UK's dog meat debacle

riffmongous

gozunda wrote: »

Thats a bit of an Idiotic argument no?

The answer is quite simple. Some animals are better to eat / tastier than others. And just like plants - we dont have to eat all species simply because we eat some of them. Are some plants more equal than others? Tell me do you eat cacti? grass? No? Why ever not? Are you a speciest in choosing some plants over others?

Just out of interest, cactus fruit (prickly pear) is delicious

Xcellor

riffmongous wrote: »

Just out of interest, cactus fruit (prickly pear) is delicious

In Mexico they eat cactus. Remove spines cube it and it's very nutritious. Tastes bit like green beans/stalk of broccoli.

whisky_galore

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure in 100 years everyone will be vegetarian or vegan and they'll be looking back at us thinking we were savages.

Pity, there won't be anyone to be snooty and condescending to. A pointless existence.

gozunda

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Your argument would only make sense if someone was proposing a ban on eating grass or cacti, which they aren't.

Not so. The posters comment referred specifically to some animals being more equal than others - which in relation to eating certain species is bulk****e.

Certain animals (depending on culture etc) are farmed/ eaten the exact same as happens with plants.

The whole 'dog thou' argument lacks any credability whatsoever and is designed purely to play the emotive vegan card trick. Funny you never hear the same question been asked about rat. So yeah idiotic ...

gozunda

riffmongous wrote: »

Just out of interest, cactus fruit (prickly pear) is delicious

Xcellor wrote: »

In Mexico they eat cactus. Remove spines cube it and it's very nutritious. Tastes bit like green beans/stalk of broccoli.

Yes as dog is eaten in certain countires. As to prickly pear & cactus - how many people here eat it? Taste and selection of foods tends to follow cultural norms.

Lillyfae

Xcellor wrote: »

I'm still not sure what medicines you think dogs are fed routinely? Apart from vaccinations which are also given to live stock.

There is nothing unique about a dog over any other mammal. It's only different because we think it is.

Medicines were an example. A dog will eat a sock or electrical items if the mood takes it- my point is it is known from birth to slaughter what the animals we are eating consume. Unless dogs are farmed specifically for eating, which they're not here at the moment, we simply don't know.

HailSatan

banie01 wrote: »

Surely by that logic, killing others and many of them is far more environmentally friendly?

I think that's the main environmental benefit of diesel

Hobosan

Lillyfae wrote: »

Medicines were an example. A dog will eat a sock or electrical items if the mood takes it- my point is it is known from birth to slaughter what the animals we are eating consume. Unless dogs are farmed specifically for eating, which they're not here at the moment, we simply don't know.

The obvious solution is to allow the consumption of dogs, while banning the consumption of electronics and socks.

HailSatan

Hobosan wrote: »

The obvious solution is to allow the consumption of dogs, while banning the consumption of electronics and socks.

How dare you disrespect my culture and faith.

Xcellor

Lillyfae wrote: »

Medicines were an example. A dog will eat a sock or electrical items if the mood takes it- my point is it is known from birth to slaughter what the animals we are eating consume. Unless dogs are farmed specifically for eating, which they're not here at the moment, we simply don't know.

A cow could be grazing near an illegal dump of asbestos or some other chemicals which are routinely used to kill weeds. Plastics? A lot of these break down and get eaten by live stock.

These things cannot be controlled even with the animals we already eat routinely.

What about fish? Lord knows what they are eating and these are routinely eaten with little concern. Heavy metals. Mercury. PCBs. Microplastics. Poo.

The diet of a dog in comparison is not considerably worse.

Lillyfae

Xcellor wrote: »

A cow could be grazing near an illegal dump of asbestos or some other chemicals which are routinely used to kill weeds. Plastics? A lot of these break down and get eaten by live stock.

These things cannot be controlled even with the animals we already eat routinely.

What about fish? Lord knows what they are eating and these are routinely eaten with little concern. Heavy metals. Mercury. PCBs. Microplastics. Poo.

The diet of a dog in comparison is not considerably worse.

I don't make the rules, I'm just stating what they are- some light reading here for you: https://www.fsai.ie/legislation/food_legislation/food_hygiene/specific_hygiene_rules_for_food.html#gen_prov

Xcellor

Lillyfae wrote: »

I don't make the rules, I'm just stating what they are- some light reading here for you: https://www.fsai.ie/legislation/food_legislation/food_hygiene/specific_hygiene_rules_for_food.html#gen_prov

yeah but the examples you are mentioning of a dog eating something undesirable could easily apply to an animal that is considered "edible". It is impossible to completely safeguard that animals roaming in fields/seas eat only what "they are supposed to eat".

I do agree that if dog meat was to be sold to the end consumer it should have to comply with the regulations though which would include dog farms/controlled feed/vaccination/antibiotics etc.

Banning dog meat because dogs are seen as pets and shouldn't be eaten is nonsense. A dog is an animal and there is nothing that makes it different from a pig/sheep/cow apart from human perception.

Lillyfae

Xcellor wrote: »

Banning dog meat because dogs are seen as pets and shouldn't be eaten is nonsense. A dog is an animal and there is nothing that makes it different from a pig/sheep/cow apart from human perception.

I've never mentioned nor am I offering an argument for or against this I'm simply pointing out why it doesn't or shouldn't happen now as regards regulation.

gozunda

Xcellor wrote: »

yeah but the examples you are mentioning of a dog eating something undesirable could easily apply to an animal that is considered "edible". It is impossible to completely safeguard that animals roaming in fields/seas eat only what "they are supposed to eat".I do agree that if dog meat was to be sold to the end consumer it should have to comply with the regulations though which would include dog farms/controlled feed/vaccination/antibiotics etc.Banning dog meat because dogs are seen as pets and shouldn't be eaten is nonsense. A dog is an animal and there is nothing that makes it different from a pig/sheep/cow apart from human perception.

Yeah but for some strange reason - you are deliberatly missing the main points.

Like plants - some species are good to eat and some not so much. An Ash tree is a plant but no one is suggesting that they should be grown for people to eat purely because there is 'nothing that makes it different: .. except human perception'

From a farming point of view here - it makes no sense as it would involve raising other animals as feed for dogs to produce an extremly poor quality end product.

Dog meat is usually eaten in poorer countries or in times of war. In countries where dogs are eaten - they are often raised in illegal backyard operations or stolen. It has been banned in Hong Kong, the Philipines, India and many other countries because of the risk of disease such as rabies and cholera

Are you going to tell these countries that they are wrong and you are right because you are pushing the old hoary chestnut 'dog thou' vegan argument that is regurgitated again and again. Even though the whole argument has been shown to be a complete load of biblox?

Xcellor

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah but for some strange reason - you are deliberatly missing the main points.

Like plants - some species are good to eat and some not so much. An Ash tree is a plant but no one is suggesting that they should be grown for people to eat purely because there is 'nothing that makes it different: .. except human perception'

From a farming point of view here - it makes no sense as it would involve raising other animals as feed for dogs to produce an extremly poor quality end product.

Dog meat is usually eaten in poorer countries or in times of war. In countries where dogs are eaten - they are often raised in illegal backyard operations or stolen. It has been banned in Hong Kong, the Philipines, India and many other countries because of the risk of disease such as rabies and cholera

Are you going to tell these countries that they are wrong and you are right because you are pushing the old hoary chestnut 'dog thou' vegan argument that is regurgitated again and again. Even though the whole argument has been shown to be a complete load of biblox?

You are right. No one is suggesting eating an ash tree. A human can't eat an ash tree.

Leaving legislation aside. A human can eat a dog. Taste? Some people love the taste of black budding, some like pig belly, some eat the ears (although we feed them to dogs here) and some like the taste of dog. Animal protein is animal protein.

Interesting - so it makes no sense to raise dogs for food because it takes a lot to feed them but when the same argument is for cows/pigs etc it becomes "but they eat food that humans can't". Seems a bit inconsistent? I'm sure dogs have no problems eating bits of animals we don't.

Dog meat in certain regions is seen as a delicacy. Eaten at special occasions only and commands large price due to this.

If dogs were raised in the same standards we subject pigs to which is apparently "humane" there would be outrage.

gozunda

Xcellor wrote: »

You are right. No one is suggesting eating an ash tree. A human can't eat an ash tree. Leaving legislation aside. A human can eat a dog. Taste? Some people love the taste of black budding, some like pig belly, some eat the ears (although we feed them to dogs here) and some like the taste of dog. Animal protein is animal protein. Interesting - so it makes no sense to raise dogs for food because it takes a lot to feed them but when the same argument is for cows/pigs etc it becomes "but they eat food that humans can't". Seems a bit inconsistent? I'm sure dogs have no problems eating bits of animals we don't.Dog meat in certain regions is seen as a delicacy. Eaten at special occasions only and commands large price due to this.If dogs were raised in the same standards we subject pigs to which is apparently "humane" there would be outrage.

Again you are completely missing the point here. Dog is a meat which is of a very poor quality compared to beef (for example) both in the amount of meat produced and in feed conversion ratio. You may as well argue we should farm Rat with the lack of logic with your thinking. Rat on a stick anyone?

You are correct that Ash trees are inferior from a farming point of view compared to say avocados. But plants are plants after all. It is quite possible to process wood pulp to be somewhat edible - doesn't mean it's a good idea now does it?

Now some people certainly do eat dog and rat - but as specified it is in mainly in poorer or war ravaged countries. Many countries have banned dog due to a risk of rabbies, cholera etc. And you are a bigg supporter of that? Fair enough so.

You may have forgot but about a year or so ago you turned up on the Farming Forum alleging to be interested in setting up Dog farming in Ireland. Where it was quickly identified as yet another vegan advocate running the old "dog thou" argument

In that thread - it was explained to you why dog farming doesn't work. Maybe you forgot that detail? Bogwoppit explains the economic issues of feed ratios extremely well with regard to livestock farming as you seem to think current practice is somehow "inconsistent".

Bogwoppit wrote:

The feed conversion rate to produce growth would be pretty terrible in dogs. Much better to put your feed into pigs which have a relatively good conversion rate. 
I think pigs convert at around 6:1, not as good as chickens though at about 2.5:1. 
Nothing comes close to fish though which can be as low as 0.6kg of feed to a kilo of growth!
At a guess I’d say dogs would almost definitely be above 10 making it unviable with the restrictions on feed ingredients in the EU (quite sensible rules). ..

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106561786

So you see once again no matter how much anyone rants or rave about the old 'dog thou' vegan daft argument - it does not make sense economically or as previously explained from a quality or health point of view to farm dog meat. But hey if you would like to prove me wrong - go ahead. Set up your dog farm and sell the product. Come back to us maybe this time next year to let us know how that is working out for you ...

Best of luck

Xcellor

gozunda wrote: »

Again you are completely missing the point here. Dog is a meat which is of a very poor quality compared to beef (for example) both in the amount of meat produced and in feed conversion ratio. You may as well argue we should farm Rat with the lack of logic with your thinking. Rat on a stick anyone?

You are correct that Ash trees are inferior from a farming point of view compared to say avocados. But plants are plants after all. It is quite possible to process wood pulp to be somewhat edible - doesn't mean it's a good idea now does it?

Now some people certainly do eat dog and rat - but as specified it is in mainly in poorer or war ravaged countries. Many countries have banned dog due to a risk of rabbies, cholera etc. And you are a bigg supporter of that? Fair enough so.

You may have forgot but about a year or so ago you turned up on the Farming Forum alleging to be interested in setting up Dog farming in Ireland. Where it was quickly identified as yet another vegan advocate running the old "dog thou" argument

In that thread - it was explained to you why dog farming doesn't work. Maybe you forgot that detail? Bogwoppit explains the economic issues of feed ratios extremely well with regard to livestock farming as you seem to think current practice is somehow "inconsistent".



https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106561786

So you see once again no matter how much anyone rants or rave about the old 'dog thou' vegan daft argument - it does not make sense economically or as previously explained from a quality or health point of view to farm dog meat. But hey if you would like to prove me wrong - go ahead. Set up your dog farm and sell the product. Come back to us maybe this time next year to let us know how that is working out for you ...

Best of luck

I don't believe animal agriculture offers a sustainable or efficient model to produce food.

But when people are shocked about the thought of eating dog it isn't because it's an inferior type of meat or its not worth it from an economic stand point or even down to taste (as most people have never tasted). It's down to humans seeing dogs as different. It's nonsense but humans are great at compartimentalism.

gozunda

Xcellor wrote: »

I don't believe animal agriculture offers a sustainable or efficient model to produce food. But when people are shocked about the thought of eating dog it isn't because it's an inferior type of meat or its not worth it from an economic stand point or even down to taste (as most people have never tasted). It's down to humans seeing dogs as different. It's nonsense but humans are great at compartimentalism.

The fact is we dont eat dog meat - because of many reasons. Economics is just one of them. I'm not shocked at all - it simply makes no more sense than eating rat.

And of course you dont agree with animal agriculture. You're a vegan. I'd be surprised to hear anything else. Howevervthe facts stand that traditional forms of animal agriculture are in fact very efficient and sustainable where they they are practised extensively on areas such as permanent grassland and supplemented only where necessary using the by-products and waste from the human food industry.

The fact is this dog thou debate is not about animal agriculture - it's about plant food advocates telling others what they should and should not eat. Look I get it you dont like meat. Thats fine. But drop the kitchen sink and don't try as hard to throw every type of argument you can think of into the mix. It does the credability of such arguments no favours whatsoever imo.