Define a "Food Animal"

What would you define as a "Food Animal"?


  • Total voters
    68
MobBoss said:
I have eaten some odds things in my day. Frogs legs, Rattlesnake, Crayfish, Squirrel, Raccon, to name a few.

@civg, Pigeons are not too small. I used to hunt doves and quail to eat, and they are much smaller than pigeons.

How are crayfish (crawfish down here) odd? We eat them down here all the time!
 
I'm Chinese. Extreme southern Chinese too. Guess how I voted? :mischief:
Perfection said:
A food animal is an animal that tastes good.

Humans aren't food animals because they don't taste good.
Humans may not taste good because of all the junk that they eat but their meat sure will be tender due to the lack of regular exercise. ;)
 
Dann said:
I'm Chinese. Extreme southern Chinese too. Guess how I voted? :mischief:
Chinese can vote?! :p

:mischief:

Dann said:
Humans may not taste good because of all the junk that they eat but their meat sure will be tender due to the lack of regular exercise. ;)
I dunno, they just live too long. The meat turns all stringy and nasty, I'd imagine.
 
homeyg said:
How are crayfish (crawfish down here) odd? We eat them down here all the time!

Its usually only a Southern dish. I was born and raised in Arkansas so that explains it for me. But in other areas of the USA, people would most likely go "ewwwww".
 
any animal with the exception of endangered animals, and intelligent animals such as aps, monkeys, dolphins, wales, and our selfs.. ect ect.
 
All animals that are edible can become food, some people even process toxic animals so that they can be edible, such as the puffer fish for the Japanese and the greenland sharks for the inuit. Our present diet of a few generic animals are due to the animals being; easy to be domesticated, high meat to feed ratio, general usefulness and being common. Humans are suppose to taste similar to pork, cannibalistic Paupan New Guineans hold human flesh to be the tastiest meat.
 
i havent read the book, and it is said never judge a book by its film.
as regards to the uh.. food issues in the film i think it was nessesary
but should be avoided unless absolutely nessessary.
 
I think that no animal should be eaten. This is because I think there is no need to kill animals for food as we can survive just fine without, so I say live and let live. Also think that it's quite sick to breed animals and raise animals for the purpose of kiling them for food.
 
ComradeDavo said:
I think that no animal should be eaten. This is because I think there is no need to kill animals for food as we can survive just fine without, so I say live and let live. Also think that it's quite sick to breed animals and raise animals for the purpose of kiling them for food.
it is when you think about it from the pigs point of view.
however; i think about it from the Rasher Sandwich consumers
point of view.
 
Vietcong said:
any animal with the exception of endangered animals, and intelligent animals such as aps, monkeys, dolphins, wales, and our selfs.. ect ect.

Leading to the obvious position that really stupid people should be featured on dinner tables rather than on Big Brother, Cops, Survivor, and any number of daytime talk shows.
 
Bozo Erectus said:
Id prefer that they enter the food chain as fertilizer.

I'm cool with either solution. :cool:
 
Mmmm. I love animals. They taste great!

If an animal isnt endagered, and it isnt a human, and it tastes good, Im game. Bison might be my favorite meat. (rattlesnake, alligator, squid, rabbit, deer......mmm. all good.)
 
Back
Top Bottom