Cerebus said:

Genesia said:

I thought you were going to say you got one with a toenail in it.

"even more scary to witness them killed while they are STILL ALIVE!"

Umm, all animals are alive when they are killed. Ya know?

It always makes me laugh when people discover facts about how meat is raised, butchered or processed in the U.S. Mostly because the biggest damage done is to the environment and our natural resources, but nobody cares about that. But also because what the hell is a humane killing? Is shooting a deer in the head more humane? Is using an arrow better? Would you have every animal that is slaughtered euthanized instead? Because, ya know, it's still KILLING, and it's still dead!

Look, I grew up in the cattle ranching and slaughterhouse world. It's dirty and messy no matter how you do it. Killing is messy, period. The word kill itself - to deprive of life, cause the death of - holds not happy singing bird connotations. And smart? What smart? Does it talk? Use deductive reasoning and logic? Did it tell you it was scared? Can it drive me to the store to buy some vegetables? There are places on this Earth where people regularly eat dogs, horses and camels. It's ALL meat, plain and simple.

Any animal, and I repeat ANY ANIMAL that you eat has been KILLED. Does the manner in which it's life was taken REALLY matter in the long run? I don't think it does. What I DO think people should be concerned about is, first, the living conditions (cleanliness) of the area the animals you eat were raised in. Second, the cleanliness of the slaughterhouse and primary processing plant. Third, the cleanliness of any secondary processing plant - such as a factory that makes sausage, hotdogs, bologna or any other form or by-product, multi or compressed meat product.

Killing an animal is savage and messy, but I think most people would be far more surprised by what takes place in those other areas than by the act of taking the animals life. And what they SHOULD be concerned with is how much space, water, feed and energy it takes to keep supplying the entirety of the US with meat.

Agreed

Cerebus said:

Genesia said:

Which, if cattle were pastured (as they should be), would take up far less than the amount of space, water and energy it takes to grow grain that will end up in peoples' gas tanks. But I digress.

It's a nice thought, but the amount of cattle, pork and poultry that Americans consume each year could no longer be raised in this manner. That's why we've started importing so much meat. Plus, herds of pastured animals would not produce the same quantity or quality of meat that consumers have grown accustomed to buying. Whether thats a positive or negative is open for debate. What is not open for debate is that the U.S. is the highest per capita consumer of meat products in the world by far.

I thought that was a questionable statement.

http://www.theprofitpictu...ersion.pdf

United States: Beef imports fell 1 percent in 2007 to 933,330 metric tons (2.05 billion pounds). The top suppliers were Australia (30 percent), Canada (27 percent), New Zealand (17 percent), Uruguay (11.5 percent) and Brazil (7 percent – all prepared/preserved). The United States imported more than 11 percent of its beef consumption in 2007, and more than 12 percent of beef is expected to come from imports in 2008. Daley notes that this change will result from an expected slight reduction in production, an increase in exports, and a slight increase in beef imports. The weak dollar and relatively tight global beef supplies are expected to limit U.S. beef imports this year. Continued strong cow slaughter could also limit the demand for foreign manufacturing beef.

First and most obvious, meat exports support surplus domestic production allowing larger herds and flocks of domestic livestock. In the case of pork, for example, the U.S. became a net surplus exporter in 1995. In the preceding 5 years, the average annual feeder pig supply was 96.7 million head; in the five years after 1995, … feed industry growth is tied to export potential for animals and meat products,” American Feed Industry Association, position paper on World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations. Value of U.S. Meat and Poultry Exports to U.S. Soybean Producers 2 the average annual feeder pig supply was 100.2 million head. The U.S. swine herd has been larger than 100 million head every year since 1998; it had only exceeded 100 million four times in the 37 years between 1960 and 1997. This increase in feeder pig supply, which is supported by pork exports, ultimately increases the domestic utilization of U.S. soybean meal.

[EDITED]

Premium Pricing: Second, U.S. meat exports allow for premium pricing of various meat cuts and types, which increases the total revenue generated by a carcass. Example 1 – Poultry: In poultry, white meat is higher valued domestically, while dark meat – legs and thighs – is more highly valued in a number of export markets from Japan to Russia. Thus, these export markets pay more for such parts than U.S. consumers. More than 60 percent of U.S. broiler exports are leg quarters. For example, according to the 16 September 2005 Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook Report from the USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS): Leg quarter prices in August averaged in the 45 to 46 cents per pound range, up almost 40 percent from the previous year. The increase in leg quarter prices can be attributed chiefly to export market strength.

Example 2 – Beef: Moreover, according to the U.S. Meat Export Federation, which is working on a detailed study of collected export data by cut and by market comparing export prices and domestic prices, the export premium for five cuts – shot plate, tongue, skirt, short ribs and tripe – account for about $78 per head. For a representative carcass dress weight of 750 lbs, the export premium for those five cuts averages about 10 cents per pound. In short, value pricing makes livestock production more profitable.

http://www.animalag.org/a...052306.pdf

johnart said:

TonyVanDam said:

[img:$uid]http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/10500000/Bambi-And-Thumper-classic-disney-10503305-800-600.jpg[/img:$uid]

I love deer meat! But I don't mess with rabbit.

I've never had rabbit.

Rabbit is delicious.

So are frog legs . . . and alligator tail.

TonyVanDam said:

Shorty said:

so are chickens. how do you rationalize salmonella? or do you not eat chicken or eggs too? just asking

Good question. Yes, I still eat chicken & egg whites.

Chickens have natural body fillers known as gizzards, hence why they are consider clean animals along with turkeys & ducks.

I might be wrong, but chickens are not born with Salmonella in their bodies, unlike the pigs/swines that are born with Trichinosis already in their bodies.

Wrong about the chickens:

Although the average egg looks innocent enough, it can harbor dangerous foodborne bacteria calledSalmonella. But how do the bacteria get in there?

The bacteria, Salmonella enteritidis (also referred to as S. enteritidis), can invade an egg in several ways. One way is by the contamination of egg shells with fecal matter. Thebacteria are present in the intestines and feces of infected humans and animals, including chickens, and can be passed to the eggs when chickens sit on them.

Stringent cleaning and inspecting procedures of shells were implemented in the 1970s to decrease this form of contamination, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).

However, outbreaks of salmonellosis (an infection caused bySalmonella bacteria) still happen because Salmonella also silently infects the ovaries of healthy-looking hens, contaminating the eggs inside the chicken before the shells are even formed, according to FSIS. To curb this form of contamination, the egg industry regularly tests hens for the ovarian bacteria.

Only a small number of hens in the United States seem to be infected with Salmonella at any given time, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC also assures that an infected hen can lay many normal eggs while only occasionally laying an egg that's contaminated.

So how can consumers tell if an egg contains salmonella? There is no way for grocery shoppers to tell if an egg has been contaminated, according to Rob Gravani, a professor of food science at the Cornell University. In fact, Salmonella affect chicken of every quality, and there is no valid scientific evidence that shows that poultry products labeled "Kosher," "free-range," "organic," or "natural" have more or less of the bacteria, according to FSIS.

"The best thing for consumers to do is to pay attention to the brand of eggs that are being recalled, and to return any eggs that they've purchased of that brand to the store," Gravani told Life's Little Mysteries.

Health officials also recommend not serving undercooked eggs, since thorough cooking kills the bacteria, according to the CDC. Because both the outside and inside of contaminated eggs appear to be normal, even if an egg seems "safe" to eat with a runny-style yolk, it is always best to err on the side of caution and eat only well-cooked eggs. The FSIS recommends that egg dishes be heated up to an internal temperature of at least 160 degrees Fahrenheit (71 degrees Celsius).

Typically, a person with salmonella poisoning develops a fever, abdominal cramps and diarrhea approximately 12 to 72 hours after consuming the contaminated food. The illness usually lasts from four to seven days, and most people do not need antibiotics in order to recover.

However, the elderly, infants, and those with impaired immune systems may be the most susceptible to becoming seriously ill as a result of salmonellosis. In these patients, the infection may spread from the intestines to the blood stream, and then to other parts of the body. This can lead to death unless the person is promptly treated with antibiotics, according to the CDC.

[EDITED]

http://www.lifeslittlemys...eggs-1033/

SUPRMAN said:

Cerebus said:

It's a nice thought, but the amount of cattle, pork and poultry that Americans consume each year could no longer be raised in this manner. That's why we've started importing so much meat. Plus, herds of pastured animals would not produce the same quantity or quality of meat that consumers have grown accustomed to buying. Whether thats a positive or negative is open for debate. What is not open for debate is that the U.S. is the highest per capita consumer of meat products in the world by far.

I thought that was a questionable statement.

http://www.theprofitpictu...ersion.pdf

United States: Beef imports fell 1 percent in 2007 to 933,330 metric tons (2.05 billion pounds). The top suppliers were Australia (30 percent), Canada (27 percent), New Zealand (17 percent), Uruguay (11.5 percent) and Brazil (7 percent – all prepared/preserved). The United States imported more than 11 percent of its beef consumption in 2007, and more than 12 percent of beef is expected to come from imports in 2008. Daley notes that this change will result from an expected slight reduction in production, an increase in exports, and a slight increase in beef imports. The weak dollar and relatively tight global beef supplies are expected to limit U.S. beef imports this year. Continued strong cow slaughter could also limit the demand for foreign manufacturing beef.

First and most obvious, meat exports support surplus domestic production allowing larger herds and flocks of domestic livestock. In the case of pork, for example, the U.S. became a net surplus exporter in 1995. In the preceding 5 years, the average annual feeder pig supply was 96.7 million head; in the five years after 1995, … feed industry growth is tied to export potential for animals and meat products,” American Feed Industry Association, position paper on World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations. Value of U.S. Meat and Poultry Exports to U.S. Soybean Producers 2 the average annual feeder pig supply was 100.2 million head. The U.S. swine herd has been larger than 100 million head every year since 1998; it had only exceeded 100 million four times in the 37 years between 1960 and 1997. This increase in feeder pig supply, which is supported by pork exports, ultimately increases the domestic utilization of U.S. soybean meal.

[EDITED]

Premium Pricing: Second, U.S. meat exports allow for premium pricing of various meat cuts and types, which increases the total revenue generated by a carcass. Example 1 – Poultry: In poultry, white meat is higher valued domestically, while dark meat – legs and thighs – is more highly valued in a number of export markets from Japan to Russia. Thus, these export markets pay more for such parts than U.S. consumers. More than 60 percent of U.S. broiler exports are leg quarters. For example, according to the 16 September 2005 Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook Report from the USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS): Leg quarter prices in August averaged in the 45 to 46 cents per pound range, up almost 40 percent from the previous year. The increase in leg quarter prices can be attributed chiefly to export market strength.

Example 2 – Beef: Moreover, according to the U.S. Meat Export Federation, which is working on a detailed study of collected export data by cut and by market comparing export prices and domestic prices, the export premium for five cuts – shot plate, tongue, skirt, short ribs and tripe – account for about $78 per head. For a representative carcass dress weight of 750 lbs, the export premium for those five cuts averages about 10 cents per pound. In short, value pricing makes livestock production more profitable.

http://www.animalag.org/a...052306.pdf

According to the information you supplied, we imported more than 11% (2.05 BILLION POUNDS) in 2007 and that number was expected to be 12% in 2008 (not taking into account 2009, 20010 or 2011). In what UNIVERSE is 2.05 BILLION POUNDS not a lot?! Please research further and compare that to the percentage that we imported ten and twenty years ago. What I said was the US could not allow all of the beef we raise for meat to be put out to pasture (free range). We can't even farm enough as it is or we wouldn't import 2.05 BILLION POUNDS. Also, most of what we export (in regards to beef) is pieces or cuts that a majority of people in the US don't eat, or eat in smaller quantities than premium cuts. My statement was very solidly grounded in fact.

TonyVanDam said:

Efan said:

What is it that makes you think cows, turkeys, and lambs are clean?

Lambs & bulls/cows have cloven hooves & eat cud, which is how they are classify as clean animals. I'm sad to say that I don't have a sciencific explanation at the moment.

And I've never seen bulls OR lambs eat human waste neither.

There is no "scientific" explanation for why some animals are 'clean' and others 'unclean,' other than the diet of the animals. Goats, sheep, deer and cows are basically herbivores, whereas pigs, like humans are onmivores (eat plants and meat). Shellfish and catfish are 'unclean' because they filter the waters they live in but what about farm raised?

Cerebus said:

SUPRMAN said:

I thought that was a questionable statement.

http://www.theprofitpictu...ersion.pdf

United States: Beef imports fell 1 percent in 2007 to 933,330 metric tons (2.05 billion pounds). The top suppliers were Australia (30 percent), Canada (27 percent), New Zealand (17 percent), Uruguay (11.5 percent) and Brazil (7 percent – all prepared/preserved). The United States imported more than 11 percent of its beef consumption in 2007, and more than 12 percent of beef is expected to come from imports in 2008. Daley notes that this change will result from an expected slight reduction in production, an increase in exports, and a slight increase in beef imports. The weak dollar and relatively tight global beef supplies are expected to limit U.S. beef imports this year. Continued strong cow slaughter could also limit the demand for foreign manufacturing beef.

First and most obvious, meat exports support surplus domestic production allowing larger herds and flocks of domestic livestock. In the case of pork, for example, the U.S. became a net surplus exporter in 1995. In the preceding 5 years, the average annual feeder pig supply was 96.7 million head; in the five years after 1995, … feed industry growth is tied to export potential for animals and meat products,” American Feed Industry Association, position paper on World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations. Value of U.S. Meat and Poultry Exports to U.S. Soybean Producers 2 the average annual feeder pig supply was 100.2 million head. The U.S. swine herd has been larger than 100 million head every year since 1998; it had only exceeded 100 million four times in the 37 years between 1960 and 1997. This increase in feeder pig supply, which is supported by pork exports, ultimately increases the domestic utilization of U.S. soybean meal.

[EDITED]

Premium Pricing: Second, U.S. meat exports allow for premium pricing of various meat cuts and types, which increases the total revenue generated by a carcass. Example 1 – Poultry: In poultry, white meat is higher valued domestically, while dark meat – legs and thighs – is more highly valued in a number of export markets from Japan to Russia. Thus, these export markets pay more for such parts than U.S. consumers. More than 60 percent of U.S. broiler exports are leg quarters. For example, according to the 16 September 2005 Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook Report from the USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS): Leg quarter prices in August averaged in the 45 to 46 cents per pound range, up almost 40 percent from the previous year. The increase in leg quarter prices can be attributed chiefly to export market strength.

Example 2 – Beef: Moreover, according to the U.S. Meat Export Federation, which is working on a detailed study of collected export data by cut and by market comparing export prices and domestic prices, the export premium for five cuts – shot plate, tongue, skirt, short ribs and tripe – account for about $78 per head. For a representative carcass dress weight of 750 lbs, the export premium for those five cuts averages about 10 cents per pound. In short, value pricing makes livestock production more profitable.

http://www.animalag.org/a...052306.pdf

According to the information you supplied, we imported more than 11% (2.05 BILLION POUNDS) in 2007 and that number was expected to be 12% in 2008 (not taking into account 2009, 20010 or 2011). In what UNIVERSE is 2.05 BILLION POUNDS not a lot?! Please research further and compare that to the percentage that we imported ten and twenty years ago. What I said was the US could not allow all of the beef we raise for meat to be put out to pasture (free range). We can't even farm enough as it is or we wouldn't import 2.05 BILLION POUNDS. Also, most of what we export (in regards to beef) is pieces or cuts that a majority of people in the US don't eat, or eat in smaller quantities than premium cuts. My statement was very solidly grounded in fact.

Whoa!

I said I thought the number was questionable and I did some research. I said nothing further.

You research further . . . .

Provide the facts that ground your statement . . . if you will please.

abigail05 said:

For years I've been saying, ah those nutty Jews! You can eat anything you want! Christ is the new covenant, and kosher doesn't mean shit to me. Acts 10, baby. Get up Peter, go kill and eat.
Yum.

Love the paraphrasing

johnart said:

Genesia said:

Thou shalt not eat pork? Funny, I don't remember Moses chipping that one onto those stone tablets. Was that before or after they roasted their hot dogs over the burning bush?

Hot dogs over burning bushes...I'm no longer thinking about pork in the least

I have missed the org, only here could an argument over some little piglets descend into such chaos.

The original post is no surprise, we treat animals appallingly and have done for thousands of years. As we grow in our understanding (and by that I mean scientific understanding not faith) we can appreciate what we may, or may not, be doing to our fellow creatures as we grow then to sustain our own lives. What surprises me is that we do not change our practices once we have that understanding, often because of religious or commercial pressures.

I am a firm omnivorous atheist but strongly believe that in eating meat (or any food for that matter) we should try to be aware of the source of that food and ensure, to the best of our ability, that is has been produced in a way we are satisfied with - ignorance is the biggest offence.

If you are happy to eat animals that have treated poorly then buy the cheap shit full of chemicals, mass produced, force-fed hormones and the remains of other animals, so be it.

Personally, I shop locally (as much as possible) and I see the cows and pigs in the fields that I eat a few weeks later. It is better for me, for the animals and it tastes better at the end of the day.

On venison and rabbit, I love them both; one week scampering round their natural habitat the next week on my plate. Wild meat is always assured to be of a good natural quality. Also good are pheasant, partridge and quail. Gamey flavours can be avoided if you don’t hang the meat for too long, if you speak to your butcher he should be able to source you some less gamey game.

SUPRMAN said:

johnart said:

I've never had rabbit.

Rabbit is delicious.

So are frog legs . . . and alligator tail.

Deadflow3r said:

This thread is so damn sad ! Humans are deffinately giving themselves some serious bad karma. Somehow this pain will in the end effect us.

Are animals giving themselves bad karma when they eat other animals? I wonder if a lion worries about its karma before it rips a zebra apart.

Efan said:

Deadflow3r said:

This thread is so damn sad ! Humans are deffinately giving themselves some serious bad karma. Somehow this pain will in the end effect us.

Are animals giving themselves bad karma when they eat other animals? I wonder if a lion worries about its karma before it rips a zebra apart.

Oh, quit being all logical and shit.

Efan said:

Deadflow3r said:

This thread is so damn sad ! Humans are deffinately giving themselves some serious bad karma. Somehow this pain will in the end effect us.

Are animals giving themselves bad karma when they eat other animals? I wonder if a lion worries about its karma before it rips a zebra apart.

I'll take a good zebra steak over good karma anyday...

<---just bought pork rinds.

johnart said:

<---just bought pork rinds.

Give it, retard!

johnart said:

<---just bought pork rinds.

<---- could eat his weight in pork rinds...

or any other rinds for that matter...if baby harp seal rinds were tasty enough, I'd be turning some ice red right now

<-----has never had a pork rind but is now curious.

Efan said:

<-----has never had a pork rind but is now curious.

They're yummylicious.

Genesia said:

Efan said:

<-----has never had a pork rind but is now curious.

They're yummylicious.

Truth be told, I've never had beef jerky either. Those types of things always looked a little gross to me.

Efan said:

<-----has never had a pork rind but is now curious.

they're a crunchy, airy, pork flavored mouth-gasm...

Efan said:

Genesia said:

They're yummylicious.

Truth be told, I've never had beef jerky either. Those types of things always looked a little gross to me.

Pork rinds are better than jerky, in my opinion. Jerky is just very hard to eat.

I do like pemmican, though.

Efan said:

Genesia said:

They're yummylicious.

Truth be told, I've never had beef jerky either. Those types of things always looked a little gross to me.

And by "gross" I mean "not rare and bloody, the way I like meat served (or warm and cooked through in the case of pork)." "Gross" was not meant to be a judgment or anything.

Efan said:

Efan said:

Truth be told, I've never had beef jerky either. Those types of things always looked a little gross to me.

And by "gross" I mean "not rare and bloody, the way I like meat served (or warm and cooked through in the case of pork)." "Gross" was not meant to be a judgment or anything.

Ooooh...are you a "bloody steak" guy? I looooooove my steak that way - with a little puddle of coarse salt as the only condiment.

Genesia said:

Efan said:

And by "gross" I mean "not rare and bloody, the way I like meat served (or warm and cooked through in the case of pork)." "Gross" was not meant to be a judgment or anything.

Ooooh...are you a "bloody steak" guy? I looooooove my steak that way - with a little puddle of coarse salt as the only condiment.

Exactly. I do the puddle of salt thing too. I think the salt looks very pretty in the red like that.

Now I want a steak for dinner.

Efan said:

Genesia said:

Ooooh...are you a "bloody steak" guy? I looooooove my steak that way - with a little puddle of coarse salt as the only condiment.

Exactly. I do the puddle of salt thing too. I think the salt looks very pretty in the red like that.

Now I want a steak for dinner.

I thought one of my girlfriends and I were the only people who did the thing with the salt.

Genesia said:

Efan said:

Exactly. I do the puddle of salt thing too. I think the salt looks very pretty in the red like that.

Now I want a steak for dinner.

I thought one of my girlfriends and I were the only people who did the thing with the salt.

I've done it forever. I also make sure whatever type of potato I'm having gets in on the juicy salt action too.

And agreed that no other condiment will get near my steak.

Efan said:

Genesia said:

I thought one of my girlfriends and I were the only people who did the thing with the salt.

I've done it forever. I also make sure whatever type of potato I'm having gets in on the juicy salt action too.

And agreed that no other condiment will get near my steak.

Genesia said:

Efan said:

I've done it forever. I also make sure whatever type of potato I'm having gets in on the juicy salt action too.

And agreed that no other condiment will get near my steak.

This thread is making me hungry!