MaraM's thread on animal cruelty brought up an issue that I can't seem to resolve in my head.

I, and practically all of us, are offended and sickened by blatant acts of cruelty toward animals. Perhaps the main reason is that we think of these creatures as innocent and therefore forever undeserving of such harm.

But my question is this: where do we draw the line between which animal is a pet and deserves protection, and which animal is food to be slaughtered without a second though? What are the inherent differences between the animals that are given their respective designations?

Now I will be the first to admit that I enjoy eating meat. Man oh man; steak, chicken, bacon, you name it. But when I am enjoying a burger I rarely reflect on the fact that what I am eating came from a living thing.

What's the difference between a cow and a cat? I would absolutely never condone harming cats, let alone killing and eating cats. But then I am forced to ask myself, why am I so comfortable consuming beef? How can I be so vehemently set against harming one animal and so completely passive about harming another?

If you went into the backyard and found your child tormenting a blue jay, you'd intervene, wouldn't you? Yet chickens are killed en-mass.

My guess on this whole conundrum is that these sort of cultural conventions (ie, which animal is used for what) have developed over many years and are so ingrained into society that we rarely even think about them. However, these conventions have changed over time; most dogs, horses, and even cats were at one time or another kept specifically to provide services rather than companionship. However, as the services these creatures rendered have for many of us become obsolete, we kept the animals around and realized that our lives are greatly improved by the companionship, perhaps the very presence, of other creatures.

Now, I am not arguing that we should not eat meat of any sort. All I am doing is analyzing where and why we draw the lines between different species of animals. For one thing, I don't believe that humans are herbivores. We are omnivores, and if memory serves we are unable to create all the nutrients we require without eating at least some meat. On the other hand, many of us in the western cultures eat far more meat than required. Thus, perhaps we could focus on smaller production of meat products, removing the need for large scale factory-style meat production (the practice of which, I would argue, is inherently cruel to livestock).

If we cut back on the amount of meat we consumed, and focused on organic sustainable farms, we would have healthier diets and the animals would live better lives (not to mention all the other negative environmental impacts of large-scale meat production).

Just thinking out loud here.

Firstly, killing of any animal humanely is not a problem for me. The problem lies with how the animal is killed.

Now I dont know why but I see every animal as a potential food source, Ive never been hungry/broke enough to eat anthing, or been in the special forces so this is a little bit odd.

Many people just bury their heads in the sand when it comes to meat. They forget their lovely pre-packed cuts of cow, pig, horse, chicken etc were once living creatures. Most of these so called animal lovers are not vegitarian and should google killing methods for their favorite foods. I wont go into details, but most methods appear to be far from humane. Electocution, bolt guns etc. Apparently many animals know when they are in the slaughter houses and get quite distressed.

What makes it ok to eat one animal and not another?

Here in the UK, beef is eaten no problem, yet you mention eating horses and your are looked at like your a little bit sick. Yet when you goto France horse meat is on sale in the butchers.

On a trip to Thailand I stayed with a family, they killed a chicken right in front of me to make some food. I told people at home and they thought it was disgusting, yet have no problem eating at KFC. (wow, never tasted chicken so good, from it walking round the garden to me eating it in less than an hour.)

How many of these animal lovers think nothing of kiiling rats, squirming saying they are disgusting etc (they carry about 70 disease), yet will be quite happy to through bird seed to pidgeons, ohh arnt they lovely (yet they carry about 60 diseases).

Finally.

Shouldnt animal lovers love all life. If thats the case why are they killing all the little bacteria when they use bleach. This is animal cruelty on a mass scale.

Things that taste good: Deer, Cow, Pig, Rabbit, Quail, Dove, Snake, Chicken, Catfish, Squirrel

Things that dont taste good: Possum, Rat, Pidgin, Dog, Cat, Horse,

Things best left unhunted due to various things like lack of meat : Rat, Pidgin, Cat, Possum

I've been vegetarian for a number of years now. I just couldn't see how i could claim to be an animal lover, showing respect and compassion for our fellow animals on this planet, and yet be prepared and willing to eat animal flesh.
I also saw some videos about the treatment of animals in the slaughter houses or abbatoirs. It's horrific, there's a world of difference between your neatly packaged vacuum sealed flesh and how it gets' there.The suffering these animals endure is indescribable. The animals often realise they're close to death and defecate.(Check out my signature). I lasted three minutes before switching it off. But be warned, it's not pretty and may cause some distress.Not as much as the animals endure though.
I suppose it depends on your viewpoint, are they lesser creatures to be ruthlessly exploited, or fellow creatures worthy of respectful treatment.

Originally, before sin, humans as well as all animals of every type were vegetarians. Sin and the curse that God placed on the world for mans rejection of Him changed all of that. Still, it was not until after the flood that People started to eat meat. When the Millennial Kingdom of Christ starts after the Tribulation, everything will go back to vegetarian diet.

Until then, I'll enjoy meat while it is available (I love to fish).

Seafox14

Not eating meat kills thousands of people and animals die even more. That is if we stop eating meat.
Simply saying not eating meat is going to help save the animals is not true. I hear this from celebrities who hate to kill animals and eat them so they go veggie.

By not killing animals they hit us on the road and get over populated and cause disease and sickness in themselves and us. They come into our area looking for food more and more because there population grows and more humans die.

We are carnivores not vegitarians by nature so eating all veggies is not healthy for you.

A good question, locally pwned.

Re: "But my question is this: where do we draw the line between which animal is a pet and deserves protection, and which animal is food to be slaughtered without a second though? What are the inherent differences between the animals that are given their respective designations?"

I think it's truly a cultural thing. As other members have mentioned, different countries consider certain animals food and others either pets or sacred - and some consider all animals 'off limits'. (But suspect if I were on the verge of starving, even a rat would turn into a food source).

I consider myself lucky because I spent summers on a small farm and was taught at any early age that some of the animals were not 'pets' , yet even the animals slated for slaughter were to be treated well until killed - and when killed, where to be killed 'cleanly'. Somehow this makes it easier to accept that food comes from both gardens and animals.

None of this takes away from the fact that our society permits both horrible living conditions and horrible ways of killing our food. I have no answers to this other than speaking out and if given the option, only buying from 'family farmers' rather than the alternative. (Not always possible, I know).

We humans are very good at 'blanking out' our food sources when shopping - and perhaps it's a good thing as the alternative would be for all of us to raise our own food and do our own slaughtering, just as our ancestors did.

That's easy Mara -

Pass/fail question: "Does it taste like chicken?"








Just kidding.

I agree - it's mostly a cultural thing.

Some of us "heathens" (as my g/f is fond of calling me) still do. There is nothing as good as a freshly slaughtered steak or a home cured Ham (Brown Sugar or Smoked). My g/f cant get past the "wild" taste of many things that I cook like venison roast, deer burgers (very healthy low fat), or rabbit stew. When I was growing up we did it all from the raising, butchering, and cooking. We killed about 50% of the meat we ate in a year.

Why do I suspect chicken is your favourite meat?

I lived on cariboo for an entire winter (picking off bits of hair from my meal taught me a lot about skinning - grin) - and also learned from a dear old prospector that wild meat that has a pesky 'gamey' flavour (such as bear) can be vastly improved by soaking it over night in a milk and water solution and draining before cooking.

Feeling squeamish about certain meat sources truly does depend on both culture and necessity.

We've kept animals both as beasts of burden / companions and hunted them for food according to our purposes for thousands of years.
I think it's important for us to be good stewards of our resources, including animal populations, but when it comes down to it we are still predatory animals. Being squeamish about "meeting the cow" is a really recent development considering how long our species has been carnivorous.

Exactly. It seems to me that there is a big difference between a cow that's lived a life free to roam in a pasture and at the end of its life is killed humanely...and the industrialized method so much of our beef actually comes from.

The industrialization of meat production has some interesting side effects. Not only the obvious cruelty to the creatures and the environmental damage such an industry causes; but it actually induces us to eat more meat. Ironic, no? The idea is to maximize profit by producing the most amount of product with the smallest amount of area/resources. Well folks, we live in time when most of us are in a conscious effort to minimize the food we consume!

The point is, why not boycott mass-produced meat in favor of small farms? It's better for us, it's better for the cows, it's better for the small farmer. As was pointed out, we are not herbivores. But large amounts of meat in our diet is not a good thing either. So reduced production of beef eliminates the need for industrialized meat production while improving our diets. It's win-win!



Well, if you are referring to overpopulation of deer, I would argue that the root cause is the changes in the environment humans have caused. Reduced habitat, elimination of natural predators, ect causes deer population to spike. Humans who enjoy hunting use this as an excuse; however I would argue that renewal of ecosystems would be the best way to maintain stable populations of such creatures.



Yar! That's why I am trying to look at this from all angles. There's no way to simply say, "this is right and that is wrong." There is going to be compromise somewhere.



Did pre-carnivorous carnivores have canine teeth, claws, stereoscopic vision, ect, that we assosciate with meat eaters today? If so, how did they eat grass with canines?

By the way, I like to fish too. However, I have found that being outdoors, sitting in a boat, drinking beers all day...is a lot of fun even if no fish happen to be involved in the equation!

I have adopted this philosophy after reading a signature that I saw on another forum I visit.

"There is room for all God's creatures......... Right next to my mashed potatoes."

You know,

I really would worry if an animal were to look at us and ask,

"friends Or Food?"

Plants are living things until you yank them out of the ground and chop them up. I must admit they are easier to catch.

lmao

and you can eat most of them raw

"I really would worry if an animal were to look at us and ask,"

No no like this:

One animal looks to the other and says whats "Human" can I eat it? ha ha

mihangel Isnt Peta the group that goes around throwing oil on peoples fur and hates leather couches?

PETA are absolutely bat-(guano) insane.
Not only that, they're gigantic hypocrites. These guys claim animal rights to the point where they say animals have more of a right to live than humans do, yet they've euthanatized hundreds of animals at their own facilities.

If you want to make an argument against meat, don't reference PETA.

locally pwned Jun 3 2007, 04:39 PM



Simple answer as to why it will not work. Price, and small farms would not be able to keep up with demand. I do agree with you that fishing is fun even if no fish are caught. It's fun to hang out with friends. I just leave out the alcohol (nothing wrong with drinking. I just choose not to).

BTW: An animal having sharp teeth does not mean it was born to be a carnivore. It just means it has sharp teeth. Some vegetation requires sharp teeth in order to cut through it. Bears have sharp teeth and claws yet they can and do live on a vegetarian diet. Humans have sharp teeth but no claws (unless the finger nails are reinforced), and do just as well on a vegetarian diet as one that is omnivorous ( eats plants and meat).

Seafox14

...A long canine tooth (fang) is only really prominent in carnivores and is used pretty much exclusively for puncturing and tearing meat from living prey. They're not of much use to an herbivore. If you're eating only vegetation, you just need incisors to cut the food and molars to grind it.

1. True indeed; I was suggesting this as viable only if we cut back our overall intake of meat as we probably eat too much of it on average for a healthy diet. That would account for the reduced demand. But yeah, I know, it's very hypothetical...I'm daydreaming here.

2. Bears can and do live on vegetarian diets...but only when there are no meaty options. They certainly can't prepare for the winter on veggies alone! Humans can choose a vegetarian as well but aren't "naturally" driven to eat strictly plants as herbivores are. My point was that regardless of whether you believe animals species were created a specifiic way or whether speices adapted over time, individual animals seem to be highly specialized toward the type of foods they eat...and not just in a superficial sense, but from the "ground up." The particular concept you brought up has always seemed odd to me. Take the cheetah, for example. The cheetah has radical and extreme adaptations from head to toe...literally...all geared specifically toward running down fast prey. It seems rather strange to imagine such a creature could originally have been a grazing animal of some sort that was only converted into a meat-eater as a result of the introduction of sin.


----

Here's another question: does the intelligence of a given animal change our outlook on whether that animal should be protected? Do more intelligent species have the...right...to be protected? Can a "right" but assigned to a species of animal at all, strictly speaking? I think this is an issue that has only recently come into play as our knowledge and awareness of other species has increased. Examples: higher primates such as chimps and gorillas, porpoises and whales, ect.

And if so, again, where is the line drawn?

About the fish...

I've met people and heard some vegetarians will eat fish, but won't eat any other type of MEAT. Which I don't get, because fish is still meat. I had one vegetarian tell me it had something to do with the Bible, how the Christians did the fish sign in the sand, and what they ate... etc... :confused:

Personally I don't have any problem with any meat. I just see it as another way to eat. Food will still be food. Plus if you became a vegetarian you might be slightly bored (With the food), but becoming a vegan (I think would be worse). Not eating anything coming from animals. No milk, no honey, no cheese, very little left.

Please see cafe scene in Pulp Fiction. I think you will find the answers you seek.

Well,

except for what the whale did.

I love meat.....im off to eat a turkey sandwich. (Thats processed turkey!)

About the fish, Yano ... my Bible teachings have become a bit rusty through time but I believe it stemmed from the parable of Jesus and the story of the 'loaves and fishes' where thousands were fed from a couple loaves of bread and a few small fish.

One of our girls started working part-time while in senior high at one of the larger international stores that ' test nothing on animals' that sell perfumes, make-up and similar things. And part of her training involved cruelty to animals - which was lovely. But it did get perhaps a tad over-done as suddenly she wouldn't eat eggs, cheese or drink milk either. It took a visit to a farm to gently show her that a dairy cow would be in screaming agony if not milked and if the eggs aren't fertilized, they are not baby chickens waiting to be killed. She still won't eat 'meat' which is just fine with us, but thankfully gets her protein from cheese and eggs and beans.

Processed turkey, jwinathome - eep! Laughing because I have a really silly theory about food (and I know it's silly) - try not to eat 'processed' anything.

I think it was my grandfather who taught me this when I was a very small child - apparently Native Indians used to 'thank' their deer or other prey when killed for giving it's life to feed them. And as I child, I carried it one step farther - even thanked carrots when I pulled them from the ground and I still don't step on bugs if possible - after all, who's to say their family won't mourn them if they don't return home that night? Gentle smile.

So I use my "fangs" each day and eat meat (love the mental image that popped into my mind, arcman - but as you said, locally pwned eat less of it than I used to(partly because steak going on sale at $9.99 a pound is enough to make one weep).

Re: " Here's another question: does the intelligence of a given animal change our outlook on whether that animal should be protected? Do more intelligent species have the...right...to be protected? Can a "right" but assigned to a species of animal at all, strictly speaking? I think this is an issue that has only recently come into play as our knowledge and awareness of other species has increased. Examples: higher primates such as chimps and gorillas, porpoises and whales, ect."

I'll likely get 'whacked' for saying this but who's to say that a lovely calf with melting brown eyes isn't just as 'intelligent' or sensitive or capable of feeling love as the recognised "higher primates" - gentle smile. Many animals need to be protected simply because in our human 'greed' we've nearly killed their species off. But surely if my family were starving, I'd change my mind about that, as well. (Aah, life would be so much easier - at least for me - if there weren't so many 'gray' areas in it )

Cows are dumb (ever watched a bull ram and electric fence for an hour, high grade entertainment), so are sheep. Pigs are smart (they use tools).

Trust me cows are not smart as in common sense but they along with all animals smart in their own way. Like when they dont want to go one way they try not to or if they know they are going to get hurt they can run.

Yup, granted they may not be considered 'geniuses' but I had a friend in an old cranky cow called 'Bessie' ... who, for whatever reason, thought the best part of her day was licking my head. And when my brother was pounding the pooey out of me one day in the pasture, she not only butted him to the ground, she gave a valiant effect in hitting him with her horns.

I've seen 'nutty' bulls as well - and although I'd never really thought about it before, I wonder if the poor thing was sexually frustrated or perhaps simply retarded - or even more likely, unable to comprehend the pain was self-induced. Yup, would make him pretty dumb, I'm afraid

Agreed! I think it is far more realistic to look at animal intelligence in terms of degrees rather than a simple lable of "intelligent" or "non-intelligent." As for emotions and feelings, again, anyone who's owned or even been around an animal can detect at least basic emotions...happiness, fear, frustration, ect. These emotions might not be as complex as those we sometimes feel, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Again, it's a matter of degree of complexity rather than a simple "yes" or "no."

A dog can be happy, sad, frustrated, jealous, lonely, ect. These emotions are plainly seen in the dog's behavior; though they may be child-like and rudimentary, they are observable nonetheless.

Does a cow experience similar emotions? Why wouldn't it? If the emotions and intelligence of a bovine cannot be easily separated from those of other animals, can we continue to so easily separate cows from other species in terms of the cultural definition that has labeled them "what's for dinner?"




If self-destructive behavior suggests a lack of intelligence, humans would be pretty far down the "smart critter" list...

Animals that eat plants have flat teeth, animals that eat meat have pointed teeth only, and those that eat both have flat teeth and pointed teeth. When you brush you will see a little of flat and a little of pointed. I would never tell any body what to eat or what they should put on there computer. In the old days a vegetarian was called a poor hunter.

VEGETARIAN
Hands/hooves as
Appendages.
Teeth Flat.
Long intestines to
Fully digest nutrients in food.
Sweats to cool down.
Inoffensive excrement.

FLESHEATER
Claws as appendages.
Teeth sharp.
Short intestines, to allow rapid excretion.
Pants to cool down.
Putrid excrement.

HUMAN
Hands as appendages.
Teeth flat.
Long intestines to fully digest plant foods. Flesh foods cause constipation.
Sweats to cool down.
Offensiveness depends on diet.


It's interesting to note that some primates such as gorillas and baboons
have the largest of canines and are of course vegetarians.

And before i forget, It's been calculated that one acre of land planted with soya beans
can produce 584Ibs of edible protein every year.If that same acre is given over to beef
production then it drops to a poultry(No pun intended) 58Ibs.

Livestock grazing is the worlds number one cause of soil degradation.
They are major depleters of water resources.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PuNdIFpHXk

Yeah, but,

how paltry would it be if it was given over to poultry?

Yes, but soy protein lacks some of the amino acids one finds in meat. This is really the point to being omnivorous, to ingest the full profile of essential and non-essential amino acids, as well as the vitamins and fiber provided by vegetables.

Better living through chemistry I guess. Eat some beef and get the creatine and essential amino acids one needs, or take a supplement.

While not the largest part of their diet, I think baboons do actually eat meat.

"Baboons are opportunistic omnivores and selective feeders. Grass makes up a large part of their diet, along with berries, seeds, pods, blossoms, leaves, roots, bark and sap from a variety of plants. Baboons also eat insects and small quantities of meat, such as fish, shellfish, hares, birds, vervet monkeys, and small antelopes".

(Source: African Wildlife Foundation http://www.awf.org/content/wildlife/detail/baboon).

But yes, free range grazing with overpopulation of animals can cause devestation of crops, etc. Do wonder though if it's not the 'business farmers' (and I gimace when I say 'farmers' in this context because whether it's massive pig 'farms' or other, when animals are born, live and die indoors only - well, ugh) that cause most of the problems. In 'normal' well managed farms, cattle are raised for profit but also they produce the natural fertilizer that help crops and gardens grow. (Our ancestors managed their farms wonderfully compared to what we seem capable of now - and best of all, no horrible man-made pesticides to worry about back then).

I could live on soy beans and perhaps one day with the population explosion happening world-wide we all may have to. But I'd surely miss meat.

I personally would not eat Soy Bean products,if I was starving to death,as it is been said to cause some types of Cancer.
After reading Soy Bean Growers saturate the Soy Bean Plants with the Hazardous Monsanto weed Killer "Roundup" and then we eat the Soy Products,spells danger to me regarding my health.Google Soy Beans- Cancer and you may think twice.
Soy Beans has produced Cancer in Laboratory Tests on Rats.

http://www.artsandopinion.com/2004_v3_n3/fallon.htm

I think the secret to good health is to have a balanced Diet including Meat.

EDIT. And exercise of course,I didn't mention,earlier.They go hand in hand.IMO.

As with many food items these days, we have the option of buying Organic Soy products (instead of Genetically Modified ones).

If you Google Beef-Cancer or Chicken-Cancer, you will see that they too have been reported to have caused some types of cancer.
I agree DSTM, a well balanced diet is the secret and everything in moderation whether you eat meat or not.

Whats a "well balanced diet", is it a new fad diet from America that all the celebs are trying?

Ive tried:

Atkins Diet
High Fibre Diet
High Protein Diet
Low Fat Diet
Weight Watchers Diet
Beer Diet

But ive never come across the well balanced diet. Going to have to see if my local bookshop has anything about this stupid new one. Do you have to eat standing on one leg???

PS

Just for anyone that thinks this is a serious post DONT, its meant to be a little bit of fun.

We would have to have like 10 times more people on the planet than today for anyone to even think of that.We hardly use any of our land the way we should and most is not used. So if we farmed well and used a bit more land with responsibility we could easily have 20 billion people on this planet.

I think 20 billion would be too many people though.

I think that's a 16oz pizza in one hand and a bottle of beer in the other.

Gorillas and baboons are both omnivorous, as are most primates (including us).
The comparison between the long and short gut is somewhat accurate, most of us have a longer intestine better suited for vegetation, we aren't suited for a meat-only diet (not that the ingestion of any meat causes constipation when fiber has also been ingested, of course). That can be adapted, however. Eskimos that survived primarily on a meat diet evolved a shorter gut so they would be better suited as meat eaters.

This is natural selection in action. Not evolution. Natural Selection is observable and repeatable in experiments. Evolution is neither observable nor repeatable in experiments, and therefor not proven.


Seafox14

No offense, but that's ridiculous.
Natural selection is a term used to express an evolutionary process. You don't get to distinguish one from the other because it doesn't suit you. Evolution is completely observable. Look at bacteria reproducing in a petri dish at hundreds of generations an hour. Look at one of our recent health crises, bacteria that have evolved to be resistant to antibiotics, this is direct evidence of evolution.
And before anyone makes the micro/macroevolution distinction, it should be noted that scientists don't make distinctions between these processes. Macroevolution is a collection of microevolutions, they work the same way. Evolution is evolution. Both are equally provable, and there is plenty of evidence for common ancestry.

I'm not sure why you wanted to pick this fight in this thread, but I think it would be best to drop it, or at least move it to another thread (I believe we have many evolution/creation debate threads already). At best your post is off topic, at worst you are spreading ignorance and misinformation.

I think that Darwin's book ' 'Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection'' is where the concept of 'natural selection' originates from? And he also taught that every living creature/thing in our world evolved originally from dust, rocks, water, etc and that his original theory of 'natural selections' is still a mainstay of 'evolutionary theory'. With respect, it sort of seems 'one in the same'.

Laughed at '16oz pizza in one hand and a bottle of beer in the other', Wildabeast! With all the latest fads re diets and thinking of some of the 'healthful eating plans' that existed for our ancestors to abide by, it's a marvel of the human species that we survive!

Have always wondered about something regarding 'meat/cancer', other than the fact that through the years medical experts keep changing their minds. I wonder if we ate meat/chicken/fish the way it was once consumed - with no trace pesticides, not antibiotics or other stuff pumped into our food sources, would the blame on cancer causing 'meat' change once again. Hmmm.

I completely agree with you 'arcman' So many times I have started what I thought was an interesting Topic that most of our Members can relate to,only to have the Thread Hi-Jacked by someone wanting to involve Religion.I get frustrated at these Persons, and wish they would keep their Fanaticism to appropriate Topics.I have complained to Moderators and they say they are not breaking Forum Rules by running off the rails like they do.Not all Members appreciate being bombarded with the Gospel,when discussing something totally different.I hope these members get the message.It is spoiling the BC experience for me anyway.I don't know how most other Members feel about this,but I felt it should be said.

I know this may seem off topic, but howcome there is a emoticon but there isn't an "on topic" one?

Just wondering.

Meanwhile -

how "friendly" an animal is probably shouldn't be considered when determining whether it could be a food item or not.


It's a societal issue - one's man's meat is another man's beast of burden for example.

There are enough animals in the world that eat other animals to show that it is a natural thing for some to do. In the oceans, the food chain is mostly eat or be eaten, which shows that this isn't a land animal concept, either.

If it's meat, I'll try it including so called domesticated pets. The only difference between a cow and a dog is that a dog makes a good pet. I have personally never eaten dog or most other exotic animals, but if I was in another country where it was accepted (not USA), I would probably try it. So animals can be both pets and food, there's little distinction. But I don't feel comfortable eating an animal that has already been domesticated and made a pet. It would be easier to eat wolf meat than dog because wolves generally aren't pets. If dogs were bread like pigs to be eaten, then I dont consider that a big deal, just a little above the norm. To each his own, but I dont agree with eating Fluffy because you ran out of steak one night .

Tonight's speciality -

Fluffy Soufflé !

I would not eat a dog unless starving and if it was a pet it would be sooo hard to do.

Ten out of ten for pedantry





Protein is the nutrient that seems to be of greatest concern to most new vegetarians. Although plant foods contain less of the essential amino acids than do similar quantities of animal food, a plant-based diet provides adequate amounts of amino acids when a varied diet is consumed on a daily basis.

Protein is a nutrient that provides the framework for all living cells. It is made up of building blocks called amino acids which are necessary for building, maintaining and repairing of body tissues.

About half of the known amino acids can be synthesized in the human body. The nine amino acids that cannot be synthesized must be provided by the foods eaten, and these are called essential amino acids. During digestion proteins are broken down and the resulting amino acids are stored in a common amino acid pool. The body draws on this pool 24 hours a day to get the amino acids it needs to make new protein for growth and repair of body tissue. In order to make any new protein, all the necessary amino acids must be present at the same time in the pool.

Thus, it follows that intakes of different types of protein which complement one another should be eaten over the course of the day. However, it is not necessary that all of the amino acids be eaten at exactly the same meal as the recently popular "combined proteins theory" suggested. This theory urged conscious combining of proteins at every meal.

A protein which contains all the essential amino acids in proper proportions is called a complete protein. Foods from animal sources, except gelatin, contain complete proteins. Most plant foods contain incomplete protein because they are short one or more of the essential amino acids. By combining plant foods that have complementary essential amino acid mixtures, incomplete plant proteins form complete proteins that supply all of the essential amino acids found in animal products.

Proteins from the same plant family, such as grains, are generally low in the same amino acids. Proteins from another plant family, such as legumes, are low in different amino acids. If proteins from these two plant families are eaten together, one plant protein provides the amino acids that are low in the other plant protein. Since each protein makes up for the other's shortcomings, they can be said to be "complementary" to each other, and so they are known as complementary proteins. For example, beans and rice, when eaten together, result in a good balance of amino acids.

Some foods which may be combined to provide a good balance of amino acids are:

* cereal + milk as breakfast cereal and milk
* pasta + cheese as macaroni and cheese
* rice + milk as rice pudding
* wheat + peanuts as peanut butter sandwich
* beans + wheat as baked beans and brown bread
* peas + rye as split pea soup and rye bread
* beans + corn as refried beans and tortillas
* soybeans + seeds/nuts as trail mix

All the evidence is there that we don't need meat, it's eaten for flavour and texture.

I must admit though, the first couple of times i failed as a vegetarian was when my wife
was frying bacon, our habits are well ingrained and not easy to cast off. Since the avalability
of vege strips it hasn't been a problem.