens to save the 1000 humans.
C) Let the 1000 humans die.

This is taking me right back...


----------



## Ronin (7/1/11)

Mark^Bastard said:


> What I would like to see is a vegan that admits to loving the taste of meat, missing the taste of meat, agreeing that it is good for your health, but choosing not to eat it based purely on the ethical considerations. I would respect this person a great deal indeed.



I think you'll find that there are a lot of those out there, maybe not vegans but at least vegetarians. most of those that I know initially made the decision for moral reasons.

my decision to become vegetarian was largely a moral one, I had no issue with the taste of meat. And although I believe that eating meat is unnecessary nutritionally, I do believe it is the easiest way to get the nutrients we need. I do however believe that it isn't healthy in the quantities that a lot of people eat it in.

I occasionally miss chicken and fish, very rarely red meat.



Mark^Bastard said:


> The dietary side is scientific



yes indeed, and I believe you'll find very very few scientific sources that suggest that we should eat more meat. Most suggest the exact opposite. Those that do suggest the consumption of more meat often have very interesting funding sources. Look at the CSIRO total wellbeing diet.

The misuse of scientific data pisses me off too, given my background

james


----------



## Ronin (7/1/11)

Malted said:


> So we're just talking about Europeans? Seems like a short time frame that may exclude a fair bit of hunting & gathering on the Australian continent...
> Just a friendly stir; I am enjoying your reasoned responses.



no problem, I'm enjoying this too.

I have no problem with hunting and gathering, the animals are wild and live a normal life. Those that kill them to eat them are actually those that do the killing. No coles or safeway with neatly wrapped, bloodless steaks there. They are fully aware of what they are eating, how it lived, died and was prepared.

I'd say that the vast majority of human meat consumption was via hunting and gathering, no intensive farming, no abattoirs. How the animals were raised was not really an issue.

There's becoming much more of an awareness at the moment about the source of our food and it seems to be largely coming out of the UK. Have a look at some of the documentaries by Jimmy Doherty, if we are going to keep farming and eating meat, there are better ways to do it that are both economically more viable and much much more ethical.

James


----------



## Dave70 (7/1/11)

JonnyAnchovy said:


> Choosing to respect black people - or to like homosexuals for that sake - is like turning your back on 10,000 years of human evolution, which is clearly ******* idiotic.
> Like that wanker Martin Luther King on the box at the moment telling us that 'he has a dream'. People of his ilk would like to see us all share equal footing with monkeys!
> Clearly he's a ******* idiot also.
> Do your homework and you come to realize what a load of horse shit this whole campaign for gays and blacks is. This is the result of corporate propaganda and flawed science being manipulated into conventional, accepted wisdom.
> ...



Pity this is a text based medium because one cant always tell if we are typing tongue in cheek with a wry grin across our mugs.

If you _are_ actually trying to make some obscure connection between racism, homophobia and ribbing vegetarians then I feel a little embarrassed for you.


----------



## MarkBastard (7/1/11)

Ronin said:


> I have no problem with hunting and gathering, the animals are wild and live a normal life.



While I actually agree with you on this one surely from a harm and stress minimisation point of view hunting is more barbaric? For example Kangaroos being short and then you'll find there's a Joey inside. Or animals that get wounded but still get away only to die an agonising death later. Overall I agree because it annoys me when people won't for example eat any meat that still looks like the animal it came from (e.g. fish presented hole, baby octopus etc).

The impurity of meat as a processed product is sort of shitty, but then again how fukn good are deli meats.


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (7/1/11)

Mark^Bastard said:


> It's a slippery slope isn't it. I see a nicely defined line between other humans and animals. If you include them together, then are you inclusive of all animals? Does their size matter? Their intelligence? Their population? Their visibility to humans? Their usefulness to humans including as pets? This is becoming purely philosophical which is a good thing IMO. Would like to know your view on the matter. Is an animal life an animal life? Say whales and chickens were both under no threat of extinction and you had to feed a village of 1000 starving humans meat or let them die. Would you:
> 
> A) Kill one whale to save the 1000 humans.
> B) Kill 500 chickens to save the 1000 humans.
> ...




I'm a bit allergic to nice dividing lines.... Who was it that said 'explain everything as simple as possible, but not simpler'? Einstein? I think a nice straight caesura separating out animals from people is a bit over simple... drawing lines like this can lead do dodgy politics, as there are always individuals who fall on the wrong side. (as an aside, this dude writes a lot about how 'the human' is only made possible by the seperation and subjection of 'the animal', in contexts like medicine, philosophy, the law etc. Its a skinny little book, and well worth the read!)

I think its a bit silly to even be talking about 'animals' as some homogeneous group - I mean, what does a dolphin have in common with an ant, or an oyster with a crow? I think specifics matter a great deal. I plan on smashing some oysters this weekend, but I'd think twice about eating a dolphin steak. 

Is a pig more morally important than an overcomatose person or a child (a pig is demonstrably smarter)? All this utilitarian stuff (like your quiz above) is a bit of a boring way of thinking if you ask me..... i prefer not to do my ethics on a calculator.

Thankfully haven't been in a situation where I've had to decide between a bunch of skinnys and a whale....


----------



## Dave70 (7/1/11)

Ronin said:


> I agree with manticle, this has been a quite civil discussion, except for some. This post adds nothing to the discussion.
> 
> Do you have any idea of the science? How many journal articles have you read regarding the links between meat consumption and vascular disease, heart disease, stroke, colon cancer? Do you know how to access scientific literature? I'm assuming that you have some sort of institutional access to a database like pubmed to be making claims like that regarding scientific conspiracies funded by vegetarian societies aimed at preventing the consumption of meat.
> 
> ...



James, please take your seat mate and relax.

You start out arguing nutritional science and wind up lamenting animal mistreatment - obviously nobody wants that.

I'm talking eating animal product, nothing more.

Now I'm not about to do your homework for you, but I'll get you started with this:

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

There's about 163 references to click on at the bottom from various non-partisan sources so you can get an idea where I'm coming from.


----------



## MarkBastard (7/1/11)

The main point of the totalitarians BS above was to work out whether you're arguing about life itself as something that needs to be preserved, and if so how you measure the quality of that life. As you've said you'll eat Oysters but not Dolphin Steaks (I'd probably rather the Dolphin steak myself to be honest). So how do you work out what is and isn't appropriate to eat or kill? What is it based on? I'm curious. Give me something tangible.

As for animals, if it helps replace everything above with Humans and non-humans.


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (7/1/11)

I once met a guy who ate a dolphin steak (in the states, of all places!). He said it was ******* delicious.

edit: he ate the dolphin in the states, I didn't meet him in the states. ******* ambiguous sentences.


----------



## MarkBastard (7/1/11)

JonnyAnchovy said:


> I once met a guy who ate a dolphen steak (in the states, of all places!). He said it was ******* delicious.



Haha, that's awesome. I would totally do it so that I didn't hurt the feelings of all the pigs and cows I've eaten. It'd be like making your nigger and spic friends take their shoes off at the front door but letting the honkies walk right in. Who says dolphins are so awesome? I know they're smart but I don't want to set some dipshit precedent like Plato did.


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (7/1/11)

Mark^Bastard said:


> So how do you work out what is and isn't appropriate to eat or kill? What is it based on? I'm curious. Give me something tangible.



I think I do the same thing as you, or as most people who have chimed in here do. I give it a long hard think, and make a pretty much arbitrary decision. I try to think about the conditions under which my food was produced, try to avoid stuff procured through killing, and I spend a great deal of time thinking about these kinds of issues in general. 

It's all a bit hypocritical, because as I type this I'm wearing a leather belt, and sipping on a coffee with milk, which is pretty much just as bad as eating veal, IMO. 

I spend a shit load on brewing, when I know that the money could be used to save lives of people dieing of hunger and poverty-related disease, so no moral high ground here.




Mark^Bastard said:


> As for animals, if it helps replace everything above with Humans and non-humans.



Ah, but this doesn't really solve the problem, does it? How can we define human, except by opposition to non-humans. There is always some kind of violence involved in making these distinctions.


----------



## pcmfisher (7/1/11)

Ronin said:


> I have no problem with people eating meat and I recognise that it is a traditional part of our diet.



I could have sworn I read that you said it was absolutely ridiculous for anyone to eat meat if they were not prepared to pull the trigger.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that the first thing you do every morning at work is kill some rats for your days activities and then take the stand you have on not eating meat. Oh thats right you can rationalize it because you believe its truly essential.

You breed rats for experiments, sheep and cattle get bred for food.

Without our intervention none of these animals would have existed. We created them, we dispatch them. Not very warm and fuzzy but thats how it is.

Yes farming practices could be more humane and efficient and yes we should all eat less meat.

The last thing on my mind when I pick up a nice lump of t bone at the supermarket is whether I have the right to eat it just because I don't have the guts to kill it.

As an aside,
A friend of a friend of mine is a vegan after being a huge meat eater all their life.
They have decided in their infinite wisdom that so should their dog be.
So the dog's diet now consists of lettuce, tomato, and the rest of the greenery that the owner eats.
Is that cruel??


----------



## MarkBastard (7/1/11)

http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2011/01/0...491_ntnews.html

Pretty messed up.


----------



## schooey (7/1/11)

Mark^Bastard said:


> http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2011/01/0...491_ntnews.html
> 
> Pretty messed up.



This link is what I associate with the term 'animal cruelty'

I'm not so fond of battery hen farms or the pure industrial meat factories as previously mentioned. I usually shop for all of the meat this family eats and it either comes from the farmers market or old fashioned corner store type butcher that can tell me where his meat comes from. I'm not so niave to believe that this guarantees that I am not consuming some produce that has been subjected to some not so nice conditions along the way.

In part, my decision to do so is driven by a quality point of view; The meat is always fresher and better than and supermarket. Then in part driven by giving back to the local community... I really abhor shopping with the big two. And lastly, partly from the view of if enough people make a change, then the number of mega-meat-treat-animals-like-shit-factories will decline.

In saying all that though, I'm honest enough to say that when I go buy sausages or a fillet steak, I don't envision a family of cows crying over the senseless death of their loved one because schooey could have survived fine on tofu and soy burgers. I see a steak and a sausage. End of story. An animal that was bred for the table, died for the table and hopefully it was treated humanely along the way. Yeah yeah, there are exceptions, again that's just another sad fact of life. Everytime we regulate or make a rule we create an exception.

I grew up on the dirt. I have cut the throat of more sheep than I care to remember. I shot about two and a half tonne of roos a week for 2 years, Partly so my family could survive, partly so the peoples crops they were eating could survive and because thos crazy Germans couldn't get enough of skippy at the time. I can get up every day and face myself in the mirror about my choices. There are bigger things to worry about in life...


----------



## marksfish (7/1/11)

at least skippy was free range and organic <_<


----------



## Katherine (7/1/11)

I have no problem with eating meat... its about the treatment of them before hand and Im actually really shocked to see that article that Mark put up... Im even more ignorant then I thought.

If we didnt eat meat we wouldnt be where we are now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

But maybe the earth would be better of that way... Who knows.


----------



## schooey (7/1/11)

marksfish said:


> at least skippy was free range and organic <_<



Heh...

Funny you should say that. After seeing the inside and outside of so many roos, it's the one meat I refuse to eat. If certified organic roo meat means it comes from a mangy old roo that was full of tapeworms and liverfluke, give me the hormone chicken any day...

It still makes me wonder when I see the vendors at the farmers market spruiking about 100% organic beef and lamb. First thing I ask them is if they drench...


----------



## technoicon (7/1/11)

done both. happy with both.

manticle, did you just watch food inc.. lol


----------



## pk.sax (7/1/11)

Choice should he just that, choice. As long as you understand your choices and are prepared to listen when your choices affect others, you can be quite tolerable. That said, irrationality is the colour of life. My own choice of not eating meat is simply moral, why cause killing where it's not strictly required. I wouldn't go out and vote for a war if there were one on the ballot but sure as he'll would volunteer if my country was in a justified fight. Doesn't make one a hypocrite, just able to make their own damn minds up. It's the sheep you have to look out for, the bad effects of ppl with good intentions.

I don't exactly enjoy being teased with ridiculous antics of meat eaters when they are around veggos, trying to act all macho, so I return it by not propounding vegetarianism, the choice is mine right, to preach or to not 

In turn, there are ppl who make a fuss at cafe's and restaurants on finding out there is nothing veg on the menu, well, you definitely are not going to get something fresh and creative from those factory food serving food courts. Use your judgement when choosing where to eat. I can get a restaurant to pretty much do up something nice for me with a polite word and that's pretty much how I like it. But I'll admit that the noise makers will have a bigger impact on what we get to eat out there. Nobody is ever completely wrong, just some insensitive and some just plain amazing.


----------



## marksfish (7/1/11)

schooey said:


> Heh...
> 
> Funny you should say that. After seeing the inside and outside of so many roos, it's the one meat I refuse to eat. If certified organic roo meat means it comes from a mangy old roo that was full of tapeworms and liverfluke, give me the hormone chicken any day...
> 
> It still makes me wonder when I see the vendors at the farmers market spruiking about 100% organic beef and lamb. First thing I ask them is if they drench...



nah i was just throwing out a couple of the new buzz words, however i do eat roo as well as other game i murder.


----------



## technoicon (7/1/11)

I eat meat, but it also does annoy me when there is nothing vego on the menu..


----------



## pk.sax (7/1/11)

@pcmfisher, re dog fed lettuce

lol, my cousin did that at a point and the dog absolutely loved cucumbers and mangoes, go figure. And it was a happy dog too, a german shepherd. I don't believe they are made to be pure veggos, but if the household is veg, the cruelty factor can be eliminated. The owner would have to be quite pro active about it, dogs aren't exactly as intelligent as us, it's almost like a mom feeding her young kid meat, he/she has no choice in the matter, isn't exactly built to be a dedicated meat eater, not much of a choice, can't really decide for themselves, but somehow, a choice is made for them and it also tends to stick with most of us for life.


----------



## Ronin (7/1/11)

pcmfisher said:


> I could have sworn I read that you said it was absolutely ridiculous for anyone to eat meat if they were not prepared to pull the trigger.



Yep I do think that people should be aware that a steak actually came from somewhere. I fully recognise that people can do whatever they want and that the vast majority of people don't care and are happy living in ignorance as to how their steak arrived at their table.

I simply believe that if you are going to eat meat, show some empathy, respect and care to the creatures that you have killed. If you aren't the sort of person that can kill an animal, why are you eating it?

And regarding tradition, I don't believe tradition to be a good enough reason to do anything. Think for yourself dammit.



pcmfisher said:


> I find it absolutely ridiculous that the first thing you do every morning at work is kill some rats for your days activities and then take the stand you have on not eating meat. Oh thats right you can rationalize it because you believe its truly essential.
> 
> You breed rats for experiments, sheep and cattle get bred for food.



I was wondering when someone was going to bring that up, and I did biomedical research for years before becoming vegetarian. It really does come down to what I consider to be more important, what is more necessary. More than that though, i know what I do at work every day. I have control over how the animals are treated, when the experiments end and how they die. I can tell you it is much more humane than some of the practices I have seen elsewhere. So yes I do rationalise it that way.

Is it more important that this society has antibiotics, vaccines, organ transplants, chemotherapy, surgery, virtually any medical treatment that you can think of, or that I get to eat a steak?

It also comes back to what I was discussing earlier about minimising my impact. What would cause more deaths, my work combined with eating meat, or my work and being vegetarian. Making a small effort is much better than making no effort at all.

So yes, I believe one is necessary, and that one isn't. Call it ridiculous, call it hypocritical. Until the research is unnecessary then I'll try and reduce the deaths in my name any way I can.



pcmfisher said:


> Without our intervention none of these animals would have existed. We created them, we dispatch them. Not very warm and fuzzy but thats how it is.
> 
> Yes farming practices could be more humane and efficient and yes we should all eat less meat.



Guess what? It's a consumer driven market. They only are farmed because people eat meat. And they are only farmed intensively because people want the cheapest meat possible.

If you must eat meat, then at least buy the best meat you can, from people that you know are treating the animals well. Eat less of it if it costs more.



pcmfisher said:


> The last thing on my mind when I pick up a nice lump of t bone at the supermarket is whether I have the right to eat it just because I don't have the guts to kill it.



Maybe there is something to saying "grace" or "thanks" or whatever before a meal. Makes you just stop and think that you are lucky to have what you have and where it came from.

And you are killing it, whether you have the guts to or not. Consumer driven market.



pcmfisher said:


> As an aside,
> A friend of a friend of mine is a vegan after being a huge meat eater all their life.
> They have decided in their infinite wisdom that so should their dog be.
> So the dog's diet now consists of lettuce, tomato, and the rest of the greenery that the owner eats.
> Is that cruel??



yes, and stupid. A dog has a completely different digestive system to humans. They are optimised to eating meat with their short digestive tracts. We aren't.

James


----------



## pk.sax (7/1/11)

Ps: aussies are almostntraditionally drinking VB and xxxx

Why are you brewing then!? lol, to put a fine point on it. And it's bought from the store by 'tradition', not home brewed. Mate, ur breaking with some traditions and never realising it. Get ur car keys by 'that' logic.


----------



## technoicon (7/1/11)

i'm sorry but i have never, ever killed any animal. because i eat it does not mean i did. i means i accept that someone does, but i didnt. i'm fully happy with this.

*shit storm*


----------



## schooey (7/1/11)

Ronin said:


> If you aren't the sort of person that can kill an animal, why are you eating it?



This is a statement that I have a problem with. It is not illegal. It's _their_ choice. Me judging them for their choice would be no different to me judging your choice of employment and the ramifications of it. 

Justify each however you like, but in essence it's the same thing...


----------



## Ronin (7/1/11)

Dave70 said:


> James, please take your seat mate and relax.
> 
> You start out arguing nutritional science and wind up lamenting animal mistreatment - obviously nobody wants that.
> 
> ...



C'mon that was the most insulting post that someone could've posted. There's a difference between insulting and ribbing. Other people get it. Besides, entering a discussion with that sort of post hardly makes people take you seriously.

I almost always shudder when people quote wikipedia.

Anyway...I'm not sure what the paleolithic diet has to do with anything. ""there is little evidence to suggest that human nutritional requirements or human digestive physiology were significantly affected by such diets at any point in human evolution."

I actually downloaded some of the cited journal articles (I can post some if you don't have access to them). Several of the diets had extremely low consumption of meat, several only including fish as a meat source (I'm talking about the islander diets) and they showed much lower levels of heart disease, diabetes and some forms of cancer.

I thought it was interesting that the genes for digesting lactose and salivary amylase (for digesting starches for those who are unsure) started appearing quite quickly (evolutionarily speaking) after the changes towards agrarian society.

There seems to be quite a bit of biologically solid criticism of the diet. Evolution happens from the moment that the environment changes. It is completely irrelevant how long the environment was stable before a change. 400-500 generations is more than enough time for genetic adaptations to occur.

And the paleolithic diet stops you drinking beer...that's out for me right there.


----------



## Ronin (7/1/11)

Awesome Fury said:


> i'm sorry but i have never, ever killed any animal. because i eat it does not mean i did. i means i accept that someone does, but i didnt. i'm fully happy with this.
> 
> *shit storm*



Lol :blink:


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (7/1/11)

At the local taphouse in darlo. Guess who has their meeting here?


----------



## AndrewQLD (7/1/11)

It was probably a small gathering of 3.

Do they have any friends? 

I can understand their feelings but not their actions.

Andrew


----------



## manticle (7/1/11)

tourist said:


> Manticle. Is A Fuckwit.....someone who would say something like "I don't care, they're sheep"? I thought so.
> 
> But I never called anyone such, let's make that clear.
> 
> ...




My point was not about your opinion on whether someone else is a fuckwit - it was about civil discourse and disagreement as opposed to typing tough words.

Someone who considers people of different perspectives discussing their beliefs 'drivel' might think I'm wrong. Maybe you can add something useful to another discussion?


----------



## bum (7/1/11)

Lucky you're here to tell everyone how they should conduct themselves.


----------



## Dave70 (7/1/11)

Ronin said:


> I actually downloaded some of the cited journal articles (I can post some if you don't have access to them). Several of the diets had extremely low consumption of meat, several only including fish as a meat source (I'm talking about the islander diets) and they showed much lower levels of heart disease, diabetes and some forms of cancer.



Last time I checked, fish was meat. Skimming over the topic really doesn't paint the full picture.

If wiki repels you, here's an article by entholigist Vilhjalmur Stefansson (circa 1935). This sparked my interest in the whole topic in the first place.

http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm


----------



## Dave70 (7/1/11)

Ronin said:


> And the paleolithic diet stops you drinking beer...that's out for me right there.



Oops, let me address that one.

**** that.


----------



## manticle (7/1/11)

bum said:


> Lucky you're here to tell everyone how they should conduct themselves.




Is that what you think I'm doing?


----------



## manticle (7/1/11)

Dave70 said:


> Last time I checked, fish was meat. Skimming over the topic really doesn't paint the full picture.
> 
> If wiki repels you, here's an article by entholigist Vilhjalmur Stefansson (circa 1935). This sparked my interest in the whole topic in the first place.
> 
> http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm



I know this constitues ad hominem argument but from the bottom of that page we have this quote

"*Bible Life Healing Ministries
Our Nutritional Program Has Performed Healing Miracles
The proper diet for healing and health preservation is argued fiercely because this is a spiritual battle. Poor health and disease can be caused by believing the worldly myths, distortions, and lies about nutrition which have deceived most people. The following information should be studied carefully to reduce your risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and inflammatory bowel diseases. This information is healing people worldwide. You can also be healed. Please let us know about your success.*​_Jerry S. from Augusta, Georgia writes, "Thank you for such a wonderful web site.... the nutrition pages opened my eyes to the truth - and saved my life!"_​Credibility is not high.


----------



## Ronin (7/1/11)

Dave70 said:


> Last time I checked, fish was meat. Skimming over the topic really doesn't paint the full picture.
> 
> If wiki repels you, here's an article by entholigist Vilhjalmur Stefansson (circa 1935). This sparked my interest in the whole topic in the first place.
> 
> http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm



yep fish is meat, but it also made up a small part of their diet, much smaller than the typical westerners meat intake.

I did do a bit more than a quick skim of that wiki page.

OK, despite the fact that the reference cited was from biblelife.org which immediately makes me suspicious. "bible life healing ministries - Our Nutritional Program Has Performed Healing Miracles". Interesting...

But at face value, that doesn't impress me too much, especially when that article is on the same site as "doctors are the third leading cause of death", "why most published research findings are false" and "pharmaceutical firms are inventing diseases to sell more drugs. That as well as the massive medical disclaimer at the bottom of the page suggests this is not the most reputable source in the world.

Got any peer reviewed scientific journal articles from, say, this decade? Generally when trying to make a point with scientific literature it is recommended to use the most recent articles possible.

James

EDIT: Manticle beat me to it lol. yes credibility isn't the highest.


----------



## Fourstar (7/1/11)

Ronin said:


> A dog has a completely different digestive system to humans. They are optimised to eating meat with their short digestive tracts. We aren't.



kinda on the same topic. i suggest anyone who thinks we should not be eating meat because our bodies are not designed for it or who think a raw food diet is an awesome idea... you might want to think again.

http://player.sbs.com.au/programs#/program...-Human-Full-Ep/

One of the best docos ive seen in a long while. i so wish i could show this to my old housemate who was on a raw food diet and watch her backpedal into oblivion about how great a raw food diet* still is. 

In a nutshell for me, fair treatment of animals is a must. A quick and instant death and a lifestyle that of which you would treat your own pets. Celebrate the animal by eating anything and everything you can. As manticle pointed in his first post, rearing your own animals for meat and taking only that of what you need is also one of my ultimate goals.

I cringe everytime i have to throw out a pack of free range chicken thighs i purchased on special becuase i didnt want it to go to waste. Then there are chickens that have been bred in cages smaller than a 30 block of VB only for their excessive breast size. Consequently this is what i ususally see next to my free range chicken in droves with special stickers all over them destined for the bin. Thats the upsetting part.

Also AFAIK hormone chickens dont exist in this country due to it not being legal. I think this is also why all chicken farm orgs such as ingham, lionica etc ride on the back of their 'hormone free' statements as its an industry misconception. Also, the breasts of these checkens are not big becuase of hormones, its because its an engineered chicken from x-breeding.

I suggest you all watch food inc, everyone will take something away from it.

Cheers.

* if i still had to listen to the sound of a f*cking blender at 6 in the morning every freakin morning to make her gawd-forsaken 'super food' smoothies^, im sure she would be in a shallow ditch on the side of the Hume Hwy by now.

^ because of her, i now have a strong aversion to the word... smoothie. *shudder* Its no longer in my vocabulary except for referencing it in this story.


----------



## Dave70 (7/1/11)

Ronin said:


> Got any peer reviewed scientific journal articles from, say, this decade? Generally when trying to make a point with scientific literature it is recommended to use the most recent articles possible.
> 
> James
> 
> EDIT: Manticle beat me to it lol. yes credibility isn't the highest.



Yeah, the God bothering adjunct is a worry, but as far as I know, the article is legit.


I'm sure you are clever enough to do your own research on the topic, I'll assume it's sparked your interest otherwise you would have dismissed it out of hand.

Anyway, here you go

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=sch...amp;oi=scholart

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en...o=&as_vis=1


----------



## philw (7/1/11)

Ronin said:


> Yep I do think that people should be aware that a steak actually came from somewhere. I fully recognise that people can do whatever they want and that the vast majority of people don't care and are happy living in ignorance as to how their steak arrived at their table.
> 
> I simply believe that if you are going to eat meat, show some empathy, respect and care to the creatures that you have killed. If you aren't the sort of person that can kill an animal, why are you eating it?




yep I agree and the only thing I felt when I last killed an animal was the recoil. 

I agree my 5 year old knows where her dinner comes from  and I make a point to let her know 
she has also asked to eat Duck, and Venison with out being prompted to try it 

some people can not deal with being able to kill something to eat them selves, ( My mrs is one of them ) 
however she really enjoys a nice steak 




> And regarding tradition, I don't believe tradition to be a good enough reason to do anything. Think for yourself dammit.



nothing wrong with tradition's I am a fisher and hunter and not going to change any time soon. 


I am all for animal welfare,and having respect for animals. 

however animal rights are another thing all together. 
I am surprised that the terrorist organisation PeTa has not been brought up more... won't someone thing about the sea kittens


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (7/1/11)

AndrewQLD said:


> It was probably a small gathering of 3.
> 
> Do they have any friends?
> 
> ...




Actually a packout and a ******* good party. Still here and still drinking some amazing beer, albeit at some pretty amazing prices.

Bank account taking a bit of a whack tOnight when rounds are this pricey.

Still good company and amazing beers and only a few lamb burgers!


----------



## Cube (7/1/11)

I've had, seen, read and overheard this very topic being discussed so many times I care to forget most of them due to immature responses or uneducated other parties. What it all boils down to is individualistic (or in most cases to be cool like their mates or missus have them under their thumb) theories and beliefs.

Every single time it all ends in 'you eat meat, if you can't get your hands bloody and kill it' .... blah blah. It's the same end result as trying to have a conversation with a religious nut. It will NEVER EVER end in an agreement or a simple 'agree to disagree'. It will never happen. Ever. It is sad but true that it happens that people are so into whatever they are that it isolates them from others.

I am chef in my house and we have meat nights and vegetarian nights every week. Not because of this pansy can't kill for meat myself ugg ugg he-man wannabe retort. Because I like it and want to.


----------



## Brown_hound (7/1/11)

Cube said:


> I've had, seen, read and overheard this very topic being discussed so many times I care to forget most of them due to immature responses or uneducated other parties. What it all boils down to is individualistic (or in most cases to be cool like their mates or missus have them under their thumb) theories and beliefs.
> 
> Every single time it all ends in 'you eat meat, if you can't get your hands bloody and kill it' .... blah blah. It's the same end result as trying to have a conversation with a religious nut. It will NEVER EVER end in an agreement or a simple 'agree to disagree'. It will never happen. Ever. It is sad but true that it happens that people are so into whatever they are that it isolates them from others.
> 
> I am chef in my house and we have meat nights and vegetarian nights every week. Not because of this pansy can't kill for meat myself ugg ugg he-man wannabe retort. Because I like it and want to.


 :beerbang: 

Gloriously simplified without being... Well... Simple.

Well said Cube.

The essence of what it all boils down to....

Don't try to impose your own beliefs on everyone else...


There's NO right
There's NO wrong.

Simple.


----------



## Brewing_Brad (8/1/11)

I fuckin' love this forum! 

This has got to be one of the best discussions I've seen on here - in the limited time that I've been here! There's been fantastic arguments for and against, there's been dickheads trying to get a rise, there's been dickheads being....well, dickheads. But for the most part it's been incredibly civil and well articulated.

I reckon Brown_hound sums it up best in that last post:



> Don't try to impose your own beliefs on everyone else...
> 
> There's NO right
> There's NO wrong.



Who knew brewers could be so deep? You guys rock!


----------



## Malted (8/1/11)

philw said:


> I am surprised that the terrorist organisation PeTa has not been brought up more...




@Philw - LOL! Whilst radical and trying to ruin some agricultural industries I wouldn't call them terrorists, I'd reserve that for Sea Shepherd.  (I guess that is the tongue in cheek emoticon?)

@JonnyAnchovy - were you at that PETA meeting or just the same venue?


----------



## Malted (8/1/11)

Brewing_Brad said:


> Who knew brewers could be so deep? You guys rock!



Still beer runs deep.
Does this mean we should all drink more real ale? Would you call that still?


----------



## Malted (8/1/11)

That attachment was gold!


----------



## Ronin (8/1/11)

Brown_hound said:


> The essence of what it all boils down to....
> 
> Don't try to impose your own beliefs on everyone else...



This isn't about trying to impose your belief's on others. Not all ideological discussions are.



Brown_hound said:


> There's NO right
> There's NO wrong.
> 
> Simple.



Too simple. Too black and white.

Off topic, but...

Is murder right or wrong?
Stealing?
Child abuse?
Drugs?
Smoking?
Drinking?
Religious belief?
Helping people?
Donating money to charities?

Of course there is right or wrong, but just like diet it isn't always transferable to others.

Not enough grey

James


----------



## Ronin (8/1/11)

Malted said:


> That attachment was gold!



Yes, made me laugh out loud.


----------



## newguy (8/1/11)

philw said:


> I am surprised that the terrorist organisation PeTa has not been brought up more...



I resent you calling PETA a terrorist organization. I'm a proud member of PETA (People for the Evisceration of Tiresome Activists).....on second thought I guess that does sound a bit like a terrorist organization.


----------



## philw (8/1/11)

Malted said:


> @Philw - LOL! Whilst radical and trying to ruin some agricultural industries I wouldn't call them terrorists, I'd reserve that for Sea Shepherd.  (I guess that is the tongue in cheek emoticon?)




Sea Shepherd yes they are. 

however PETA help fund the legal fees for ALF and ELF both organisations are considered terrorists groups



then again I am a member of the other PeTA group People Eating Tasty Animals


----------



## philw (8/1/11)

Jim Gaffigan talks about food


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (8/1/11)

Malted said:


> Just at the same venue, and happy to report no terrorist attacks.
> 
> 
> Bit silly trying to compare them to terrorists, isn't it? I mean I think factory farms look a lot more like treblinka than PETA looks like the red brigades...


----------



## Malted (8/1/11)

newguy said:


> I resent you calling PETA a terrorist organization. I'm a proud member of PETA (People for the Evisceration of Tiresome Activists).....on second thought I guess that does sound a bit like a terrorist organization.



See now if you were from further south across the border, you might have a differing opinion.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (8/1/11)

Cows are vegetarian so I dont see the problem there....

I could not care less if you are a vego or vegan, I just hate it when these nutjobs force their ideals upon me



Now, where is my thick cut piece of rump....


----------



## jlm (8/1/11)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Cows are vegetarian so I dont see the problem there....
> 
> I could not care less if you are a vego or vegan, I just hate it when these nutjobs force their ideals upon me
> 
> ...


It does work both ways though (and for the record I do eat meat, but only once or twice a week on average). I generally don't try to force my way of thinking with these things upon other people, but I'm often asked what's that I'm eating at work (my standard smoko is roast eggplant and capsicum on turkish bread wih cheese and pesto/chutney depending what's availabe in the garden, toasted) because it smells good. Which ususally leads to the question "where's the meat?", which generally leads to me explaining my outlook on food (which for the most part has already been discussed here) and I'm then usually informed that I'm wasting my time or worse, and a lot of people seem to have a hard time letting it go.
Personally I don't blame vegetarian/vegan folk for spreading the word about their beliefs, I'd imagine their a tiny minority in a sea of omnivores out there, and I think its merely the fact that they think differently to the status quo which upsets most people.

Very good thread, enjoying the debate and a lot of the links that are thrown up.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (8/1/11)

manticle said:


> Sure but I doubt (and hope) that you're so sadistic you would cause unnecessary pain were that not the case. You don't go out of your way to hurt the reature that will become your food.
> 
> It stands to reason that less distressed animals will make better eating.



This is true, stressed animals make for bad meat... ie tougher.

If you go to an abattoir you will noticed that the animals are kept very calm and quite, in fact you will see signs up saying not to bring dogs in so they dont stir up the animals.

People who say its cruel to kill animals to eat really need to go and actually look at the practices used. The aninals are killed very quickly by a single shot to the head, killing them instantly. If they dont die instantly and thrash about, the meat will be no good due to the adrenalin rush in the meat.

And this latest add from coles about hormone free meat is absolute bollocks... Hormones are not used in mainstream beef production. This marketing falsely implies that beef is generally full of hormones when it is not

And yes, meat chickens are a different breed from egg chickens


----------



## jlm (8/1/11)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> And yes, meat chickens are a different breed from egg chickens



OT, but........ Dorking x Indian Game. Best meat bird ever.


----------



## manticle (8/1/11)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> I could not care less if you are a vego or vegan, I just hate it when these nutjobs force their ideals upon me




I agree but as Bum alluded to earlier, I see more omnivores getting uppity when people mention they're vego than I see vegos get uppity about someone else eating a burger.

Couple that with the endless jokes about getting some steak into them and it all gets a bit tedious.

I tried vegetarianism years ago (for just under a year) and have a lot of vego friends. Partner was vego for 4 or 5 years. I've also worked in kitchens and watched chefs put chicken stock in Vegetable based soups and seen the limited number of options for people making a dietary choice.

I love meat too much to give it up and I feel quite happy with this decision. I don't feel evil when I eat a nice bit of roo or pigeon but I don't need to push it on those who choose otherwise. I'd like to see the meat idustry (and egg, dairy etc industries) push towards using more ethical practices but the amount of weight that drops off me if I don't eat meat or fish (skinny bastard anyway) is alarming.

Having said that, I was quite proud of myself on the various ocassions when a waitress would request a meat based dish for staff meal because the last one I cooked looked and smelt so good, telling me 'I've been vegetarian for 7 years'. This happened quite a few times over my kitchen career but I guess is more ego about my own cooking skills than me trying to shove my ideas down someone's throat. I was asked - I never offered.

Another interesting point - fish oil supposedly aids in alleviating depression. How many other beneficial chemicals are found in various animal based products that don't have an alternative, non animal based source?


----------



## newguy (8/1/11)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> This is true, stressed animals make for bad meat... ie tougher.



Absolutely true. When I have time I like to hunt (not much free time for it lately though) and you can taste the difference between a clean kill (ie 1 shot to drop) and something that was "gut shot" and ran for hours before you tracked it down and dropped it for good. Clean kill = tender, stressed animal = leather. Mom, 45 years after the fact, still talks about dad's "1,000 year old moose" that he shot. In order to be able to eat it, mom would have to put supper's roast into the oven at 10am (@ very low heat).


----------



## Ronin (8/1/11)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> People who say its cruel to kill animals to eat really need to go and actually look at the practices used.



There are also people who believe that they need not be killed at all, regardless of the methods used.



Ducatiboy stu said:


> Hormones are not used in mainstream beef production.



What about growth promoter, antibiotics by a different name?

I work in vaccine development, my PhD was in veterinary vaccines. I know for a fact that it is easier and cheaper to give the animals low levels of antibiotics as "growth promoters" to stop them getting sick and not putting on weight.

This causes a huge amount of problems in the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria strains and is a practice that I think is a little bit stupid.

James


----------



## Infinitee (8/1/11)

Complex animal-fats, esp. from predatory organism are beyond replacement by plant based lipids.
Levels of assimilable iron and b12, incomparable.
Milk/bones as calcium, Liver for vit A (more than 7x any green source, and more assimilable)
Brains for sheer weight of Omega 3.
Selenium, which is all but depleted from intensively-farmed soils.
Complex hormones, pheromones, cartilage, marrow and acids resulting from aerobic animalus.

To some degree, the body will absorb the amino's it needs from your diet and discard the excess
But to some degree ALSO, amino absorption is relative to the proportion supplied.

This means your protein profile needs to be fairly apt and balanced for your health and proper internal vitamin synthesis etc.
Which is why meat acts like a buffer, filling in any missing gaps in your otherwise grain-dominated proteins.

I know I must seem like a barrow-pushing dietary-judger, but truly, I mostly know veggo's and have not met one who has made the perfect veggo diet and can match me for endurance.
I truly am only concerned about health of the novel organism that is a human being (Save the Humans!).
Lacking the right lipids, as manticle mentioned, can result in depression, inability for proper brain development and our bodies have long evolved towards losing the ability to synthesise our own vitaminerals from having ample sources in our diets.
A microscopically slight variance in heavy metals can cause or alleviate severe psychological conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar.

I urge all to be cautious with the transient temporal temple of fleeting flesh that is your one and only body.
But considering we're all home brewers here and eat a decent suspension of fungus (yeast) daily, I'm sure all our B-vitamin and complete-protein levels are up to scratch.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (8/1/11)

Ronin said:


> There are also people who believe that they need not be killed at all, regardless of the methods used.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes.. Antibiotics are an issue, in fact the biggest consumers of antibiotics in general is the animal sector, far more is consumed there than by humans. And unfortunatly they do make their way into the environment.

I actually refuse to take antibiotics ( except if i was dying ) because most are generally not required, and the reason most doctors prescribe them is because the patient wants them.

But that is another debate..


Now... where is that steak.....


----------



## Ronin (8/1/11)

Infinitee said:


> Complex animal-fats, esp. from predatory organism are beyond replacement by plant based lipids.
> Levels of assimilable iron and b12, incomparable.
> Milk/bones as calcium, Liver for vit A (more than 7x any green source, and more assimilable)
> Brains for sheer weight of Omega 3.
> ...



I don't think that anyone is argueing that animal meat is not an incredibly nutrient dense food. Most people's intake of essential nutrients (especially protein) is well above what is required.

Sorry what is aerobic animalus? I haven't encountered that term before and a quick google search comes up with nothing.



Infinitee said:


> This means your protein profile needs to be fairly apt and balanced for your health and proper internal vitamin synthesis etc.
> Which is why meat acts like a buffer, filling in any missing gaps in your otherwise grain-dominated proteins.



Yep I agree which is why as I said earlier I believe a vegetarian diet is an extremely hard thing to do successfully. It takes a lot of education and should not be entered into lightly. The amount of 'vegetarians' who simply leave the meat out of their diet is incredible.



Infinitee said:


> I know I must seem like a barrow-pushing dietary-judger, but truly, I mostly know veggo's and have not met one who has made the perfect veggo diet and can match me for endurance.



Endurance in what? I'm up to doing half marathons, slowly getting further. I really don't find energy levels to be a problem. There are complete source of protein (at least) in the plant kingdom. As long as your diet is extremely varied, I don't believe it's a problem, and am still waiting for some peer reviewed literature to come out saying it is.



Infinitee said:


> I truly am only concerned about health of the novel organism that is a human being (Save the Humans!).



We're not exactly an endangered species  




Infinitee said:


> But considering we're all home brewers here and eat a decent suspension of fungus (yeast) daily, I'm sure all our B-vitamin and complete-protein levels are up to scratch.



lol :icon_cheers: 

Sry gotta run but I wasn't finished,

James


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (8/1/11)

But cows are still vegans.. :icon_cheers:


----------



## manticle (8/1/11)

Except when they get fed little pieces of themselves back to themselves (alleged cause of BSE).


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (8/1/11)

Lucky over here it is illegal to do so


----------



## manticle (8/1/11)

Lucky and smart. Industry boomed here during that crisis. I remember any beef dishes we had at the restaurant I worked in at the time had to be pulled from the menu for a while as prices just went through the roof due to the cleanness of our beef and its relative export value.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (8/1/11)

Yes, we are very lucky in that respect....we have the only true traceable paddock to plate system in the world with NLIS


We are also very lucky, and should be proud that our beef is the best in the world in terms of contamination from chemicals, animal health and animal husbandry and quality..


----------



## Ronin (8/1/11)

manticle said:


> Except when they get fed little pieces of themselves back to themselves (alleged cause of BSE).



It's a little more than alleged now, the link is pretty much proven

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19119967

Out of interest there was a documentary on SBS or ABC (can't remember) a few weeks ago about 'kuru', a type of spongiform encephalopathy that infects humans who eat other humans.

Not a good idea no matter what species you are

James


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (8/1/11)

Ronin said:


> Out of interest there was a documentary on SBS or ABC (can't remember) a few weeks ago about 'kuru', a type of spongiform encephalopathy that infects humans who eat other humans.
> 
> Not a good idea no matter what species you are
> 
> James



Must remember that next time I am feeling a bit canabolistic B)


----------



## Ronin (8/1/11)

Dave70 said:


> Yeah, the God bothering adjunct is a worry, but as far as I know, the article is legit.
> 
> 
> I'm sure you are clever enough to do your own research on the topic, I'll assume it's sparked your interest otherwise you would have dismissed it out of hand.
> ...



Sorry mate almost missed this one. Despite our rocky start I am enjoying this line of conversation.

I try not to dismiss anything concept out of hand, it's not good science ;D

I've actually been doing some reading about human evolution today and though i'd share some sources seeing as you seem to be interested in the science. These are all peer-reviewed scientific studies, most of the time they are credible sources (biology is generally still in it's infancy. Well, maybe adolescence). 

Seems like it's generally quite well accepted than genetic adaptation to different food sources has occurred in the last 10000 years, with several genetic markers appearing depending on the nutritional environment. For instance it appears to be highly likely that our ancestors 10000 years ago were unable to digest lactose and at the very least would have trouble digesting starches to the same extent we can. Both the genes encoding these functions have appeared since we settled down to agrarian life. It also seems like a gene (PLPR2) encoding proteins responsible for the breakdown of plant glycolipids is hyperactive in culture relying heavily on starch based foods.

Not sure if you have access to nature papers (a very hard journal to publish in, highly credible source)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/...ll/468S13a.html

I am willing to admit that the science on the link between meat consumption and increased risks of disease seems to be largely contradictory. Seems like you can find articles arguing both points of view.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19033572
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15956652

Vegetables are generally consider healthy (suprise!)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19056579
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15523086
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17490973
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20724400
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15702597

That last one does suggest that some vegetarians do not consume adequate nutrients (poor meal planning). I believe these are generally the ones who revert to eating meat due to low energy levels.

Looks like the daily recommended intake of protein for vegans is too low due to decreased bioavailability, but for lacto-ovo vegetarians the RDIs are fine.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21167687

This is an interesting article discussing the biochemistry of vegetarian (and omnivorous) diets (I'm working my way through this one now).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21204526

Some health concerns for vegetarian diets
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21139125
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16441942

The conclusion of the last paragraph I believe is important. "Overall, the data suggest that the health of Western vegetarians is good and similar to that of comparable non-vegetarians."

You've definitely piqued my interest. Although the research I've just done this afternoon isn't going to turn me to the paleolithic diet any time soon. 

I have access to the full texts for most of those abstracts if you are interested.

James


----------



## Malted (9/1/11)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Yes, we are very lucky in that respect....we have the only true traceable paddock to plate system in the world with NLIS



NLIS, interesting.

I am some what skeptical it can be traced to the plate in an large abbatoir... but I've not been in one. 
Does the NLIS # stay with the carcase components once it is broken down? Most likely that rumps would be packed (and processed through the chain) with rumps etc from differing beasts; are the numbers attached to each subsequent component of the broken down carcase? (i'd imagine it to be cost prohibitive). It wouldn't be often that one beast is packed into one box (and labelled with its origin)? I'd imagine that once the whole carcase has been accepted for human consumption by a meat inspector that is where NLIS traceability stops (at the whole carcase level). If something renders it condemmed, then they could trace it back to the property and through paddock records etc to where it was to address any concerns. If not, it's passed and no need to track it any more.

In some cases with a special order, you might be able to get a PIC # with a box of beef (all animals from the same property) and this translates to knowing which property the beef on your plate came from. Having said that, some properties in the NT are pretty big (1 & 1/2 million hectares for instance) and you wouldn't know if beef from that property all came from the same paddock (could be fats drafted from a couple of musters?) . This would be like coming from different properties in other parts of Australia and therefore there could be different conditions (or disease risks etc) in the paddocks (which as I said could be the size of entire properties in other areas). 

I do know that fair number of NLIS tags are misreading at the abbatoirs during receival, I do not know how this affects labelling/numbering of the carcase. Some of the larger grazing companies could have beasts from 5-6 properties all lumped together going to the abbatoir. With a misread in this situation, the processors only know the company (not the property) to report (and thence a caution or fine from the Gov't). 

With a special order from a small butcher, eg ordering a whole side, a whole sheep etc, where you get roasts, chops, sausages perhaps from the one animal, maybe then you could get an NLIS # for your meat. I doubt many would bother with the paperwork trail though. A small butcher may know where his beasts came from (particularly if he runs his own small abbatoir) but most would just buy carcases or broken down carcases from large abbatoirs.

I did see something once about persons posting paddock pictures of beasts (Wagyu or the likes) and you could order meat from the animal whose picture you liked (if you could read Japanese)... 
So I guess it CAN be traced from paddock to plate but I doubt if it is practical in large throughput production and I don't think most would bother unless they have a niche market with punters paying mega bucks for the product. 

Verdict: possible - yes; probable - not likely.
I'd really like to know more if this is not correct. 


**** If you reside in a country other than Australia*** 
What I said above is untrue. Aussie beef is traced from our paddocks to your plate. The tracking number dissapears from your steak when you cook it. 
Buy more Aussie beef; 'throw anutha steak on tha barbie maaate, good onya'.*


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/1/11)

NLIS does work. Each new born calf is taged. When the calf is onsold to another property the tag is recorded and a record kept of every new and previous owner. This happens at the sale yards. A beast cannot leave a property without the tag. When transporting cattle the truck driver also needs a waybill ticket to say where the cattle came from and where they are going. It can be a PITA, but it has to be done. And I have had to do it.

When a butcher receives his whole carcass it will have a tag on it with NLIS info etc. I have been into aboitars and seen how they do it. They also have batch numbers on their boxed beef which can be traced back to the beasts


----------



## Zizzle (11/1/11)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Yes, we are very lucky in that respect....we have the only true traceable paddock to plate system in the world with NLIS
> 
> We are also very lucky, and should be proud that our beef is the best in the world in terms of contamination from chemicals, animal health and animal husbandry and quality..



Don't be too complacent.

I'm sure there is dollar pressure to go to more of the feedlot-pumped-with-antibiotics industrial agriculture.

One thing that still spins my head in the US is that you get asked how you want your burger cooked (not that I eat them). I think I remember seeing that any patty can contain the meat of up to 1000 beasts. You couldn't pay me enough to eat rare mince.


----------



## Malted (11/1/11)

Please find below a commentary, not at all scientific but it addresses a few issues we have touched on (particularly some raised by Katie).
Some of the author's points are questionable (and indeed people have questioned them in comments posted on the webpage). Whether right or wrong, it is interesting.
Here's the link to the original:"Coles' questionable ethics"

I think most of us intended that this thread was to engage our thinking; in that light, please find the article below.
Malted.

<H1 class=articleHeading>Coles' questionable ethics</H1>David Leyonhjelm

Published 2:00 PM, 15 Dec 2010 Last update 10:27 AM, 16 Dec 2010 


Beginning in January, Coles will be seeking to position itself as more ethical than its arch-rival Woolworths, which has its foot firmly on the fresh food spot. However it has a problem the issues on which it is basing this position are a grab-bag of animal rights and anti-technology controversies that do not withstand close scrutiny. 

They are also based on European consumer perceptions, which are not necessarily the same as those in Australia, and are increasingly bringing the company into conflict with Australias farmers. 

First was Coles insistence that its pig meat suppliers stop using single stalls to house pregnant sows. The stalls are being phased out in Europe and Coles action has prompted the pig industry to agree to phase them out in Australia too. 

Next was the companys insistence that beef and pork suppliers refrain from using hormone growth promotants. These are prohibited in Europe but used extensively throughout the rest of the world. 

After that came egg suppliers, who were told to abandon the use of layer cages and avoid rations containing meat and bone meal. Layer cages are being replaced in much of Europe with enriched cages. 

Chicken meat and turkey growers have also been told they must use free range methods, and to drop antibiotic growth promoters. Both are favourite issues of European campaigners. 

Coles has also expressed disapproval of Improvac, a vaccine given to young male pigs to prevent them from developing sexually. As far as I know, this is not in the sights of anyone else. 

Unlike claims about fresh food, which are open to interpretation, there is no undisputed high ground here. Coles is on thin ice in every case.

The argument for abolishing sow stalls is simply the assumption that pigs are like humans and prefer to be in groups with more room rather than individual stalls. In fact, those concerned about the welfare of sows (see _A pig of a decision_, August 6) should be told that pregnant sows regularly fight when housed together, causing miscarriages and stress problems. It might sound cruel to keep them in stalls, but keeping them apart has welfare benefits too. 

Hormonal growth promotants have been used in beef cattle for decades to increase feed efficiency and growth rates, and have been proven safe many times over. Moreover, they make a serious contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Methane, emitted by cattle, is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. If the Australian beef industry was to stop using them, it would need an additional 2.3 million head of cattle just to maintain production. All those extra cattle add up to a lot more methane. 

Assumptions about laying eggs in cages are similar to those about sows in stalls that chickens are happier with more room because that is what humans prefer. The reality is less obvious; chickens in groups are barbaric, attacking and even eating each other as well as destroying eggs. They are also more prone to disease and to poo on the eggs, potentially spreading bugs. 

And once you move away from backyard chooks, commercial-scale free-range egg or poultry production gets complicated. One issue is simply the meaning of free range. Coles might find it hard to explain how running 10-50,000 birds per hectare, exposed to the weather and dirt, is an improvement over higher densities in climate controlled sheds where the bedding is sterilised and nobody gets in without disinfection. A few pictures when the ground is wet and muddy might be informative. 

The use of low dose antibiotics in livestock production is a highly complex issue related to whether they contribute to antibiotic resistance in humans. If there is a case for reducing their use, and the scientific jury is still out on that, it is far beyond the expertise of the people who run Coles. 

And opposition to the use of meat and bone meal in poultry rations is a direct import from Europe where it has been banned because of the risk of transmitting BSE, which Australia has never had. Banning its use here achieves nothing apart from increasing the cost of rations due to the higher price of other protein sources. 

When it comes to Improvac, Coles may find its position especially uncomfortable. As male pigs reach puberty and their hormones surge, they begin to fight and their flesh acquires an offensive smell known as boar taint. This is normally avoided by surgical castration, with all the risks and setbacks. Improvac is simply a vaccine that cancels out the male hormones and keeps the young males focused on eating and growing. It will be really interesting if Coles tries to suggest that castration or fighting pigs are preferable, or that their customers should get used to the smell of boar taint. 

But whatever view is taken of these ethical and welfare factors, Coles is heading for a major row with Australian farmers over the issue of productivity. Unlike their European counterparts, whose income is highly subsidised by taxpayers, our farmers compete with no government support. To them, Coles policies will simply make them as inefficient and uncompetitive as European farmers. 

The logic is obvious. Sow stalls reduce the cost of pork production because sows have fewer miscarriages, and despite its assurances Coles cannot guarantee the imported pig meat products it sells will be subject to the same rules. 

Similarly, hormone growth promotants lower the cost of beef and pork production, layer cages reduce the cost of egg production, poultry meat costs less to produce when the birds are housed in controlled environment sheds and receive lower cost rations. Improvac reduces losses in male pigs caused by fighting and the impact of castration. 

Indeed, everything Coles is demanding has the effect of increasing the cost of production. 

Ironically, forcing up the costs of production has the potential to make Coles uncompetitive as well. If Coles refuses to pay farmers more to compensate for their higher costs, the company will become a customer of last resort. If it tries to charge a price premium based on its positioning, customers will not buy the products. And if the industry follows its lead nationally, as with sow stalls, the opportunity to differentiate itself is lost.

At least one beef producer has already withdrawn from an agreement to supply Coles, and it has been suggested that Coles will not enforce its no growth promotants policy on beef for sausages and mince and perhaps other lines as well. Beef producers have more options than chicken, egg and pork producers due to substantial export markets, but you have to wonder how Coles will explain that to consumers without being misleading or deceptive. 

Coles says its policies are based on what customers are telling them. That depends on the questions they were asked. Others are suggesting the companys managers have listened to customers in Europe and have assumed they are the same here. Or that they have been listening to the likes of World Wildlife Fund, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace.

This dispute has quite a long way to go, but if it turns into a full blown tug of war between a supermarkets version of ethics and the welfare of Aussie farmers, I am prepared to bet the supermarket will lose. 

*David Leyonhjelm*_ works in the agribusiness and veterinary markets as principal of__Baron Strategic Services__and__Baron Senior Placements__. _

​


----------



## JestersDarts (11/1/11)

If you vegos love animals so much then why do you eat all their food?












*runs*


----------



## petesbrew (11/1/11)

newguy said:


> Absolutely true. When I have time I like to hunt (not much free time for it lately though) and you can taste the difference between a clean kill (ie 1 shot to drop) and something that was "gut shot" and ran for hours before you tracked it down and dropped it for good. Clean kill = tender, stressed animal = leather. Mom, 45 years after the fact, still talks about dad's "1,000 year old moose" that he shot. In order to be able to eat it, mom would have to put supper's roast into the oven at 10am (@ very low heat).


How does moose taste, Newguy?


----------



## newguy (11/1/11)

petesbrew said:


> How does moose taste, Newguy?



There are varying degrees of flavour intensity with wild meat. Deer is very "gamey" (or so I've heard it described). Imagine how beef liver tastes, but not as intense. I guess sort of like a mix of beef hamburger (flesh) and liver. On the other end of the scale is elk, which is very nearly identical to beef. Bison and moose fall somewhere in-between. Delicious but not overly intense in that wild flavour. All wild game is extremely lean - almost no fat on it at all. And the colour of the meat is very dark. More brown than the redness of beef. With all wild meat, it's very important to cook it over a very low heat. Too hot and it turns to leather.

As my mom often says, as long as you don't tell who you have over for supper what they're eating, they'll usually go on and on about it being the most delicious beef they've ever had. Only tell them after they've eaten, otherwise they'll often refuse to even try it.

So what does roo taste like?


----------



## marksfish (11/1/11)

roo can be a little gamey but i like it unless you wet cook over done roo is very tough.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (11/1/11)

Roo is rather nice, has a velvety fine texture and is very lean, so it needs to be cooked rare or it is as tought as boot leather

Its healthy as well as it contains more iron than beef

Personaly I think we should eat a lot more of it mas it is a healthier meat and is totally sustainable, unlike sheep and beef

Its just a shame that the " AWE, but they are so cute " brigade cant see the reality


----------



## brettprevans (11/1/11)

roo rocks. really lovely as a steak and has a nice gameeyness to it. even the dried roo tails they make for dogs taste ok (yeah ok im a sick man, but the cat likes them too. thats how good they are). 

emu is even gamey-ier and even tougher is cooked too much. it really has to be rare. nice though. i still prefer roo.

god i could go a nice blue steak. 

more info to go towards the 'we are meant to eat meat' - our now surperflous appendix was used for digesting leaves/grass etc as primates. Evidence can be seen in herbivorous animals which has large active appendix. we dont. cause we evolved to use a better food source ie meat. we grew bigger brains and evolved becuase we started eating meat. 

Hutz: Thank you, Dr. Hibbert.... I rest my case. 
Judge: You rest your case?! 
Hutz: What? Oh no, I thought that was just a figure of speech. Case closed.


----------



## Ronin (11/1/11)

citymorgue2 said:


> roo rocks. really lovely as a steak and has a nice gameeyness to it. even the dried roo tails they make for dogs taste ok (yeah ok im a sick man, but the cat likes them too. thats how good they are).
> 
> emu is even gamey-ier and even tougher is cooked too much. it really has to be rare. nice though. i still prefer roo.
> 
> ...



lol, when did this thread become a discussion of the flavour of different meats? :lol: 

CM2, my earlier posts discussed the physiological differences between herbivores, omnivores and carnivores. Yes we do have a vestigial caecum (appendix). But the absence of an organ like the caecum does not introduce a new function (meat eating), it simply removes an old function (grass eating). The lack of the ability to digest grass does not in any way suggest that we are metabolically required to eat meat. It simply means we cannot digest grass. And contrary to what meat eaters think, vegetarians don't just eat grass .

If you want to support the "we are meant to eat meat" argument (and "meant" implies that it is a dietary requirement), then you need to focus on any physiological changes or functions that confer that requirement. As an example, cats are obligate carnivores. They have an absolute dietary requirement for taurine (only present in meat), due to a deficiency in the ability to synthesise this amino acid. We, however, are capable of synthesising taurine and all essential amino acids for us can be supplied in a complete vegetarian diet. And there simply aren't any nutrients that aren't able to be obtained from a vegetarian diet. Are they as easy to obtain as from meat? No and anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about. But for a conscientious vegetarian they are there.

Despite their name, canines are, for us, as vestigial as our caecum. Similarly we never developed the short alimentary canal of obligate carnivores, who are "meant to eat meat". This is why I believe that there is a lot of scientific investigation into the link between meat consumption and colon cancer. Meat is simply not meant to stay in the intestines for as long as it does in humans (note that is my scientific opinion).

We are not obligate carnivores. Neither are we herbivores with a caecum. My earlier post (a few up) provides several links to scientific investigations that provide evidence that vegetarians are as healthy as those of us who eat meat, providing they know how to do it properly (and not all do). For me, those investigations remove the "requirement" of humans to eat meat and, as omnivores, simply moves the decision/debate into the realm of ethics, tradition and philosophy, not health or physiology.

Cheers

James


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (11/1/11)

Mmmmm Steak


----------



## Ronin (11/1/11)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Mmmmm Steak
> 
> View attachment 43249



<_< :blink: 

:lol:


----------



## Lecterfan (11/1/11)

Roo slow cooked with stout or brown ale plus spuds is neither gamey nor tough.

:icon_offtopic: 

Sorry to go O/T...being an ethics nut I have nothing to contribute as I am not interested in writing half a page to either be ignored or misconstrued. I applaud all who are going to the effort though! There are some fine lines of reasoning and then there are some absolute piles of well meaning fallacious waffle.

Somewhere along the way the "ought" argument (which is essentially what this issue is) descended into the "is" argument and the hardy likes of Ronin have managed to retain their apodictic propositions in the face of much sophistry.



Anyway, just thought I'd point out that roo does not have to be cooked a la steak style in order for it to appease the fussiest of meat eaters.

And smoked emu biltong is very nice also. :icon_offtopic: 



As you were....



edit: OOH! forgot to say that roasted vension with sone slices of orange in it is also nice, I didn't think it was gamey either. I think "gameyness" enters into it when it has been cooked on a too hot bbq for too long.


----------



## philw (11/1/11)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Mmmmm Steak
> 
> View attachment 43249


 :icon_cheers:


----------



## petesbrew (11/1/11)

Not being a complete foodie, I can only agree with the others and say a rare roo steak is awesome. You can pick up a selection of roo steaks, roasts and even roo snags in the local supermarkets. Yum. I feel like one now.
But damn I love my veges as well.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (11/1/11)

Mmm vegies..

I actually like good fresh vegies, fresher the better...

Its all part of a balanced diet. Meat, fruit, grains, eggs, vegies.... and..... BEER

I think that our bodies tell use when we need a hit of meat or vegies or fruit or eggs..

I dont eat meat everyday, but sometimes I get a craving for a nice steak, just like a get a craving for steamed vegies and butter with cracked pepper..


----------



## Zizzle (12/1/11)

Mmmm... vegetables....


----------



## Malted (12/1/11)

Zizzle said:


> Mmmm... vegetables....



I don't think I could eat a whole one!

Oh I think that makes me as bad a person as you Zizzle! Shame on us!


----------



## Ronin (12/1/11)

Lecterfan said:


> the hardy likes of Ronin have managed to retain their apodictic propositions in the face of much sophistry.



:blink: 

Thanks...I think...  

James


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (12/1/11)

Good to see the discussion return to what we all expect from AHB. For a while I was worried something was wrong - it looked like there was genuine dialogue for a little while....


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (12/1/11)

JonnyAnchovy said:


> Good to see the discussion return to what we all expect from AHB. For a while I was worried something was wrong - it looked like there was genuine dialogue for a little while....




Yeah.... was getting a bit scary there for a while...


----------



## Hatchy (19/1/11)

I haven't eaten meat for the last 2 days (possibly for the 1st time in my life) thanks mainly to this thread. I don't think I would ever choose to be a vegetarian but it would appear that not eating meat for a couple of days hasn't killed me. I seriously don't notice a difference with soy milk in my coffee instead of cow milk. I may never again buy cow milk.


----------



## Tanga (19/1/11)

Interesting thread - unexpected. AHB is remarkable.

I'm carnivore all the way, though I do try to go for the 'humane' options. I grew up on a farm, and while I'm capable of killing, it's not something I enjoy (luckily only had to do it a couple of times - mauled sheep, and a fly blown one).

So animals being eaten I'm ok with - making them suffer is just ridiculous and unnecessary. It helps that I love roo - I see many people saying that you need to cook it hot and fast and rare - that's one way. The other is slow and low. When cooking a roast I usually cook it at 160 degrees, etc. Tasty. In the slow cooker with a casserole, roo strogonoff, etc is great too.


----------



## Fourstar (19/1/11)

Hatchy said:


> I seriously don't notice a difference with soy milk in my coffee instead of cow milk. I may never again buy cow milk.



Enjoy the heightened estrogen intake.


----------



## JonnyAnchovy (20/1/11)

Fourstar said:


> Enjoy the heightened estrogen intake.



This is probably nonsence. If it bothers you, drink oat or ricemilk. Tastes better too, IMO.


----------



## Hatchy (21/1/11)

The couple of mL of soy milk I've had in my coffee hasn't caused me to start lactating (yet).

I mentioned this thread to a mate last night & he reckons soy is a completely unsustainable crop. There's days when you just can't win no matter what you do.


----------



## Zizzle (21/1/11)

Fourstar said:


> Enjoy the heightened estrogen intake.



Why not, doesn't heightened estrogen in men raise their libido?


----------



## Fourstar (21/1/11)

Guys,

Im just having a dig. 

I east soy several times a week in the form of soy sauce, tofu and other soy bean pastes. (i eat asian foods quite regulary.)

Ive never been a fan of soy milk, the flavour just doesnt go well (for me) in coffee. There are photoestrogens in soy milk that are similiar to what the human body prodces. Im just not interested in increasing my cup size anytime soon. 

High intake of soy has been linked to lowering prostate and breast cancers which cannot be a bad thing. Im only concerned about the soy crops produced in the USA... GMO/hybrid etc.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (21/1/11)




----------



## Bribie G (22/1/11)

I was on a Herbalife diet for six months which is mostly soy-solids based, and drank a litre of soy milk (lite) a day. I did lose about 5k but ended up with shocking gout and bursitis and missed weeks from work as I couldn't even walk from the station to the office, let alone bend my right knee to drive the car to the station. I now avoid pulses (high purines which raise uric acid) and haven't had a twinge since last August. 

bought a whole rump from IGA yesterday and trimmed it out and diced it for curries etc.


----------

