Thoughts On Vegetarianism

[newguy]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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



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

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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]

But cows are still vegans.. :icon_cheers:

 

[manticle]

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

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Lucky over here it is illegal to do so

 

[manticle]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ofBaron Strategic ServicesandBaron Senior Placements.


​

 

[JestersDarts]

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












*runs*

 

[petesbrew]

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]

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?