Growing Guinea Pigs for Meat

[occidentalis]

Altho coz australia b4 whites (british, for the politically correct) arrived (invaded) wasent and still isent a very sustainable land in terms of meat products. And i agree they would have of course eaten meat but compared to europeans, im guessing there wasent enough (or as much) cattle type food for em to farm.

From my understanding, in many areas of Australia meat formed a higher proportion of the diet than in a traditional European one. As I said, in many parts of the continent plant foods were not available in some times of the year and meat would have formed the bulk of the diet. The traditional Australian diet would have relied on Acacia seed and yams as carbohydrate staples but these probably did not have the same nutritional importance as grain foods in European culture, and were not 'farmed' (depending on your definitions) in a way that would provide a surplus to last through the off-season.

[teonanacatl]

on a side note I heard a rumor that due to aboriginies being isolated for so long, estimated 60000 years that they have significantly different DNA some say least evolved, and that people in middle east where alot of international traffic has gone through have the most evolved. Anyone know of any references to this?

Had an aboriginal man give a talk on ethnobotany yesturday, essentially they seemed to eat a few pieces of a lot of different fruits, but the main food was definetly meat, it was always this and meat that and meat. He also said they would eat out an area then burn it and move on, and do the same untill they got back to the first area which would have regrown enough.

I think meat played a major part in most diets because you can get a lot in minimal time and effort, half a day to hunt down and kill an animal, 3 weeks + for a crop. Kinda like fat, today its said to be bad and we shouldnt eat too much but back in the day it would have been important for energy. Same with milk.

Edited May 4, 2007 by teonanacatl

[Jesus On Peyote]

Hmm thanks for clearing that up, makes sense.

on a side note I heard a rumor that due to aboriginies being isolated for so long, estimated 60000 years that they have significantly different DNA some say least evolved, and that people in middle east where alot of international traffic has gone through have the most evolved. Anyone know of any references to this?

Not to sure, but it sounds pretty interesting and i wouldent mind hearing more about it if anyone knows.

[ThunderIdeal]

what is cattle type meat? the blackfellas had lots of meat - kangaroos, turtles, dugong, sugargliders, goannas, snakes, witchedy grubs, the list goes on and on. i would tend to think the main dietary difference was the plant side of things. europeans had all kinds of domesticated vegetables, grains and greens. what did the blackfellas have? yams, wattle flour, bunya nuts, palm-tree hearts, uhhh, shit-all really. not the kind of food that would make a european salivate at all.

our digestive tract isn't halfway between a herbivore and a carnivore - there are herbivores with shorter tracts than ours. ours i think is 33 times the body length which is the EXTREME END of the scale ie no creature has a longer tract than that, some herbivores are like 30. carnivores are much shorter. the only trait that really suggests we are omnivorous is our teeth.

CREATINE - i thought of another argument pro carnivore (i've already mentioned two). bodybuilders eat creatine, because it lets your cells use energy quicker or something. it also makes your body odour worse. i don't know if vegetarians get any at all, i don't think it's an "essential nutrient", but it is definitely in meat.

meat is not "bad for you", but i see no benefit. it is great if you are malnourished. who here pays double for lean meat? without talking about chemical additives (which are bad for you, some carcinogenic), meat is higher in cholesterol. i've read about fitness tests which found vegetarians lasted longer on a treadmill. this could be because going veg is often done for health-conscious reasons, so the vege folk are health conscious in other areas of their life too ie less alcohol and junkfood, more exercise. however, it is probably because cholesterol is bad for your heart. there are plant foods ie cheap oils, which are high in trans fats, so it's not a simple matter of plant food being better, but... it is. for instance, there is no fiber or carb in meat. HEAVY meat consumption makes no good sense, but if you eat moderate amounts of meat (especially lean meat) it can hardly be called 'bad for you'.

per gram, fat provides a lot more energy than carbohydrates, and it can be carried around in the form of insulation. what is a killer today made you king fucking kong in ancient times. milk is pretty important for hindus. not as sustainable as pure plant production but it has that broad nutrient quality like meat, while still more productive than meat. the oil they use to cook in isn't vegetable oil, it's butterfat aka ghee (delicious). there have been vegan hindus, but i read that some went to america and suffered. the story goes that with less cleaning done to food, they got their b12 in india from insects and their eggs.

anodyne that's interesting that you puked. how long had you been without meat? i've accidentally had some a couple of times, but stopped when i realised. pissed me off but didn't make me puke, but then i was eating the stuff just 40 months ago.

"does anyone else have or had this problem? or is it just me?"

i know people whose idea of vegetable food is potato. can't be good.

i didn't mean to derail this thread but i have to keep responding.

goats are lovable but you might change your mind if you let them headbutt you in the arse a few times :D film it and share.

middle eastern did create the first civilisation, and were far more advanced than europeans 1500 years ago. asians too. i've read that negroid and mongoloid was the first two major types of human being, mongoloids quite a different skull structure. i guess middle easterners are somewhere in between, maybe. if they had the most human traffic and the most variety in their breeding, i don't see any reason they wouldn't be the "most evolved" ie having the most recent genetic developments. it doesn't necessarily mean they will be best evolved for future challenges. for arguments sake, civilisation has reduced the effectiveness of natural selection so perhaps a combination of modern developments and early civilisation has given them the highest degree of second-class genetics. purely an idea.

[occidentalis]

on a side note I heard a rumor that due to aboriginies being isolated for so long, estimated 60000 years that they have significantly different DNA some say least evolved, and that people in middle east where alot of international traffic has gone through have the most evolved. Anyone know of any references to this?

Being isolated for so long would theoretically lead to more 'evolution', or divergence from the parent population. Large amounts of international traffic in the middle east would lead to genetic mixing of populations and hence less 'evolution'. So I think that purely theoretically things would be the reverse of what you describe. Things can always differ from theory in reality though.

But remember, the concept of race is entirely meaningless biologically. Race simply doesn't exist except as a sociocultural concept. There is more genetic difference between the members of any one 'race' than there are between average members of different races.

EDIT:

I'll just add that there is a long running argument in evolutionary biology between the 'selectionists' and the 'neutralists'. The neutralists reckon that most evolution occurs via genetic drift randomly fixing alleles at selectively neutral loci rather than natural selection acting on selected loci. From this point of view civilisation doesn't have much effect on evolution of populations.

Edited May 4, 2007 by creach

[Jesus On Peyote]

This is getting way outa my league now lol.

But i think i get it mostly. in simplified terms its a purebred vs hybrid type thing yea?

Edited May 4, 2007 by Jesus On Peyote

[Anodyne]

CREATINE - i thought of another argument pro carnivore (i've already mentioned two). bodybuilders eat creatine, because it lets your cells use energy quicker or something. it also makes your body odour worse. i don't know if vegetarians get any at all, i don't think it's an "essential nutrient", but it is definitely in meat.

Creatine occurs in meat/fish & not plants, but is also synthesised in the liver, so vegetarians still get it.

anodyne that's interesting that you puked. how long had you been without meat? i've accidentally had some a couple of times, but stopped when i realised. pissed me off but didn't make me puke, but then i was eating the stuff just 40 months ago.

"there were 2 occasions where I totally accidentally and unknowingly ate something with a little meat in it, after about 3 years of being vego."

[teonanacatl]

By being isolated wouldnt that mean in influx of genes was less compared to somwhere were groups of different genes could mix, from a purely natural selection point of view the more genetic diversity the greater the ability to be genetically plastic to changes. Naturally evolution doesnt continue in one direction or towards a ultimate being, just for what ever works. I think the rest of the theory was that the different genes coupled with different skeletal structure placed them as homo somthing other then sapians. Anyway im still looking for legit sources.

[occidentalis]

By being isolated wouldnt that mean in influx of genes was less compared to somwhere were groups of different genes could mix, from a purely natural selection point of view the more genetic diversity the greater the ability to be genetically plastic to changes. Naturally evolution doesnt continue in one direction or towards a ultimate being, just for what ever works. I think the rest of the theory was that the different genes coupled with different skeletal structure placed them as homo somthing other then sapians. Anyway im still looking for legit sources.

Isolation leads to speciation.

Basically, there are a couple of special genetic processes that ocurr in small, isolated populations. These are genetic drift and inbreeding. No idea if these are thought to have been important in the history of indigenous Australians. It depends on the sizes of the populations (and the sex ratio). However, you may have heard about a 'population bottleneck' that is thought to have ocurred at some point in the distance past of Homo sapiens. This has left it's mark in fixed alleles (I think in mtDNA), which is the result of genetic drift.

You are correct about your situation of the mixed population with greater genetic diversity being more plastic - but plasticity is potential. It is only expressed as a response to a selective pressure. Say for instance a sudden selective event ocurred (eg disease epidemic), and wiped out the percentage of the population carrying particular alleles. This would set that population apart from others in terms of allelic diversity and proportions of particular alleles. However, due to high levels of mixing in the middle east, interbreeding would soon result in those proportions being reset to what they were (or close) before the selective event. So the population would over time even out. In the case of an isolated population, this would not ocurr, and the process of speciation would have begun.

As for Aboriginals being a separate species to Homo sapiens, this is not the case under the biological species concept, because interbreeding ocurrs, chromosome numbers are the same, etc. Think about the differences between different breeds of Canis familiaris. A chihuahua and a great dane are the same species, and can produce viable offspring ( ). Then think about the differences between human 'races'. Any differences are very minor compared to what is possible within the bounds of speciation.

When you are researching this stuff, be very aware that in the early half of the 20th century there was a lot of 'scientific' research going on into the differences between 'races' in an attempt to find biological justifications for social oppression. There are all sorts of studies into brain volume and skull structure which attempt to prove that aborigincal people or african people or whoever where 'primitive' compared to whities. As you say, there is no ultimate being. Evolution is a random walk through a genetic search space.

[MORG]

Anyway eating a plant is the same as eating an animal.

Is smoking a plant the same as smoking an animal?

[MORG]

re budgies, grass-parrots are delicious but not much meat on them. Larger parrots too, if they're young.

ed

What "grass parrots" do you mean ED?

And nice explanation of parapatric evolution creach

[teonanacatl]

re the research for social oppression, thats what im worried about cos I cant find anything upto date. I just thought it was interesting anyway

lol morg i love smoked animal :D mmmm smoked fish yummo

[devance]

At one time I thought of growing giant South American beetles [Rhinos] for the pet trade as they just eat a log.

Then I starting to think the giant grubs as everyone says tastes like a fatty type of shrimp might be a good gourmet type .

Eating a claim or oyster is might less tasteful as would be a seaworm with a carbonate shell.

Seems a Aussie type of possibilty for export.

Just some logs and the giant [Aussie-Abo]beetle.

[occidentalis]

What "grass parrots" do you mean ED?

And nice explanation of parapatric evolution creach

I think grass parrot is another name for budgie.

Um.. and thanks... but I thought I was talking about allopatric evolution , off to check the textbooks...

[reshroomED]

What "grass parrots" do you mean ED?

Yeah, Creach got it right.

From memory 'budgerigar' translates as 'good food'.

All parrots (budgie,rosella,galah,cocky) taste similar but become increasingly tough as they age, especially the larger birds (possibly longer life-span? I know cockies live for yonks). Old cockies and galahs are too tough to eat, yet smaller birds are all good. Pressure-cooking makes older birds more tender, but only up to a point. You get a feel for the age of the bird whilst cleaning, and this applies to most game animals. The easier it plucks/skins, the younger it is. I like game-birds to eat, but absolutely love parrots.

I'm pretty sure that all native parrots are protected bar by permit in grain-growing areas though. Most of our parrots are prolific enough to handle being 'harvested' moderately, but there is large abuse potential. A wounded parrot will call out in distress and any similar parrot within hearing will come and wait with the wounded bird. A lot of birds show such emotions, mating for life etc.

To hunt ethically you need to do a lot of research into what you're hunting.

Re the roo-farming, it's impractical for several reasons.

The main one would be slaughtering. Animals for human consumption need to be calm when they're killed, and to be killed instantly. Any stress causes release of adrenaline, which makes the flesh tough and stringy with a 'gamey' taste. Cows and sheep will easily walk up a shute to be knocked, roos are a bit more clever.

I like roo/wallaby in stews, rissoles, etc. but not as steaks, It's way too lean which makes it chewy. The sausage idea sounds good.

Definitely the leanest meat I've seen, and free from cysts etc. In literally hundreds of roos I've butchered the only abscess/cysts that I've seen have been from shotgun pellets or large splinters, and these are rare. I doubt that many people would eat beef , or especially mutton if they saw the crap that's cut out of that before sale.

ed

[ThunderIdeal]

i'm glad this has shifted away from the vege topic but i learned something that's pretty amazing today and i have to share.

re sustainability of your diet: no amount of change in your lifestyle can reduce the effect of global warming more than going vego. PLUS, a vege diet uses about 300 gallons of water per day, a meat diet over 4000.

this statement is very generalised and probably applies to people in the US eating US food, it could be totally wrong depending on your source of meat. however i am guessing if you consume supermarket cow, sheep, pig and chicken in australia then it is probably correct.

it's pretty unreal to think that such a simple (and rewarding) change in lifestyle would do more to curb global warming and maybe even water scarcity than all other lifestyle changes combined (ceasing use of any household energy, fuel or water)

source of info: i forget. look up al gore vegetarian on youtube. it was the UN or WHO or something like that.

[Hagakure]

thunderideal: the amount of oil required per cow or per sheep to get it to the supermarket shelves is unbelievable. trying to find a figure i saw but google isnt giving me no love so far.

from memory it was approx 6X 44 gallon drums of oil per cow. ridiculous.

everyone should cut down on the meat they eat regardless of their feelings towards vegetarianism.

eating a lot of meat isnt sustainable.

[ThunderIdeal]

that is fucking atrocious. i hope you got your figure mixed up there but it wouldn't surprise me.. farmers are subsidised to the point where they don't even actually earn money so much as they squander land and resources. i hate to be a cunt but why do so many rich nations support farmers who don't make an actual living? i'd be all for it if they were contributing something positive, but all they do is help fuck this planet into oblivion.

that's beside the point though as what i said up there applies just as much to organic beef, because of the methane they release.

as familiar as i am with this topic it comes as an incredible shock, it gives me very militant impulses.

okay so.... LOOK. we were all raised to consume a STUPID amount of red meat. break that habit please. it's only "good" for you in small serves, and you aren't doing the environment any favours whatsoever. nevermind the fact that animals live and feel just like every one of us. it makes no sense from even the coldest and cruelest perspective.

to those who hold the misinformed view that vegetarians are somehow weaklings, try this one on for size. kids raised vegetarian not only get higher iq scores, they grow taller too.

there is some ghandi quote about how at some point, humankind will have to discard the practise of eating flesh, in order to remain and to move forwards. that sounded right to me the moment i first read it but with this new revelation, and in the face of this gigantic environmental crisis, it is more true than ever.

[ThunderIdeal]

heart disease is beginning even in childhood. vegetarianism reverses it.

one statistic states that it reduces the risk of cancer by 40%.

if appeasing your tastebuds is the only reason you can muster to continue overconsuming this apparently devastating resource then what does that say about our slavery to desire, and how much we care about the people who will be alive when we're dead?

[rosetta stoned]

hey teo have you considered Entomophagy? eating bugs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entomophagy http://www.manataka.org/page160.html

insects are a great source of nutrition and would be very easy to raise the Chinese do it breed millions of scorpions in a small apartment for sale as food and medicine

most insects have a much better conversion ratio of food to meat then cattle etc (i think it was 20-30% more effective then beef? ill have to check that)

i have only just discovered this interesting field so am yet to try but my plan was to raise crickets and meal worms in those storage tubs form bunnings you'd easy fit a few thousand in a big one of them as for feed i was thinking of growing mushrooms and feeding them the excess hows that for sustainability :D

mmm guinea pig cricket and mushroom soup sounds fucken good to me

[teonanacatl]

wicked bugs for food :D

TI can we get past the vegetarian is better thing already, petrol costs apply to delivering veges.

[ThunderIdeal]

i'm afraid you completely missed my point so it goes in capitals this time.

what i just learned, something that was announced by the UN food council or something:

NOTHING YOU CAN DO WILL REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING MORE THAN BEING A VEGAN.

as i said it won't apply to everyone - bug eaters, fish eaters, guinea pig eaters etc.

cows produce enormous amounts of METHANE. there is no way around it.

edit: the UN released a 400 page report last year called "livestock's long shadow". i doubt anybody cares but if that's where you'd find the reasoning and details. i just heard it on a youtube clip of a stupid tv show. i had a quick look and i guess it counts for milk production too, since cows are the culprit here. they are basically being blamed for deforestation, desertification, acid rain, dead parts of the ocean, water consumption and spreading pests. plus greenhouse gas production, of course.

i'll keep quiet now. yay guinea pigssss.

Edited May 8, 2007 by ThunderIdeal

[teonanacatl]

So rather the best thing you could do for global warming is stop eating cows.

I think the best thing would be stop driving a car and stop producing CO2 by burning fuels and coal added to planting trees.

I dont mind discussion about vegetarianism, infact this thread has seriously made me think twice about my eating habits. I just think a healthy diet is a healthy diet and I dont think any surveys of vegetarian vs other has provided any real insite into which is actually better. I just go with what my body tells me.

[occidentalis]

So rather the best thing you could do for global warming is stop eating cows.

I think the best thing would be stop driving a car and stop producing CO2 by burning fuels and coal added to planting trees.

If you completely stop driving a car, that probably would be the best thing to do. However the article I read claimed that going vegetarian was better than driving a hybrid (and much cheaper).

It's not just cows, but intensive animal agriculture. So mostly chickens, pigs, sheep, and cows. GYO, wildcrafted (hunted?) or otherwise non-industrial meat products can be more sustainable than their vegetarian couterparts - it all depends on how they're produced.

[Hagakure]

realisitically it is far easier to shift everyone to vegetarian diets than to remove all cars form road and stop burning of gases.

well with the right systems in place both can be implemented easily but increasing the number of vegos would shift the economy while no cars or burning would cripple it and plunge our society into chaos. there are happy mediums to those extremes but the extreme cases highlight the differences and why gore's argument holds some weight.

eating less meat is a good start or eating meat from more environmentally friendly farming practices.

what are some other cattle alternatives?

i think i could eat some insects.

i think i would prefer crunchy insects like scorpians over slimy insects. scorpians, crickets etc in a stir fry could be pretty good.