Childhood indoctrination

[KichigaiNeko]

He also says that two thirds of cattle in Australia are fed solely on pasture, but then cites this link: http://www.mla.com.au/Prices-and-markets...Lotfeeding which actually says that feedlot utilisation is at 67%! So the link tells us the exact opposite of what he said.

Ummm two thirds= 66%

I guess he doesn't expect people to check his sources? Speaking of which, the sources he provides seem to be opinion pieces posted by his mates, as well as a biased study done by PG Williams, who seems to examine meat composition only according to nutrients that meat is high in (eg protein). He fails to take into account the basic fact that proteins denature when heated to high temperatures (based on high school biology), and in fact tries to claim that cooked meat has a higher protein content because the water content has decreased. This is as silly as suggesting that pouring a cup of water on a steak will reduce its protein content. Why do all these articles use protein content as the baseline? This is another bias, since protein is in no way a limiting nutrient. If we want to be unbiased, we should use total calories, as this is the standard against which other nutrients are measured. We can then talk about protein and vitamins as a percentage of total calories, as is the standard.

All food "denatures" if left to storage and transport, losing vital nutrients.

And yes, the article you posted makes the ridiculous claim that we would need "more" land degradation to cater to vegans, even though we could just use the land in high rainfall areas currently being squandered on prime beef and dairy production.

I did point out to you that here in Oz the majority of our arable land in high rainfall zones is paved an houses our population.

I will come back and respond to some of your other claims soon, but in the meantime here is an independent review into different stunning methods, and it can be seen that none of them give consistently reliable stuns, hence the "quick clean kill" idea of yours is mostly fantasy unless you can ensure it yourself: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/45.pdf Page 9 shows that even the best case scenario (captive bolt stunning) has a 4% failure rate. The other methods (CO2, electrical) are even worse.

Only 4%? That's pretty good really. I am also to assume that you don't hunt and live in an urban area? Just asking.