how do we get more people to eat veal, Veeky Forums? I've been experimenting at home with ways to produce the tenderest veal and so far my best contraption limits their movement to an absolute bare minimum. They shouldn't even be able to walk at any point if you do it right. Keeping the veal meatbag next to its mom's pen is a good way to get it to want to live longer I've found. Otherwise they get depressed and as far as I can see they have some sort of existential crisis and give up on life at which point they start starving themselves and you have to force feed them milk. The mother cows tend to try and kick at the cage to break it open so I've found a solid 1 inch stainless steel box with a trap door to clear it with vents on the bottom and holes for the tubes to be the best method. Some people blind them after birth but I think that's unnecessary as it makes them much more prone to be startled by noises due to their heightened hearing. (I've found dog whistles, airhorns, fireworks, gunfire, and drums to be the most starting noises in a natural environment)
You don't want to scramble their brains because they'll stop eating as much and that won't produce the right marbling and tenderness.
If anyone has any questions feel free to leave them below.
How do we get more people to eat veal, Veeky Forums...
Other urls found in this thread:
dailymail.co.uk
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
It's a shame in the UK we can no longer get properly reared pale
Dutch veal. All we get is rose veal and you may as well just get beef.
I miss those heart-melting alabaster osso buccos i used to make.
I would not be that morally opposed to eating veil, and I have done so, but this thread made me sad and I probably won't do it again now
Spicy bait m8
Is this PETA doing some sort of reverse psychology sort of thing?
I love and hate animals at the same time and I approve of this practice.
Maybe. But I think it's reasonable to expect that it probably isn't too far off track from what goes through the minds of people who produce veal at the same time.
My personal philosophy is to not endorse/encourage practices I am not comfortable with by spending money on the products they make. But it's not as convenient as the majority's opinion that if you just look the other way you can let someone else do the dirty work and ignore the ramifications of big agra as you sip your corn syrup and munch your (corn-based) "food" product.
I ate veal once and once only to know how it was. Enjoyable; not worth the cruelty.
>eating veil
Do you eat hijabs and burqas? What's the best cut of veil? Is it the eyecover?
I can relate.
I can't really bring myself to give a fuck about animal welfare, be it pets or cattle.
The only reason veal became so popular in europe was because they didn't have the land to expand their herds and had to slaughter a goodly portion of the young generation. In 'murrica, it never really caught on because cattle farmers had enough land to continue multiplying their herd and it would be silly to slaughter a 200 lb animal as opposed to an 1100 lb one. Secondly, the flavor of full grown beef is much richer than veal. When 'murricans eat beef, we want to taste it, not veal which bares more similarity to a farm raised flavorless rabbit.
Who cares? Veal tastes good. Cows are for eating, and occasionally for hot barnyard sex.
dailymail.co.uk
>haha, I don't care about animal welfare, they're delicious
Get the cow drunk. Im not talking about fancy beer like kobe beef. Get that fucker smashed on cheap grain alcohol
Veal is the leftovers from dairy production. More milk = more veal.
But then these faggots would complain that feeding them cheap grain alcohol would be just as cruel as not giving them anything at all. There is no point in trying to reason with them because you will never propose an argument that they will ever acknowledge anyway.
Fuck what peta thinks. It was an idea to help relax the cow.
That is because there is no acceptable answer except to stop torturing animals. You can spin it like we're being unreasonable, but just look at you jumping through hoops in you last post knowing what you're saying is wrong and preemptively defending it against strawman arguments.
Ossobuco
Would it be possible to engineer or a induce a birth defect that would produce a braindead calf? If it comes out of the mother a vegtable, you're not really doing anything cruel to it, there's nothing there to suffer.
Ditto for ducks and fois gras.
rose veal tastes better anyway
Why can't trolls properly structure posts? It's so frustrating.
Fuck. You?
that looks super cozy op
Why are you such a. Faggot?
>veal production
>cozy
Am I on r/cooking?
My problem is just that I'm a scrub who doesnt know how to cook veal properly but damn. that post is why.
Veal marsala
Man, calves have it so nice. Just sitting there doing nothing in a box. It must be pretty awesome to enjoy the NEET life at its maximum.
This. Veganfags pretend like it's cruel but they get to eat for free and don't have to do shit all day.
Yeah. can't make Vienna schnitzel here without paying a load of money for the meat.
same problem with lamb. People are really pork-and chicken focused here.
>how do we get more people to eat veal, Veeky Forums?
Lower the price and increase the distribution. I ate veal a couple times a month when I could get it for $4/lb.
>mother cows
There's a word for that.
Cowmother*. Sorry for the grammatical error.
>Lower the price and increase the distribution.
This.
They need to think of a way to make a wall out of veal crates like they do chickens to maximize efficiency thus lowering the costs.
I eat veal 4-6 times a week (I'm Italian-French) but I would eat it every day if I could.
Veal are easier to rear, you just feed them and spray our their crate every week or so
Veal is not worthy of any culinary interest.
awww they even wrote handle with care
godspeed little cow, cant wait to meet you at my table
But veal is bland. I for myself prefer lamb.
t. tastelet
It's the chemicals in the veal's brain that are released from stress (the torture of confinement) that basically gets you high as fuck on natural hormones. And it tastes fucking amazing, especially with a nice roumartej sauce or a ghouratti reduction over a bed of bow-tie pasta.
t. picky eating autist with zero taste buds.
Somebody is pushing something very hard.
Let's watch him.
>t. picky eating autist with zero taste buds.
because baby sheep is for autistic people and baby cow is for whisky swilling supermenschen?
you need to use more tubes and restraints to prevent it from moving at all. you can probably just remove the lower jaw and install a hard line to the esophagaus and set a perfect feed rate that will achieve maximum growth.
not worth the expense.
Yes, your words not mine but I agree with you. Only toddlers with video-game sensibilities eat lamb, it's the autistic choice of the meat selection.
Nothing screams "I don't know what I'm ordering but it sounds EXOTIC" like ordering lamb.
If you prefer an "Essex lamb bun" to a nice healthy delicious portion of Veal Parmigana you deserve a bullet to the head and a kick to the groin.
So the endless suffering of others isn't worth a few measily thousands of dollars? You're a cunt and you're the reason people go vegan.
That's a good idea in theory but they already have 6 tubes entering its body, a 7th just seems like overkill.
A good method of hobbling them is to do a non-invasive, quick procedure where one person holds them down and the other pulls or hits their joints until they tear or break. A lot of people don't like this but it stops them from walking.
'of others'.
you made the wrong choice of words there.
'others' refers to 'other humans'. not animals.
it's a fucking animal. it's not a pet. it's food. food doesn't have feelings. and if it did, it shouldn't, and that's its own fault.
fuck you and your pansy ass faggot affections for food. no, it's not worth thousands of dollars. or even one dollar. i don't give a fuck how food feels.
>A good method of hobbling them is to do a non-invasive, quick procedure where one person holds them down and the other pulls or hits their joints until they tear or break.
this can probably be automated to save on labor.
Name the trait absent in animals that, if absent in humans, would justify human murder.
the fact that they are animals and we are not.
it's that simple.
sapience as well, but that's not even needed.
furthermore, justification is only required when dealing with another moral being that understands the concept of justice. animals do no philosophize, thus there is no justification needed to do anything to an animal.
Didn't you see those experiences showing a sense of injustice in some animals?
no.
you're anthropomorphizing.
If a race of super smart aliens wanted to farm and eat humans I would accept it
>If a race of super smart aliens wanted to farm and eat humans I wouldn't be able to do anything about it
Vae victis
So what you are saying is that people who don't understand justice can be rightfully murdered? Also, check your facts because humans are animals. We are hominidae from the animal kingdom.
if you say a human is an animal, you might as well say a human is a rock, since we contain minerals. i don't know why you included the sentence "we are hominidae from the animal kingdom" because it doesn't add support to your argument.
people that don't understand justice can only really be identified by them committing acts of murder, rape, theft, etc. yes, they can be murdered or harmed when they prove that they don't acknowledge moral laws.
however, that doesn't change the fact that they are still humans, and not animals; and they are sapient. so we deal with them differently than we do with animals because they are different than animals.
We the top of the fuckin food chain you dumbfuck faggots.
Only fucking pussy ass white bitches worry about eating meat.
We the alpha carnvores for a reason, and you white faggots want to be sheep instead.
LOL fucking hard.
herbivores are all liberals, and have widely spaced eyes.
Whatever you say, we are animals, that's a fact. A dog is an animal, humans are animals, birds are animals. I added that humans are hominidae because that's how it is in taxonomy. Humans belong to the animal kingdom.
In the later part you moved the goalposts yet again, the animals you murder have done nothing wrong, they don't deserve to be murdered. Just like a person who doesn't conseptualize justice or morals. We don't judge people from their thoughts but their actions.
>the animals you murder have done nothing wrong, they don't deserve to be murdered.
holy shit, I swear white people are born with brain damage.
you bitches are hilarious.
we are not animals. we are humans. there is a difference. a significant one.
also, you can't use the term 'murder' on an animal. murder is a legal term with a precise legal definition, that is the unlawful killing of another person. killing an animal has never been 'murder'.
and again, animals do not require justification to be killed. it's enough that you desire to kill them. they don't 'deserve' anything at all. we are free to do as we wish with them.
>if you say a human is an animal, you might as well say a human is a rock, since we contain minerals.
lol what
if humans are animals because we came from animals and are physically similar to animals, then it follows that since animals came from inert matter, we are also inert matter. and, also - if we are animals, then we are not moral beings and nothing is right or wrong, and killing animals however we please is not wrong, because nothing is wrong.
Edgiest thread I've seen on Veeky Forums in a while, 7/10
#woke
#starchild
#size16isthenewsize0
>Not killing the calf right after birth and saving the sweet first milk for yourself
no it doesn't follow, holy shit dude, don't even try to pretend there is a valid line of logic in there.
yes, it absolutely does. humans are beings with reason. animals are not. morality is a product of our capacity to reason. if you deny that we are absolutely different from animals, you deny reason and morality, which are themselves that difference. if we are the same as animals, then reason and morality are illusions, and can not be used to condemn the killing of animals, or anything at all. if we are not the same as animals, then it is, nominally, because of reason and morality, although there are other reasons. and because animals are not reasonable or moral, we possess no moral duty to them, and killing them is neither legally nor logically murder.
if the difference between humans and animals does not exist, then, no differences at all exist, because 'differences' are an abstraction invented by reason in order to rationally comprehend the universe.
in no case is killing animals wrong.
this logic is absolutely irrefutable and you have not even the shakiest of grounds to stand on.
nigger the logic that we are not animals because rocks are not animals is very, very refutable
This thread is just trolls baiting trolls so here's a picture of the veal parm I ate at Trattoria in NYC
More threads like these please. People have become too isolated from their food. Once they relearn to equate all those plastic wrapped neat and tidy pieces of deliciousness with the animals that were raised to create them, people will stop being such pansies when it comes towards food.
What is your definition of animal welfare? A lot of farm animals are more pampered than any idyllic pastoral existence devoid of human interference would provide. Hell, favelas are worse than feed lots, and those aren't the worst of the human condition.
fuck that looks so good
i did not make that state. you are falsifying what i have said. that statement is completely unobtainable from anything that i have said, and here i have to conclude that you are either arguing in bad faith - meaning you know what you said is wrong, but finding nothing right to say you preferred to be wrong than to be silent, or, else, you are simply unable to comprehend simple ideas and logic and thus are unfit for this discussion.
we are not animals because of qualities and attributes that we possess which no animal possess, which make it so that to call us animals would fail to make an appropriate distinction. humans are one thing, animals are another thing. we are both life, perhaps, is what you wish to say, but then, so is broccoli, and i assume you eat plants. following your logic, what right do you have to murder a broccoli? after all, we're both life, and life arose from inanimate matter, so do we REALLY have a right to differentiate between a rock and a broccoli? that is the absurdity to which you would fall if you continued on the same path that will allow you to fail to distinguish between man and beast.
your entire mentality and perspective relies on the destruction of distinctions, and then abnegation of real knowledge about things. you are practicing an untenable and hyperemotional conflation.
the definition of animals does not exclude humans on the basis of their ability to reason. there are many animals with unique abilities, they are not excluded on that basis either. is this really so hard to understand?
what you're wrong about is that the definition of human includes animals. it doesn't. humans and animals are both life, but that's not relevant.
neither is other animals 'unique abilities'. reason is not a 'unique ability', it's something that changes what you are defined as from animal to human. humans 'unique ability', as you so foolishly would attempt to call it, is uniquely unique. surely you don't think that being able to climb trees or dig underground gives anything some sort of moral standing.
you are wrong. traitorously so. if you're an animal, perhaps i should kill and eat YOU?
>what you're wrong about is that the definition of human includes animals.
what the FUCK are you talking about
you are attempting to conflate animals with humans. animals are not humans. animals are not humans and that is why you are wrong. the fact that humans possess many attributes that animals also possess does not mean that specifically human attributes are possessed by animals.
this is why you are wrong.
Animals are not humans, but humans are animals.
...are you really failing to understand the most basic, intuitive principles of taxonomy?
taxonomy is an arbitrary scheme of organizing living creatures. it's not particularly important to the question of, 'is it ok to kill and eat animals'.
you're repeating what i said and asking why i don't understand it, which is dishonest and dirty. you must be hoping that someone doesn't read the full conversation and just assume that what you said is true, which is a sad goal to have.
but thank you for the round-about concession that animals aren't human (and thus don't deserve human rights, as would follow), even if you had to try and turn it around on me by... trying to reverse our positions, i guess? i don't know what you're trying to accomplish, but then again, i don't know how you could have thought that there are no traits absent in animals that if absent in humans would justify human 'murder'.
(note that this is a confusion of terms, since murder is by definition unjustified killing)
Nigger I don't care about all this ethics bollocks, you just keep saying humans are not animals, which is a supremely weak way of starting an argument seeing as it's not even fucking true
humans obviously fucking aren't animals. if humans are animals just because we came from them, then animals are rocks because life came from inanimate matter, and by extension humans = rocks. you see the absurdity of saying 'humans = animals', now, i hope. even though you should have known that, since animals don't reason or moralize, by definition, and since humans DO reason and moralize, by definition, we are not animals.
Stop with this rock stuff man you sound like a fucking late 2000s creationist. we are overwhelmingly related to animals both in shared characteristics and heritage, and the degree of that relation is sufficient for us to be classed as animals. whoch is why we are classed as animals. Maybe one day our ancestors will be so different from us that the degree of similarity between us and them will be magnitudinally commensurate as between them and rocks, and I'll be sure to give you a ring when that happens.
Evangelical education, everybody!
If taxonomy could go into inanimate objects it could relate humans to rocks, but science hasn't completely figured that out, yet.
Ignore the super IQ athiests. They either know how taxonomy works, also relating people to single celled organisms and are just trolling you, or they are too stupid acknowledge that most people with any modicum of a philosophical understanding of the world recognize a distinction between people and animals when it comes down to ultimate consideration.
you can make a taxonomy that relates humans to rocks. we're just talking about biological taxonomy. are you a retard?
so this is the intellectual power of atheism
Not who you posted to, but I'm willing to accept that. I'm still going to eat meat but I know where it stands morally.
How about not defining torture so obscurely and not conceding to viewpoints that animals should have all the same basic rights as humans?
Humans: spawned from a canal in between a piss and shithole.
Mammals: spawned from a canal in between a piss and shithole.
Yes, you evangelical filth, you are an animal.
no. humans are not animals. it's funny that you'd call someone 'filth' for imagining that you are worth more than a cow, but, if you insist, i'll kill you and eat you. because you're just an animal, right?
At no point is anything featured in this image not an animal. In saying that a human is not an animal, you are basically attempting to argue that a house or restaurant is not a building. One is a subset of the other.
The last time I ate veal, I was 14 years old. I did it intentionally to be edgy. I felt guilty afterwards realizing the pure foulness of it, and swore off of it forever hence.