"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?

Herbivores of the bovidae and ungulate families have historically been the
easiest to domesticate and raise in captivity for food, plus they have other
benefits such as wool, leather, or as work animals. Domesticating
carnivores for food would not make much sense since both human and animal
would be competing for the same food. In recent times though, salmon and
trout which are carniverous are now raised in farms commercially. There are
also a number of domesticated food animals which are not herbivores, like
chickens and pigs which are omnivorous.

"MEow" wrote in message
...
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?

In my region pasture land at low elevation is a natural occurence. At the
higher elevations pasture is created naturally by wildfires.

You
want to tell me that the cattle can live on this all year around?

Oh dear, how did cattle manage to survive before they were domesticated?

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?

I can tell you that all the meat I consume is produced this way.

If not,
then it's not a solution to the problem, now is it?

What is the problem?

"Christopher P. Cericola" wrote in message
...
Really? How well do you process grass? I'd say you're lying. there
is
no way that you can convert grass to protein to keep yourself alive. A cow
can and does just that, and makes for a delicious steak when done...

Let me preface this with saying I am neither vegan nor vegetarian. While
humans cannot process grass into protein(and maybe they can, I just do no
have the time to research this) there are other grains and beans that we
can
such as soy. Soy, per pound, provides more protein than beef(and with
less
health risks too). Soy is often used as feed for farm animals because of
its inexpensive nature to be produced.

It is a very simple fact that each level of processing(i.e., cow eats soy,
we eat cow) sacrifices some of the nutrients and energy in the food. If
some creature above us were to eat us, they would only gain a partial
benefit of what we gained from the cow.

How does this apply to Inuit, who (traditionally) can only survive by eating
a diet high in fat and protein? The only food sources that have high enough
food value to allow them to survive are all animal, though they have been
known to eat "salads" made from partially-digested lichen scraped from the
insides of caribou stomachs.

"Xaximus" wrote in message
news:yHVmb.190876$9l5.78938@pd7tw2no...
"Christopher P. Cericola" wrote in message
...
Really? How well do you process grass? I'd say you're lying. there
is
no way that you can convert grass to protein to keep yourself alive. A
cow
can and does just that, and makes for a delicious steak when done...

Let me preface this with saying I am neither vegan nor vegetarian.
While
humans cannot process grass into protein(and maybe they can, I just do
no
have the time to research this) there are other grains and beans that we
can
such as soy. Soy, per pound, provides more protein than beef(and with
less
health risks too). Soy is often used as feed for farm animals because
of
its inexpensive nature to be produced.

It is a very simple fact that each level of processing(i.e., cow eats
soy,
we eat cow) sacrifices some of the nutrients and energy in the food. If
some creature above us were to eat us, they would only gain a partial
benefit of what we gained from the cow.

How does this apply to Inuit, who (traditionally) can only survive by
eating
a diet high in fat and protein? The only food sources that have high
enough
food value to allow them to survive are all animal, though they have been
known to eat "salads" made from partially-digested lichen scraped from the
insides of caribou stomachs.
==================
Easy. vegans would have veggies transported there in massive amounts,
regardless of the animals that would die in that effort. See, they only
really care about animals that are eaten, not the ones that are left to
suffer, die and rot for their lifestyle...

"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?
====================
Yes, imagine that. cattle can just roam around and eat, gasp, *grass*! You
know, that stuff that just grows, without any inputs from you. The same
stuff that *you* cannot eat, but cows can turn into delicious edible
foodstuff. So, where's the ineffciency in that?

Now, care to really address his post. The fact remains that growing all
your own food is work! Lots of it, tiime consuming labor. Face it, no
supposed vegan here on usenet even comes close.


--
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:

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?
=======================
ROTFLMAO You really want to tell me that your mono-cultured farm fields
were always there? What a hoot!
Yes, many places the grasslands were already there, dolt. They have been
grazed for 1000s of years prior to *factory-farmed* meats.


You
want to tell me that the cattle can live on this all year around?
====================
In places, yes.

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?
================
Why not? It's only been this way within the last century. Despite your
delusions, most cows do eat grasses for most of their lives, even the ones
that are *finished* on grains. The process of that was made to help keep
farmers in business, not ranchers. It's farmers that would go out of
business, not ranchers.


If not,
then it's not a solution to the problem, now is it?
=================
Yes, it is. Immediate solution for *those* hypocritical vegans that claim
they want to do all they can to eliminate and reduce as much animal death
and suffering as possible. It's a point you, and no other vegan, has ever
even come close to refuting.


--
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!

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

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.

actually, i think you'll find that that's you. did yer mam run off
with a vegan or something?
=====================
Nope, that's you. I find it quite telling that you always snip(without
annotation of course, is that ignorance or duplicity) the parts of the posts
that are really relevent, and that you cannot deal with. Why is that
killer? Afraid to look up the truth for a change instead of relying on lys
and delusions?

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

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.

Well they've sure saved the NHS and similar a lot of money!! (Irony)

rick etter wrote in message
...

"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.

You're welcome to the club too. Where d'ya want it? Head? Spine? Gooleys?

"nemo" wrote in message
news

rick etter wrote in message
...

"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.

You're welcome to the club too. Where d'ya want it? Head? Spine? Gooleys?
====================
Unlike vegan liars, I've never claimed any different. Most sane people
realize that *vegan* means absolutly nothing as long as you're posting to
usenet.
There are no vegans on usenet.

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


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

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.

actually, i think you'll find that that's you. did yer mam run off
with a vegan or something?
=====================
Nope, that's you. I find it quite telling that you always snip(without
annotation of course, is that ignorance or duplicity) the parts of the
posts
that are really relevent, and that you cannot deal with. Why is that
killer? Afraid to look up the truth for a change instead of relying on
lys
and delusions?

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





you're still the one trolling a cookery group. how lame is that?
====================
It's not a *cookery* group dolt. Go back and read the original messages for
the start of the group.
Besides, it's you that came into the discussion perfectly willing on your
own. Once you found that your ignorance would be displayed in the light of
day, you started snipping out all parts of posts that you have no answer
for, and then went for the troll type replies. So, it's you that is
trolling, killer. Do try to keep up with terminology

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?

In my region pasture land at low elevation is a natural occurence. At the
higher elevations pasture is created naturally by wildfires.

Certain it wasn't created by humans clearing the forest, as is often
the case?

You
want to tell me that the cattle can live on this all year around?

Oh dear, how did cattle manage to survive before they were domesticated?

In the form they have today they'd never survive in the wild.

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?

I can tell you that all the meat I consume is produced this way.

But would it be sustainable to produce the meat for *all* people like
that, if people should decided they wanted to eat like that?

If not,
then it's not a solution to the problem, now is it?

What is the problem?

The problem being the number of collateral deaths and energy required
to produce food. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that
eating grass fed beef would be a better solution to that than a vegan
diet and that's why I ask you if it would be sustainable to replace
all "traditional" industry meat with that kind of meat (plus game meat
which I think you also mentioned as a better option).

Going back to hunting all our food would most certainly not get enough
food for all of us, so it's not a possible to solution.
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"I mean, would *you* mess with someone wearing a big orange straw hat?
Well, *you* prolly would, but I prolly wouldn't. Unpredictable, that's
the key, keeps people on edge." Carl LHS Williams (sheddie)

the androgynous dane wrote:
In my region pasture land at low elevation is a natural occurence. At the
higher elevations pasture is created naturally by wildfires.

Certain it wasn't created by humans clearing the forest, as is often
the case?

Humans are part of nature. It is natural for humans to clear forests.
Another species responsible for deforestation is the beaver.

You
want to tell me that the cattle can live on this all year around?

Oh dear, how did cattle manage to survive before they were domesticated?

In the form they have today they'd never survive in the wild.

Wrong, they can and do. Do a google search on "feral cattle."

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?

I can tell you that all the meat I consume is produced this way.

But would it be sustainable to produce the meat for *all* people like
that, if people should decided they wanted to eat like that?

It's already available now for those who decide they want to eat like
that. It's sustainable.

If not,
then it's not a solution to the problem, now is it?

What is the problem?

The problem being the number of collateral deaths and energy required
to produce food.

How much energy does it take to plow and harvest fields? How much to
convert soybeans into tofu and other analogues? Your slothful accounting
of energy and CDs starts from the presumption that meat can only be
raised with grains. Alternatives do exist, which makes the underlying
justifications for your diet moot. Grass-fed beef and game are
sustainable, humane, and lower-impact on the environment than your
over-processed "vegan" diet.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that
eating grass fed beef would be a better solution to that than a vegan
diet and that's why I ask you if it would be sustainable to replace
all "traditional" industry meat with that kind of meat (plus game meat
which I think you also mentioned as a better option).

Going back to hunting all our food would most certainly not get enough
food for all of us, so it's not a possible to solution.

Nonsense. Deer multiply quite quickly, as do smaller game animals. The
population of deer in the state of Texas alone is probably sufficient to
feed the meat-eaters of the world for a year (quarter-pound servings).

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


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


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

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.

actually, i think you'll find that that's you. did yer mam run off
with a vegan or something?
=====================
Nope, that's you. I find it quite telling that you always
snip(without
annotation of course, is that ignorance or duplicity) the parts of the
posts
that are really relevent, and that you cannot deal with. Why is that
killer? Afraid to look up the truth for a change instead of relying
on
lys
and delusions?

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





you're still the one trolling a cookery group. how lame is that?
====================
It's not a *cookery* group dolt. Go back and read the original messages
for
the start of the group.
Besides, it's you that came into the discussion perfectly willing on your
own. Once you found that your ignorance would be displayed in the light
of
day, you started snipping out all parts of posts that you have no answer
for, and then went for the troll type replies. So, it's you that is
trolling, killer. Do try to keep up with terminology







this group has no charter.
================
very good little boy. Then why call it a *cookery* group in the first place?
that's why I said look at original messages for the group startup.
Now, as for your trolling, did you learn anything there?

"MEow" wrote in message
...
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?

In my region pasture land at low elevation is a natural occurence. At
the
higher elevations pasture is created naturally by wildfires.

Certain it wasn't created by humans clearing the forest, as is often
the case?
====================
You know dolt, that there are lots of places that graze land are natural.
There are however *no* natural fields of monoculture crops.
It's your food that has changed the face of the earth, killer.



You
want to tell me that the cattle can live on this all year around?

Oh dear, how did cattle manage to survive before they were domesticated?

In the form they have today they'd never survive in the wild.
==================
Nice dodge. That wasn't the question. If there were no naturally occuring
pastureland, how did they survive to become domesticated in the first place?



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?

I can tell you that all the meat I consume is produced this way.

But would it be sustainable to produce the meat for *all* people like
that, if people should decided they wanted to eat like that?
================
far easier than it would be to produce enough food to feed the world using
*cruelty-free* crop farming practices. You do realize, don;t you, that
practically a*ll* cattle are raised on pasture/rangelands? The ones your
hated abounds for only get finished with grains. So, it would be far more
reasonable to assume that meat production would not be as dramatically
impacted as would crop production if both were changed today to be the most
*cruelty-free* as possible.



If not,
then it's not a solution to the problem, now is it?

What is the problem?

The problem being the number of collateral deaths and energy required
to produce food. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that
eating grass fed beef would be a better solution to that than a vegan
diet
=============
Yes, when compared to the typical western consumer oriented vegan. Now, if
you wanted to really make a statement, you could buy you a place out in
nowhere, preferable southern.(multiple growing seasons) There you could
grow what you need, if you're not too picky. You can grow all your own
fair-trade crops. Of course, you won't have much time left on your hands to
enjoy all the niceties you demand for your convenineces now, but you could
do better than a diet than consists of grass-fed meat and game.



and that's why I ask you if it would be sustainable to replace
all "traditional" industry meat with that kind of meat (plus game meat
which I think you also mentioned as a better option).
=======================
Yes. It would provide far more than enough for the hypocritical vegans that
claim they want to do all they can to save animals from unnecessary death
and suffering. Don't you see your ignoance showing? Not everybody in the
world is as *concerned* as you claim to be. Why should they change when you
yourself fails to even begin to live up to the supposed ethics of your
claims?



Going back to hunting all our food would most certainly not get enough
food for all of us, so it's not a possible to solution.
===============
Again, it does not have to be a solution for the people that don't have a
problem with where their food comes from now. Don't you see that point? It
is *you* and your fellow vegan loons that have the problem of best living up
to your stated ethics. Instead, you follow only a simple rule, don't eat
meat, and ignore your larger role in animal death and suffering. As long as
you hypocritically do that, you'll always just be a marginalized fringe
group of kooks.



--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"I mean, would *you* mess with someone wearing a big orange straw hat?
Well, *you* prolly would, but I prolly wouldn't. Unpredictable, that's
the key, keeps people on edge." Carl LHS Williams (sheddie)