Eating meat if you had to kill your intake?

I like this question! And its so rare to see a question like this asked and all the answers being intelligent and non-criticizing. But I dont think asking this board is accurate. Firstly, this board is mainly men and all are outdoors people, the crowd where hunting and butchering game is common. I think the answers would be very different if you asked a "normal" person from the city. Also, I think a lot of people who are possibly even vegetarian would not respond. ( I have nothing against vegetarians - I respect someone who is willing to give something up because they have "ethics" against it, no matter how much I disagree with them ). Maybe a poll is in order?

As for me? No problem. I've killed animals before and it doesnt bother me. Ethics? What ethics? Humans have sharp teeth for meat-eating and enzymes that specifically breakdown protein. The amount I'd eat probably wouldnt change overall, but maybe there would be a more feast or famine type scenario.

ChrisN
 
To clear up my answer, I would eat the same amount of meat, I have the time it takes and have canned a lot of my deer meat and pickled a lot of fish as long as i can remember. We always raised about three hundred extra chicken every year and raised them to butcher and sell in town. My mother had a lot of regular customers for her fresh farm chickens and eggs. We raised hogs and cattle as well. Also Ducks. In the spring while farming we often found duck nests in the fields. We would take them home and the hens would hatch them out for us to raise, The old hens would go nuts when the little ducks would go into the water though. If my dad didn't clip their wings, they would go south in the fall but many would return and spend the summer in the farm yard.
 
You guys have certainly challenged my question.

Let me clarify further - and I will amend the initial post.

My problem is not with the ethics of killing and animal - but given the fact that I NEED a lot less protein that I currently intake - I am using the parameter of 'eat what you would kill - if you had to' as a standard for how much I SHOULD consume now.

I don't think this is a binary question - I have no problem killing for meat - so I should kill and eat AS MUCH AS I CAN! I think that dishonors the kill and treats some living things not just as a means to a survival and wellness end - but treats them as a means to a taste end - or a gluttony end.

That is just me speaking - and that is why I am asking this question.

TF
 
PrimitiveMan said:
The only ethics problem I can see some having is the fact that you do not spell out how you would preserve the meat?

Some might have a problem killing a large animal only for a meal or two.
Click to expand...

I've really been cutting back on red meat recently due to a diet I'm adhering to and trying to shift our families eating habits, but PrimitiveMan raised my biggest issue which becomes a concern for me. I would definitely be consuming more meat based on your scenario. I personally would feel guilty at wasting meat from a kill (if preservation was an issue) and it of course would drive me to consume a little more or start preserving by drying, freezing or learning out to salt. I still have some deer meat in the freezer from last year...but the left over is due to my diet shift (only for another few months until I'm sexy enough for my summer G-String:D:eek:).

I'm sure there are several that would have some difficulty butchering and processing the amount of meat they normally consume...hamburgers, hamburger meat, steaks, chicken...I would bet that the majority of people would drop their meat intake significantly under your scenario. I doubt many on WSS would adjust their intake that much; but of course most here are a different breed:D

ROCK6
 
Talfuchre said:
My problem is not with the ethics of killing and animal - but given the fact that I NEED a lot less protein that I currently intake - I am using the parameter of 'eat what you would kill - if you had to' as a standard for how much I SHOULD consume now.

I don't think this is a binary question - I have no problem killing for meat - so I should kill and eat AS MUCH AS I CAN! I think that dishonors the kill and treats some living things not just as a means to a survival and wellness end - but treats them as a means to a taste end - or a gluttony end.

That is just me speaking - and that is why I am asking this question.

TF
Click to expand...

In that light, I have no idea, it seems the thought changes daily. For a while it was commonly thought that we eat way too much meat and need to eat mostly fruits and vegatables. Now we have Adkins and the like saying we need to eat more protein. And since a recent thread on here, I have been looking into a paleo diet that touts eating more lean protein and non processed fruits, vegatables and nuts. I tend to lean more towards the paleo diet, it makes sense to me that what we evolved eating and ate for thousands of years is probably what our bodies are adapted to live on. Chris
 
If it becomes an ethical question, then we have to assume that we're being forced to ration the portions. We might realistically be facing this in our near future, so this is a very good topic. In order to do a good days work an adult needs around 2200 calories per day of food. Meat takes more calories to digest, that is why people who eat lean meat diets tend to lose weight, your body is burning calories just for digestion, so if you can get a good proportion of that 2200 from grains and vegies it's better but not carved in stone. Refrigeration shouldn't be a problem at all as far as the size of the animal that you slaughter. I have dried, canned, pickled, smoked, and salted just about every type of animal that I've killed without worrying about having a refer or freezer. It isn't practical to butcher a whole cow by yourself. Not just because you can't eat it all at once, but because you would have a hard time processing the whole thing alone. It's better to do it with a few people involved so that it gets done more efficiently.
 
Last edited:
Talfuchre said:
I don't think this is a binary question - I have no problem killing for meat - so I should kill and eat AS MUCH AS I CAN! I think that dishonors the kill and treats some living things not just as a means to a survival and wellness end - but treats them as a means to a taste end - or a gluttony end.
Click to expand...

I am not sure if is understand your question.

If you are eating more than your caloric need, it sound like gluttony - no matter what you are eating.
What is the difference between meat, corn, or ice cream?
 
I'd probably eat as much or more. Since I started deer hunting, most of the red meat I eat has been processed by my own hands anyway, so no big change in diet on that end. I actually enjoy processing my own meat as well, fun to make jerky, sausage, steaks, etc.
 
I am going to add a different thought. I have all ways thought any one that eats meat should at least once have to kill and procces a living animal. To many people. take running to the store for granted. To many people think meat is grown on styrofoam trays
Roy
 
I don't think processing or preserving is an issue now that I think of it.

If you kill a deer sized animal and can preserve it, you butcher and process the whole thing, if you can't preserve, you kill it and cut off a ham and leave the rest. You can do that in 10 minutes work.

So my answer is, given all other things being equal (having access to veggies and such like I do now) I would eat the same amount. Probably 12-16oz per day on average.
 
dextersp1 said:
I am not sure if is understand your question.

If you are eating more than your caloric need, it sound like gluttony - no matter what you are eating.
What is the difference between meat, corn, or ice cream?
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase then. Assume I stay within my caloric intake for the day - but I eat four servings of chicken - when I could have gotten the same amount of protein and calories from non animal sources. Isn't the killing of the animal involved the difference and does that have ethical ramifications?

I think it does - thus why I am trying to estimate how much I would eat if I was in a situation where I had to kill my prey.

TF
 
Modern society with its strict division of labour allows many of us to interact with the food chain without really appreciating it. Someone else produces the food, slaughters it (in the case of meat), processes it, brings it to market, and so on. When most people purchase a package of chicken breasts, they do not have to concern themselves with killing the chicken, nor with what became of the legs, thighs, wings, and so on. They can distance themselves from the life and death of the situation.

Speaking personally, I always try to be aware of - and appreciate - the nature of the food that I am consuming. From an ethical standpoint, I refuse to eat any animal that I could not see myself killing - or at least being responsible for having killed. As it stands, I actually eat very little meat - lots of fish, mind you, but little beef, chicken, pork, or game. This is just a matter of personal preference and diet.

If I were forced to kill what meat I chose to consume, I don't think that my diet would change much - all other things being equal. If I were forced to kill with a knife, then I would almost certainly cut back to fish, fowl, and small game, just for ease of processing. Assuming a communal scenario, I would happily barter my fish and fowl for someone else's meat on occasion, just to mix things up.

Interesting thread!

All the best,

- Mike
 
I usually put up one or two deer a year as well as geese, ducks and upland game. Relatives put up 5-6 deer and it supplies a family of four with a large portion of their meat.

How many would grow their own vegetables if they had to work the fields, harvest, wash and prep.... or milk their own cattle or make their own cheese... people are lazy and soft.

As for hunting with a knife - that is impractical. At a minimum use a bow. I have put down two wound deer with a knife and rung the necks of many a bird. They still taste good.

I was raised in Atlanta and lived in downtown Atlanta and Chicago for years, I only started hunting in my 30's, I am 43. I learned from a friend.
 
Last edited:
runningboar said:
If freezers are available
If no freezer, I would probably eat mostly fowl and fish, with beef and pork occasionally, I really can't see myself killing a cow for a couple of steaks. Chris
Click to expand...

And this pretty much sums up the animal protein consumption habits of the ancient Greeks and Romans, since surplus meat won't keep and becomes wasted effort.

I think I would consume less meat; not because of ethics, but because procuring and processing game would be so time and effort consuming.
 
Mentor,

You have summed up my thoughts as well. Without worrying about the animal type - how much protein would you take in on a daily basis?

TF
 
First, let me comment on the question (didn't read all the replies, but I have to get to work): I think what the OP is after is would we have an ethical problem with eating as much meat as we do if we had to get down and dirty and do the killing and butchering ourselves. I've seen this assertion made by foreigners accusing us of eating so much meat because we are so separated from the killing that meat has no value. It's a good ethics question. I would think that most of us here crossed that hurdle a long time ago. Many urbanites and suburbanites never faced the question.

Now, IMO the OP is not talking some SHTF situation. So I'm taking this as nothing's changed from right now except I have to do my own butchering, so I'm keeping my fridge and chest freezers.

That being said, I'd probably eat more meat for a few reasons:
1.) I'm diabetic. That means I need to limit my intake of carbohydrates (ALL carbs, not just simple sugars), so my diet consists of mostly meat and veggies anyway.
2.) Just veggies don't contain enough proteins or calories by their own. Remember I'm talking non-carbohydrate veggies here. Things like rice, pastas, grains and starchy beans, while having protein are also carb-rich and I can only have so much).
3.) We have killed off, or nearly so, most natural predators. Animal herds lose far more members if not hunted due to competition and starvation than hunters will take. They need to be preyed upon.
4.) I like meat.

Maybe it's because I kill a lot of what I eat anyway that it doesn't bother me.

Only time it bothers me is when I make a bad shot and the animal suffers. Some don't like to do it for various reasons, but I'll often take a follow-up shot just to make sure the suffering is kept to a minimum. I have a certain thinking on animals, such that I don't do the whole "reverence" thing for them, but I don't want to make them suffer either.

Now, if sirloins only grew on trees. . .:D
 
If it is an ethical question I would eat the same amount. Realistically I probably eat less as I would not feel like processing that much meat.
 
To me ethics only come in to play if you kill more than you need or waste what you kill.
 
Talfuchre said:
Mentor,

You have summed up my thoughts as well. Without worrying about the animal type - how much protein would you take in on a daily basis?

TF
Click to expand...

Hard to say. I would definitely try for the daily recommended amount. But then, I do that anyway, usually through some combination of nuts, cheeses, and beans. If I had it my way, though, I would have a fillet of trout (or equivalent portion of fowl or game) in the skillet pretty much every night - especially if that meant that I got to spend part of each day fishing!

All the best,

- Mike
 
I have killed a fair bit of the meat we eat... As a matter of fact, when the wife and I were in college, all of the meat we ate was meat I harvested. For me, I choose to use a gun because it's more humane, however, I have used a knife as well.

So, to answer your question, we would probably eat the same amount of meat as we do now. Good question though!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top