Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Keep out of reach of children.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                 

Meat for vegetarians

A gourmet delicacy for *some* vegetarians
  (+8, -14)(+8, -14)
(+8, -14)
  [vote for,
against]

Please read thouroghly before you all jump up and down on me. Also I havn't slept in 48hrs so I might be losing it a little.

Some vegetarians kinda like meat but object to it on grounds of cruelty to animals, and so don't eat it.

Maybe if there was some way of getting a vet to certify that an wild and free animal had died of natural causes then people that still liked meat could eat this without the guilt.

I know that any such food stuff would be super expensive because; rareity value - The animal wold have to be wild as farmed animals would raise objections. So it would need to be found pretty soon after death. Maybe a sort of observation post could be used to keep an eye on the herd and see who's ailing. this would be enhanced by the fact that; some diseases may make the individual undesirable for consumption.

also you'ld have to pay the vet, and have a refrigeration plant (possibly mobile) to hand.

This could be a new gift idea for the idealogical - anticruelty veggie who misses meat but feels its wrong.

I just did a search an, although there's a few ideas LIKE this already out there I don't think this exact plan is there. um ....have to sleep now.

Zircon, Jan 30 2002

[link]






       It's available. It's called roadkill. However, I know plenty of carnivores that have problems eating game (especially small furry animals like rabbits) so the chances of this being appetising to a 'veggie' seem remote in the extreme.
It's either that or eat meat from a farm animal that has died 'of natural causes'. if this was a disease, would they want to eat it? I doubt it (regardless of whether the science said it was safe to eat or not).
Add to that fears in the uk around BSE from cattle (and now sheep) and I think about the only things left are pigs who've had a heart attack and chickens killed by foxes.
goff, Jan 30 2002
  

       If you can't hear Harps lulling you to sleep, perhaps you should drink a Harp's. *belch* Quite tasty.
thumbwax, Jan 30 2002
  

       We HalfBaked a similar idea except we were talking about fur at the time.
phoenix, Jan 30 2002
  

       err..no!
DrBob, Jan 30 2002
  

       Why not Dr Bob? do you sugesst that there are no vegetarians who actually quite liked meat but have issues with us penning in and executing animals?
Zircon, Jan 30 2002
  

       As goff says, there's roadkill. But if you create a market for roadkill, it's just going to give drivers even *more* incentive to run down animals on the road than they already have. Eventually we'll even see people driving far *off* the road to land that 1200 lb. moose (at $14/lb.!). And that will drag the anti-SUV activists into the brawl and the whole thing will just degenerate into a nucular [we interrupt this rant for the following important message: IF YOU CAN'T SAY "NU-*CLE*-AR," JUST DON'T SAY ANYTHING. OKAY?! --geez!] conflagration.   

       More seriously (but not much, really) if we harvest wild animals that die of natural causes, what will the buzzards eat?
beauxeault, Jan 30 2002
  

       You should have gone to bed ten minutes sooner. :-)
angel, Jan 30 2002
  

       I'm still awake and hey maybe buzzards could become vegetarians.
Zircon, Jan 30 2002
  

       Not a bad idea, overall, but goff is on the mark: the roadkill or other game animals aren't very appealing to most people, and would be especially unpalatable to someone who has been on a low- or no-meat diet.

I am not a vegetarian, so I could be wrong, but the idea of using farm animals that die of natural causes would still be apalling to most ethics-based vegetarians, because the animal was the product of an exploitive industry. The manner of death has less moral significance than the production method and infrastructure.

Kudos to you, Zircon, for your presentation. From the idea title, I was expecting an offensive or tasteless idea involving coercion, deception, or violence.
quarterbaker, Jan 30 2002
  

       There is an "optimal" age for an animal to be slaughtered. As an animal moves beyond that age, the meat of said animal becomes tougher and unpalatable. Also, there are certain procedures associated with butchering an animal that should be done immediately after death. Unless you could watch the animal die, know for *sure* why it died, and begin processing the meat as soon as the animal was dead, this idea would be unsafe health-wise, and the meat wouldn't taste too good either.
dana_renay, Jan 30 2002
  

       Zircon, no because 'natural causes' means old age or disease, neither of which would make the meat suitable for consumption.
DrBob, Jan 31 2002
  

       if the animal was killed in an animal stunt, would a vegetarian eat it?
mihali, Jan 31 2002
  

       Being killed to feed a carnivore IS natural causes for prey animals. There are any number of animals whose destiny is to end as a brief, crunchy squeak.   

       Humans just do it a bit more elaborately.
StarChaser, Jan 31 2002
  

       Getting killed by being run over is *not* a natural death...
snarfyguy, Feb 01 2002
  

       An inability to live after being smashed by a large, fast moving piece of metal is very natural...but roadkill isn't what I was talking about.
StarChaser, Feb 01 2002
  

       [quaterbaker] -Thanx for the encouragement   

       Newbie question for you guys, This idea has a plethora of fish remains attatched to it now, should I delete it - is that the correct bakery etiquette?   

       (Especially seing as though [Dana Renay]'s note of 30th Jan seems to render it non bakable (although I'm working on an Idea about that.)
Zircon, Feb 01 2002
  

       Delete it if you wish, but it's by no means required. The fishies merely indicate that people have voted against it (for whatever reasons). If you consider there's nothing of value here, then delete it. If it were mine, I'd leave it, at least for a while.
angel, Feb 01 2002
  

       Keeping your heavily-fishboned ideas in the archive will help serve as a humble reminder for when your future is filled with many croissants.
quarterbaker, Feb 01 2002
  

       If you keep the croissants then you should keep the 'bones too.
DrBob, Feb 01 2002
  

       One problem- most vegetarians I know dislike meat BECAUSE they haven't eaten it for so long- the stomach tends to adapt to a meat free diet (actually this applies most of all to vegans). Thus the market will be pretty small. Also many people object more to the principle of using animals for food than the idea of shortening their lives.   

       <off the point a bit>Once my father went to a free range farm to buy a turkey for Xmas, and ran over the farmer's pet duck. The farmer generously donated it to us and we had roadkill for Xmas dinner.....</off the point a bit>   

       Why did I tell you that? I don't know.......
afroman, Feb 02 2002
  

       I'm not sure if additions by me to my original idea should go here or as an edit to the idea....(comments please)   

       You could set up a large nature reserve, where animals are free to fulfil their normal territorial behaviors, etc. Then you could fit each of them with a tracking device which monitors their health too and reports to a control centre via satilite when they're about to kark it. This is the least invasive way I can think of to do this. I accept it dosn't fix alot of the problems raised. Maybe it would work better for as more ethical meat for people who wish they were vegitarians but just like meat too much - like me.
Zircon, Feb 02 2002
  

       i hereby declare i would like to be a guinea pig when this experiment first kicks off. I have been a veggie for 10 years. recently, im so tired of people trying to "trick me" or trip me up on my values- that i now call myself a mass production boycotter. This means- "I don't want to contribute to companies that make loads of animals unhealthy (hormones,chemicals and food they would not eat in the wild) and unhappy- living conditions. Because- I think it's wrong and I don't want to eat unhealthy meat anyway. I love meat, I used to, the park ranger from the forest down town has to shoot a few bunny rabbits everyday, as many grey squirrels as possible (cos its a red squirrel reserve and other reasons) and something else- and he offers people freshly shot rabbit and things, he said in the summer he was going to do a wild animal barbecue and i could come. I didn't mention my veggie values, and thought hmmm. This is the test! I would be interested to nibble at some of it. and proud to support healthy happy meat thinking in this way. I wouldn't want to eat ill or old animals, but i would buy/contribute to happy meat as such.
isla, Apr 24 2002
  

       you could practice that happy meat theory on yourself being a vaguely cheerful guinea pig. Get nibbling..
notripe, Apr 25 2002
  

       I think it would be nice to keep a fairly large number of animals until they die of natural causes. Treat them as pets, give them a good, healthy, though not necessarily wild life. Make sure they receive the best medical care. Pick animals that would otherwise have been eaten or mistreated.   

       If you know them well enough you can probably predict or be with them when they die. If they are very old put a heart monitor on them. I don't think I would feel guilty eating one of them.   

       They might not taste as good as young meat, but if they are healthy but old the meat should be edible.
tolly3, Apr 26 2002
  

       you say if they die of natural causes...did you think about that one at all before you wrote it down??? If they died because of it, how in the hell can it be ok for human consumption...besides the ones that die of old age, and who is to know? are the vets going to test for every possible disease to see why the animal has died? and how are we gonna get people out there to watch the animals die? what are we gonna pay them? in total, how much is that gonna cost the people? you have to think practicle bud...
Mutt_Dog, Apr 24 2003
  

       Did you read the idea??? (multiple question mark usage may be sign of unstable mind you know), I covered the points regarding the high cost in the idea, and the problem of eating animals that die of natural causes has been discussed in the annotations already.
Zircon, Apr 24 2003
  

       Starchaser, so if you get eaten by a shark, snake, alligator, et cetera, have you died of natural causes? People say humans aren't the ideal food for sharks since we don't have enough fat on our bodies for them to really enjoy eating us, but there are some people out there fatter than seals, so they're better than typical shark food. It's not natural to be eaten by anything. It's just natural for whatever is doing the eating to want to eat what it eats.
dj_photon, Jun 29 2003
  

       i guess this solves the problem of what to do with all the cows that die of mad cow disease--feed them to the vegetarians. at least they died "naturally"
mandsee, Apr 08 2004
  

       Does dieing of mad cow' qualify as natural? They did get it by being fed other cows...
my-nep, May 31 2004
  

       If God wanted us to be vegetarians, why did he make cows out of meat?
fluffchucker, Nov 04 2010
  

       'He' didn't. Next question.
Loris, Nov 05 2010
  

       "Why is wet quicker than dry ?"
8th of 7, Nov 05 2010
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle