"wowfabgroovy" wrote in message
...
"rick etter" went:


"usual suspect" wrote in message
. ..
wowfabgroovy wrote:
is there a reason why most/all food animals are naturally
herbivorous?

I'm going to agree with Vioxel on this one. Most large carnivorous
animals are too aggressive for husbandry.

i know people eat dogs in some countries, but are there any other
naturally carnivorous animals that are used for food?

Cats are also eaten in some cultures. Other omnivorous/carnivorous
animals used for food would include raccoon, opossum, snake, alligator,
bear, turtle, monkey, etc.
===============
chickens, by the millions....

which was one of the reasons for the phrase naturally herbivorous.
most food sheep are carnivorous now, but not naturally so.
=================
what are you on? chickens have not been *turned* into omnivores, killer.

wowfabgroovy wrote:
Personally, I would rather herd a sheep or a cow than a bear. My
guess is that food animals are such because they are docile.
Carnivores are rarely docile. Lazy sometimes, like lions, but not
often placid.

that would make sense. and in the days when we were hunters, cows and
sheep would be easier to hunt than lions and tigers and bears. so it
would make sense that someone would eventually have the idea of
rearing such animals to make them easier to hunt.

i was wondering if maybe it was becuase carnivorous animals didn't
taste very nice or something? has anyone here ever eaten one?

I've had everything on the list in my previous post, with the possible
exception of monkey. One can't be sure what one has actually eaten in
certain regions.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:41:50 GMT, wowfabgroovy wrote:

"rick etter" went:


"wowfabgroovy" wrote in message
...
"rick etter" went:


"usual suspect" wrote in message
. ..
wowfabgroovy wrote:
is there a reason why most/all food animals are naturally
herbivorous?

I'm going to agree with Vioxel on this one. Most large carnivorous
animals are too aggressive for husbandry.

i know people eat dogs in some countries, but are there any other
naturally carnivorous animals that are used for food?

Cats are also eaten in some cultures. Other omnivorous/carnivorous
animals used for food would include raccoon, opossum, snake, alligator,
bear, turtle, monkey, etc.
===============
chickens, by the millions....

which was one of the reasons for the phrase naturally herbivorous.
most food sheep are carnivorous now, but not naturally so.
=================
what are you on? chickens have not been *turned* into omnivores, killer.




killer?

Some types of meat involve less animal deaths than some types of
veggie products. A serving of grass raised beef could involve less
than 1/700 animal deaths. A bag of rice, box of cereal, loaf of bread,
etc.... could easily involve several animal deaths.

"wowfabgroovy" wrote in message
...
"rick etter" went:


"wowfabgroovy" wrote in message
...
"rick etter" went:


"usual suspect" wrote in message
. ..
wowfabgroovy wrote:
is there a reason why most/all food animals are naturally
herbivorous?

I'm going to agree with Vioxel on this one. Most large carnivorous
animals are too aggressive for husbandry.

i know people eat dogs in some countries, but are there any other
naturally carnivorous animals that are used for food?

Cats are also eaten in some cultures. Other omnivorous/carnivorous
animals used for food would include raccoon, opossum, snake,
alligator,
bear, turtle, monkey, etc.
===============
chickens, by the millions....

which was one of the reasons for the phrase naturally herbivorous.
most food sheep are carnivorous now, but not naturally so.
=================
what are you on? chickens have not been *turned* into omnivores, killer.




killer?
================
Yes, you are. ou cause the death and suffering of animals for no more
reason than your selfishness and entertainment.
You prove that with each of you inane posts here on usenet. Now, what part
of the word don't you undersatnd?

"wowfabgroovy" wrote in message
...
went:

Some types of meat involve less animal deaths than some types of
veggie products. A serving of grass raised beef could involve less
than 1/700 animal deaths. A bag of rice, box of cereal, loaf of bread,
etc.... could easily involve several animal deaths.

are you talking about animals that aren't quick enough to get away
from a combine harvester or something?
=====================
You ignorant dolt. Prey animals do not run at the first sign of danger.
they freeze in place. that's their best defense from predators. they only
run at the very last second before the predator is on them. With harvesters
up to 30' wide, how do you figure they all make it past the blades before
being cut up? Then there is the end of season starvation and predation.
You crops provided easy food and cover which allowed the populations of
animals to explode. Then you take away all the food and cover. The ones
that do escape the cutting, shredding and slicing now face starvation from
lack of food and predation from lack of cover. And no, they all can't just
scurry on over to the field edges and take up resedence. Those areas will
already be at the caryying capacity for their amount of food and cover.
Then there are all the animals during the season that get sprayed with
pesticides. These greatly effect nesting birds and eggs. Last, there are
all the animals you deliberatly poison just to keep your foods clean, cheap,
and conveninet. Over all, yes, you are a killer. But then, so is everyone
else.


or road pizza from lorries used
in transportation? it's not really the same at all.
====================
Yes, they are. If I kill one cow, and get 100s of 1000s of calories and
100s of meals from that one death, and you substitute 100s of 1000s of
calories of tofu meat lookalikes, woh do you really think caused the fewest
numbers of animal to die? Why is their deaths any different/ They died for
you to have cheap, conveninet food.

wowfabgroovy wrote:

went:


Some types of meat involve less animal deaths than some types of
veggie products. A serving of grass raised beef could involve less
than 1/700 animal deaths. A bag of rice, box of cereal, loaf of bread,
etc.... could easily involve several animal deaths.


are you talking about animals that aren't quick enough to get away
from a combine harvester or something? or road pizza from lorries used
in transportation? it's not really the same at all.

It is the same. The entire collateral animal death
toll needs to be considered. That includes the deaths
in cultivation, harvesting, storage, and distribution.
For example, perhaps you were unaware of it - most
likely, you are unaware - but grain crops are stored in
elevators at which *active* extermination of rodents is
conducted, to prevent both "theft" and contamination of
the grain.

Sort of makes you look at that wholesome whole-wheat
bread in a new light, doesn't it?

wowfabgroovy wrote in message
...
is there a reason why most/all food animals are naturally herbivorous?
i know people eat dogs in some countries, but are there any other
naturally carnivorous animals that are used for food?

Probably because most carniverous animals were to feirce to be domesticated.
Herbivores are more docile - especially after their testicles have been cut
off without anaesthetic.

And look what happened when the idiots fed dead sheep to cows. Mad Cow
Disease and New Variant CJD! Are farmers and fodder producers naturally
thick as two short planks or do they take special lessons paid for by the
Min of Ag?

Nemo.

"wowfabgroovy" wrote in message
...
Jonathan Ball went:

wowfabgroovy wrote:

snippage...


Sort of makes you look at that wholesome whole-wheat
bread in a new light, doesn't it?

if you can't see a difference between accidental death and deliberate,
pre-meditated murder, i hope you never have to do jury service.
================
Yes, we can. Animals cannot be murdered. That aside, how do you then
excuse the very deliberate, very cruel deaths that you inflict on animals by
poisoning them just to keep your veggies clean, cheap, and convenient?
What do you do, just sort of put them out of your mind so you can focus on
the animals you think others are killing? How conveninet of you,
hypocritical, but convenient, eh killer?



or maybe you think vegans don't drive because petrol is made out of
squished prehistoric insects?
=======================
No stupid. try again about the soucre. The extraction, processing and
transportation of all that petro kills many more right now, not the ones
you're delusional about in the past.


not to mention all the modern day
insects that are murdered by windscreens just for the comfort of the
driver.
======================
Why is it ar/vegans always resort to the 'bugs' diatribe? If you want to
compare the number of lives, including bugs, that your diet and lifestyle
causes, bring it on, then you've really lost your 'argument', killer. But
that aside, I'm only talking about mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and
amphibians that you cause to suffer and die for no more reason than your
conveninece and entertainment. As I've said many times, there are no real
vegans on usenet, period. I suggest you don't even know the meaning of the
term you throw around to blindly, killer.



you paint a picture of vegans being the lunatic fringe, but you're the
one who obsesses over it to the extent that you want to argue about
ethics in a cookery/recipe group.
======================
LOL Then what are you doing? You really are much too stupid for this,
aren't you? Besides, go back and look at the original comments for the
group creation. It wasn't limited to recipies.


Now, go have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, killer.

"wowfabgroovy" wrote in message
...
"rick etter" went:

you cause the death and suffering of animals for no more
reason than your selfishness and entertainment.
You prove that with each of you inane posts here on usenet

why, do you kick your dog every time you read them or something?
==================
Are you really this ignorant, or do you work really hard at it? Try
learning a little about power generation, distribution, and communications.

Your flippant, inane posts just continue to prove that *you* have no real
concern for animals, it's all about displaying your hatred of others.
Animals are just the tool for your hatred.

"wowfabgroovy" wrote in message
...
"nemo" went:

And look what happened when the idiots fed dead sheep to cows. Mad Cow
Disease and New Variant CJD! Are farmers and fodder producers naturally
thick as two short planks or do they take special lessons paid for by the
Min of Ag?

it's more likely just down to greed/looking for ways to save money.
=================
Imagine that, the same reasoning that goes into growing your monoculture
crops using massive inputs from the petro-chemical industry.
All just to provide you with the cheapest veggies you can buy. Welcome to
the club, killer.

"wowfabgroovy" wrote in message
...
"rick etter" went:


"wowfabgroovy" wrote in message
...
"rick etter" went:

you cause the death and suffering of animals for no more
reason than your selfishness and entertainment.
You prove that with each of you inane posts here on usenet

why, do you kick your dog every time you read them or something?
==================
Are you really this ignorant, or do you work really hard at it? Try
learning a little about power generation, distribution, and
communications.

mine's powered by little hamsters turning generator wheels.
====================
So you're abusing animals as slave and working them til the drop dead? Way
to go killer! i knew you had it in you...




Your flippant, inane posts just continue to prove that *you* have no real
concern for animals, it's all about displaying your hatred of others.
Animals are just the tool for your hatred.

i don't hate anyone. you're the one who seems to have some sort of
personality disorder the way you try to pick arguments in a cooking
group.
========================
Yes, you do. You hate those that are comfortable with their lifestyle and
diets. you can't stand the fact that people don't obsess over little bits
of animals in their food. You have to find others to demonize about animal
death and suffering so that you can ignore the massive death you contribute
to.


Now, go have that nice blood-drenched lunch, killer.

"Creature" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:08:24 GMT, wowfabgroovy wrote:
is there a reason why most/all food animals are naturally herbivorous?
i know people eat dogs in some countries, but are there any other
naturally carnivorous animals that are used for food?

I'd say food chain issues make keeping carnivourous animals for food even
more wasteful. Energy is lost, the further up the food chain you go -
Feeding a cow a ton of veggies than eating it will give you less energy
than eating the veggies yourself, as some of the energy in the veggies has
gone into the cow moving, breathing, circulating blood etc. Feeding the
cow to a dog, or a set of dogs, then eating the dogs gives you even less
energy because the dogs will have used some of that energy too. This is
stuff I remember from biology; there's probably something similar in place
regarding nutrients.

I suppose a ton veggies requires no expenditure of energy and effort to
grow? Raising cattle for food is very efficient - the animal does most of
the work for you - but growing vegetables is labour intensive and not always
successful. Having had the experience of growing both for personal
consumption, I have found raising a tonne of beef is far less work than
growing a tonne of vegetables.

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Xaximus of Shaw Residential
Internet said:

I suppose a ton veggies requires no expenditure of energy and effort to
grow? Raising cattle for food is very efficient - the animal does most of
the work for you - but growing vegetables is labour intensive and not always
successful. Having had the experience of growing both for personal
consumption, I have found raising a tonne of beef is far less work than
growing a tonne of vegetables.

and where did you get the food for the cattle from? or did they take
care of that, themselves, too?
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
Hi, I'm the .signature virus. Copy me into your .sig file and help me
spread!

"MEow" wrote in message
...
While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Xaximus of Shaw Residential
Internet said:

I suppose a ton veggies requires no expenditure of energy and effort to
grow? Raising cattle for food is very efficient - the animal does most
of
the work for you - but growing vegetables is labour intensive and not
always
successful. Having had the experience of growing both for personal
consumption, I have found raising a tonne of beef is far less work than
growing a tonne of vegetables.

and where did you get the food for the cattle from? or did they take
care of that, themselves, too?

It's called grass and it grows naturally in pastures and rangelands.

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Xaximus of Shaw Residential
Internet said:

and where did you get the food for the cattle from? or did they take
care of that, themselves, too?

It's called grass and it grows naturally in pastures and rangelands.

You want to tell me that those pastures was there all the time? You
want to tell me that the cattle can live on this all year around? You
want to tell me that it is even possible for all meat consumed in the
world to be produced in this way, and not just a fraction? If not,
then it's not a solution to the problem, now is it?
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
Hi, I'm the .signature virus. Copy me into your .sig file and help me
spread!