Vegetarians in the Wild

[Toddy]

B12 is needed in tiny quantities and is easily obtained from yeast products Wook. We need 3 micrograms a day.
http://www.vegansociety.com/lifestyle/nutrition/b12.aspx

Not an issue.

M

 

[Retired Member southey]

Could you explain that snare comment Wook? Why not use non-kill snares?

Because in this country locking snares are illegal, have a search for "snares" on the forum, plenty of topics.

 

[Dave]

I have been a Vegan for 22 years...

I really take my hat off to the conscience veggies though, because they're fighting their hunger for a moral stance.

Agreed. I cant help but be impressed by it.

 

[pyrotech]

One may be reliant of animals for B12, but one need not kill any animal, above the level of bacteria, to avoid B12 deficiency, only true vegans are at risk , and even they could get natural B12 if they didn't wash their veggies .

At a high a risk from B12 problems are heavy smokers (even meat eating ones)... so a vegan with a bad nicotine habit,, might not live to long....

 

[_mark_]

Worked in a butchers as my first job at eleven, was enough to put me off meat for a few years! I succumbed to bacon as most do, was taught a very humane way of dispatching rabbits during basic.

 

[mace242]

Totally agree Dave. Do have to say that I really really enjoy the stalking and fieldcraft part of hunting, the art of camouflage , etc. I always aim to kill clean and with respect. I spent a very long time learning my tools and honing my skills before I even shot at a living thing.

 

[oldtimer]

Great thread: thoughtful, provoking a most interesting discussion and well worth re-reading. I have one son who has been vegetarian for 30 years and another whose partner will only eat meat that she can be sure has been ethically sourced. I have killed and eaten rabbits and woodpigeons but despise those who kill for "sport". As a family, we respect one anothers' differing views, yet we don't discuss them as much as we should, perhaps. I have enormous respect for people like the OP, who remind us to examine our own position. It frightens me that so many people happily buy shrink-wrapped packets from the supermarket without any concern about how it got there. I'm not a vegetarian, but fully understand the necessity for the debate. The more society becomes distanced from the countryside and natural world, the more important it is to keep the debate in mind.

 

[stuart f]

Hi Phaestos, i too take my hat off to you for being conscious about animal welfare and becoming a vegetarian, it takes commitment and dedication. I used to be vegetarian many moons ago, but not any more. For me,and i can only speak for myself, i thought long and hard about it and what my conclusion was, again for me, that me being vegetarian was'nt going to change anything for the better, for animals that is. Yes at first it seemed like a small victory, but it really did'nt change anything for the animals themselves, ie their welfare, their treatment.

I think what needs to be addressed is the system itself, we are provided everything on a plate(sorry no pun intended) from super markets and global industries, all shrink wrapped and neatly butchered, but alas very few question the ethics behind food producion or care to know about animal welfare, as long as their stomachs are full.

I have also seen Earthlings,and it does'nt paint a very good picture of modern mankind. Its all to easy for people to put blinkers on and sweep it under the carpet. But i do think that there is a way to bring the issues raised by such films, to the forefront, and that is to teach the younger generation, who's minds have not yet been made up, and learn them to treat ALL animals with respect, and not just blithly accept what they are told, but to question everything!!. Now i am not suggesting for one minute that they should see such films,but i do think it is up to the rest of us, the ones who have seen such things, to educate others, but not through scare tactics,as you will only end up being branded a fanatic, which will get you nowhere. But to get them thinking differently about the world they are growing up in.

For myself, i try not to just educate my own kids,but i try to open eyes and minds of all people.

As i said, i do eat meat, and i also shoot rabbits for the pot. Which for me, i know they have been cleanly dispatched, but also handled with dignity,and thanked for giving up their life, so mine can carry on. I wish i could say the same for mass produced animals, but alas no.

One last thing though,i am not trying to say being a vegetarian is futile. What i'm trying to convey is that maybe if we all open our eyes and come together as one voice, then maybe we will get animal welfare higher on the agenda.

Sorry if this has gone off topic a bit.
I mean not to offend anyone, its just my thoughts.

Cheers Stuart.

 

[British Red]

I respect other peoples food choices - heck there are a few things even I won't eat. The one thing I confess to not understanding is, when making a moral choice, eating dairy (and to an extent eggs), both are in many ways, very cruel. Dairy only works by keeping cows pregnant. This gives rise to many unwanted calves - almost all the males are killed post birth at most at a few days old. The mothers end up with hugely enlarged udders and older cows step on them they are so engorged. The older cows are slaughtered when milk yield falls - even if just one quarter stops. So to keep one cow in milk, multiple calves are killed and the cow leads a short and uncomfortable life. CHickens would not naturally lay 300 eggs a year - they lay one egg a day until a clutch is built (like any other bird) and then hatch them. But by removing the eggs, they keep laying. The constant laying places huge stress on the bird and again, their lives are uncomfortable and short as they are killed off as soon as they can't keep up.

Now there are changes - pink veal rearing of bull claves for example - but it is tiny and requires meat eating to work.

I am not questioning peoples choices - but would be interested as to why dairy aand eggs aren't seen as cruel by the OP or other vegetarians who find them more morally acceptable (rather than just "less gross"). No judgements here - just interest as a hands on smallholder moving slowly into animal production for ethical reasons.

 

[Toddy]

I freely admit I don't eat eggs. My vegetarian sons eat free range ones though.
Hens have been bred now that lay 100's of eggs a year; and they don't seem to miss the nesting instinct. Food goes in one end and eggs come out the other Rather unnatural in such quantity, but the hens seem contented enough. I have a lot of friends who keep free range chickens, there's no shortage of eggs.
My sons also drink milk, which I don't. Cheese ? that's the only thing I missed. Just makes me queasy now
I do take your point on the dairy industry; no getting away from the need to keep the cows pregnant to keep them lactating. Cattle are better cared or now than they have ever been, but very much shorter lives I believe.
I do know that stressed females do not produce high quality milk, and it's recordable in the data, so it's within the farmer's best interests to keep his cattle contented and well fed, etc., Veal calves ? I did hear that in these days of articifical insemination that there's research to implant embryos known to be female, instead.
Who knows where that will go
Me? I'll stick to the almond milk .........which now comes in cartons and saves me the bother of making it

I suspect that the reason many vegetarians don't disapprove of eggs, milk or honey so vociferously, is simply that the animals/insects don't *need* to die to feed them, and can in fact lead very good lives. That many don't just raises the Peta stakes.

cheers,
M

 

[Andy BB]

I agree absolutely on the concept of good animal husbandry, and can understand the thoughts of the op. For bushcraft purposes, I can see no reason why that should provide any problems as long as you're not going into the wilderness for an extended stay!

However, I believe that the general standard of animal husbandry on UK farms is - by and large - pretty good. After all, a well-kept animal is a more productive animal from the farmers point of view. Similarly, we probably have one of the most regulated animal processing operations in the world. Even so, it is certain that some animals suffer, and it is right that we should do all we can to minimise that.

I must admit to some doubts about some of the statements though, particularly the one that we are basically designed to be vegetarians. The human body processes green matter relatively inefficiently compared to flesh - there is a reason for the cows' four stomachs and our canines! We have been hunter-gatherers for much longer than we have been farmers, and our nearest relatives the chimpanzees will eat meat and insects at every opportunity. They - like us - are true omnivores, and our physiology supports that diet. Can we survive as a vegetarian or vegan, in our modern society, with the relative lack of need for constant physical exertion that was required by our hunter-gatherer ancestors, and with all the available sources and options for beans, pulses, soya (Marmite!) etc available at the nearest shop? Of course we can, and do. Should we? Each to his own conscience in my opinion.

For those struggling with the morality of eating flesh, however, I will posit another way of looking at it. Wild animals have a very hard life. In virtually every case, they will die from starvation, debilitating disease, or end up being ripped apart and eaten by predators, often while they are still alive and conscious. From an animal welfare point of view, therefore, I would suggest that, in the UK at least, farm animals have a far better, less stressful, better fed life than anything in the wild, and a much less stressful and painful death......

 

[Phaestos]

Once again, I feel that a discussion about my general vegetarian principles is not sticking to the topic, or intended topic of the OP, but I do recognize that I have kind of led it in that direction, so I'll answer.

Personally, I have no issues about eating eggs and drinking milk as long as I can ensure that the animal was fairly treated. Free range, soil assurance, RSPCA monitored; these are the things I look for. I cannot guarantee that they aren't lying to me, but I hope that I could still trust some people in corporations. However, I do find it hard to answer this, because while i hope the hens are happy, and free to cluck all day in a field, like you pointed out, there is excessive use of the resources they provide. Chickens should not lay that many eggs a year, and cows should not excrete milk continuously. There is no doubt in my mind that this is exploitation, and it is cruel. I can only justify it by striving to maintain that the produce i buy is respectfully obtained, hence my preference for farm shops rather than supermarkets, (although Sainsburys and the Co Op are very good in this regard). In a similar manner, you may care for the environment, yet still drive the work, or catch a bus. Sure, you can reduce the output of Co2, but you will constantly know that whatever you do, you will be adding to the problem, only in smaller quantities. You won't stop using the car or bus, or stop buying plastic goods that were made in a haze of greenhouse gases, but you will be aware of the issues, and seek to minimize your impact on the situation as much as possible, finding responsible avenues and constantly trying to improve.

Thinking about this really frazzles my brain. There are so many variables to account for. I try to keep it simple where I can, but this has its own advantages and problems.

By the way, I respect your desire to start a smallholding. Very admirable achievement!

Thanks for the input here guys, I'm loving the discussion.

 

[Phaestos]

By the way, Andy BB, I see your arguments for whether we are originally herbivores, and won't argue, mostly because I've had so many discussions about it, and every piece of evidence seems to hold true, for both sides. I will say though, for the canines being evidence of our carnivorous side, the best thing I ever heard said against that was that anyone with that view should go jump on a cow's back and see just how carnivorous they can be with their canines. A cows rump might as well be tank steel

Not disagreeing though, just a funny statement!

 

[Andy BB]

By the way, Andy BB, I see your arguments for whether we are originally herbivores, and won't argue, mostly because I've had so many discussions about it, and every piece of evidence seems to hold true, for both sides. I will say though, for the canines being evidence of our carnivorous side, the best thing I ever heard said against that was that anyone with that view should go jump on a cow's back and see just how carnivorous they can be with their canines. A cows rump might as well be tank steel

Not disagreeing though, just a funny statement!

Very true! Than heavens for meat tenderisers

 

[Toddy]

Andy BB...........we're not chimps, and our dentition and our gut are quite different.

This came up a while back, and the gist of it is that without cooking humanity would be unable to get the benefit from almost all foods. We are the cooking ape
More recently we have acquired (well some of us have) the genetic advantages that allow us as adults to digest milk and milk products.
We know of human kind's use of fire for longer than we claim homo sapiens sapiens has existed, so it honestly looks as though this dietary change is a long term thing in the hominids. Neanderthals, et al, cooked too, and not just meat.
Variety and seasonal availability is the best human survival strategy.

cheers,
M

 

[Andy BB]

Andy BB...........we're not chimps, and our dentition and our gut are quite different.

This came up a while back, and the gist of it is that without cooking humanity would be unable to get the benefit from almost all foods. We are the cooking ape
M

..apart from meat, that is. We can digest raw meat, animal fats and fish (and bugs for that matter) very effectively (mmmm - Steak Tartare..). Throw in a bit of fruit and berries and raw greens or seaweed to provide a bit of roughage and we're good to go.

Nice of you to point out that our digestive system is designed to run primarily on animal products

 

[Andy BB]

I believe that there was a study where two Arctic explorers spent 9 months in a US hospital, eating purely meat and animal fats, and came out in better condition than when they went in.

 

[ex-member BareThrills]

Once again, I feel that a discussion about my general vegetarian principles is not sticking to the topic, or intended topic of the OP, but I do recognize that I have kind of led it in that direction, so I'll answer.

Personally, I have no issues about eating eggs and drinking milk as long as I can ensure that the animal was fairly treated. Free range, soil assurance, RSPCA monitored; these are the things I look for. I cannot guarantee that they aren't lying to me, but I hope that I could still trust some people in corporations. However, I do find it hard to answer this, because while i hope the hens are happy, and free to cluck all day in a field, like you pointed out, there is excessive use of the resources they provide. Chickens should not lay that many eggs a year, and cows should not excrete milk continuously. There is no doubt in my mind that this is exploitation, and it is cruel. I can only justify it by striving to maintain that the produce i buy is respectfully obtained, hence my preference for farm shops rather than supermarkets, (although Sainsburys and the Co Op are very good in this regard). In a similar manner, you may care for the environment, yet still drive the work, or catch a bus. Sure, you can reduce the output of Co2, but you will constantly know that whatever you do, you will be adding to the problem, only in smaller quantities. You won't stop using the car or bus, or stop buying plastic goods that were made in a haze of greenhouse gases, but you will be aware of the issues, and seek to minimize your impact on the situation as much as possible, finding responsible avenues and constantly trying to improve.

Thinking about this really frazzles my brain. There are so many variables to account for. I try to keep it simple where I can, but this has its own advantages and problems.

By the way, I respect your desire to start a smallholding. Very admirable achievement!

Thanks for the input here guys, I'm loving the discussion.

I really cant see the difference between the eggs and milk you consume and meat. Just because a chicken is free range or the milk comes from a farm assured cow it doesnt alter the fact that the animal is being diverted from its natural behavior and putting its body under stress. I think British Red summed it up in his earlier post. To me, asking a cow to be permanently pregnant or a chicken to lay every day for some time followed by slaughter when they are less productive is probably more cruel than filling livestock with plenty of quality fodder and slaughtering them in a humane manor when they are fat enough.

Hope that doesnt sound harsh as its not intended to be.

 

[Toddy]

..apart from meat, that is. We can digest raw meat, animal fats and fish (and bugs for that matter) very effectively (mmmm - Steak Tartare..). Throw in a bit of fruit and berries and raw greens or seaweed to provide a bit of roughage and we're good to go.

Nice of you to point out that our digestive system is designed to run primarily on animal products

That's not what I said, and even selective reading of my post doesn't say that.
.........and we don't digest raw meat well, indeed mostly it doesn't. Cooking on the other hand breaks down food enough that our short gut, and non bone/gristle/meat digesting systems can manage to obtain some benefit from it.
Grains, legumes, fruits, etc., we do digest. Again, better if cooked.
Our teeth are not those of a carnivore and nor are they the teeth of the vegetable material in need of hard chewing variety. Indeed they're not even the gnawing teeth of the rodents either.
They are biting........like fruit, and cooked foods, because the shearing action isn't capable of much more, the incisors aren't pronounced enough to hold live prey, the molars aren't shaped to shear meat and our tongues aren't coarse enough to 'lick' the flesh off carcases like the feline do, either.

The short gut is best able to digest pre processed foods, and more recently in human evolution not just cooked grain, but the milk products of assorted mammals.

Meat appears to be taken when available in the past, but it's not the major food consumed. If it were our digestions and our dentition wouldn't have changed much from the common ancestor of the apes.

cheers,
Toddy

 

[Andy BB]

That's not what I said, and even selective reading of my post doesn't say that.
.........and we don't digest raw meat well, indeed mostly it doesn't. Cooking on the other hand breaks down food enough that our short gut, and non bone/gristle/meat digesting systems can manage to obtain some benefit from it.
Grains, legumes, fruits, etc., we do digest. Again, better if cooked.
Our teeth are not those of a carnivore and nor are they the teeth of the vegetable material in need of hard chewing variety. Indeed they're not even the gnawing teeth of the rodents either.
They are biting........like fruit, and cooked foods, because the shearing action isn't capable of much more, the incisors aren't pronounced enough to hold live prey, the molars aren't shaped to shear meat and our tongues aren't coarse enough to 'lick' the flesh off carcases like the feline do, either.

The short gut is best able to digest pre processed foods, and more recently in human evolution not just cooked grain, but the milk products of assorted mammals.

Meat appears to be taken when available in the past, but it's not the major food consumed. If it were our digestions and our dentition wouldn't have changed much from the common ancestor of the apes.

cheers,
Toddy

Actually, Toddy, that's exactly what you said - "This came up a while back, and the gist of it is that without cooking humanity would be unable to get the benefit from almost all foods. We are the cooking ape "

Again, I have to disagree with your assertion that humans can't effectively digest raw meat, fish, bugs, molluscs etc. Fish and bugs are soft-fleshed and very easily digestible. similarly the organs of most animals - kidneys, liver, bone-marrow, brain in particular - are soft and easily digested. Muscle meat will be tougher and more resistant to the enzymes in the stomach, but can be broken down with judicious cutting and bashing and chewing - our molars work well at that. Well documented examples exist of people stranded at sea on liferafts surviving for several months on raw fish and the flesh (both fresh and sun-dried) of the occasional seabird and turtle.

Vegetable matter is a different kettle of fish. Other than soft fruits and berries and their high sugar-content juices, you are absolutely correct to say that without cooking, their energy content to us is virtually nil. So, again, I contend that our bodies are primarily designed to exist on animal product. Cooking helps to get some nutrition out of plant material, and makes more of the animal products readily digestible, but it doesn't change the basic facts.

As for the fact that our teeth can't slice meat like some of the specialised carnivores, thats also true. but then we don't need giant canines - if you rule in cooking, you also have to rule in knives, which have been around as long as man-made fire has!