Carnivores, How Do You Choose Which Meat You Eat?

Hey carnivores, this is a thread primarily about meat, but also restaurants, home cooking and favourite meals.

WARNING: Vegetarians, vegans and any other influences that cause you to abstain from eating meat, content in this thread will probably be triggering or offensive, so best not to read any further.

Discussion points: Pick one or as many topics as tickles your fancy to discuss and ask any questions you may have that other OzBer's may answer or give your own opinions or advice for forum members to engage with and discuss, agree/disagree with or use to publicly mock and humiliate you as seems to be how these things usually go.

1: From where do you usually buy your meat? Supermarket, butcher, farm?
2: What influences how you make those choices; price, quality, variety?
3: Grass fed or Grain fed?
4: are you influenced by grading systems such as tenderness or marbling? MSA meat standards for example? Fat marbling standards?
5: How do you feel about Angus Beef?
6: How about Wyagu, what's your take on that?
7: How often do you eat meat?
8: Favourite meat? Beef, lamb, pork, chicken? What cuts?
9: Favourite meal that contains meat?
10: Favourite cut of meat?
11: any special hamburger patty recipe?
12: How about sausages?
13: When dining out at somewhere "posh", are you more likely to order something you know you should like (so you don't waste money on something you don't like) or do you take risks and are an adventurous diner willing to try new things?
14: What is your favourite home cooked meal?
15: What is the most memorable meal you have ever eaten and why?
16: What is the best restaurant meal you have ever eaten, where was it and why was it so good?
17: Do you have a favourite restaurant that you tend to frequently patronise or do you roll the dice, mix it up and consistently try new restaurants?
18: What influences how you choose a restaurant? Online ratings? Word of Mouth recommendations? Other?
19: Did you get caught up in the whole celebrity chef and cooking show hype?
20: Do you like cooking at home?
21: How often do you get creative in the kitchen and what's your specialty/preference?
22: Are your meat purchases influenced by where/how it is sourced? Ie: anywhere in Australia? Prefer a specific state or only buy locally sourced?
23: How about game? Had any? Like it?
24: Do you have an opinion about the ethics of killing animals for food and how they are processed for eating?
25: The slaughter of live animals is really quite barbaric when you think about it - if we did the same to humans, we'd be considered reprehensible criminals liable for lengthy prison sentences and social ostracisation and condemnation. Then imagine if we not only killed and broke down the humans into bite size pieces, but proceeded to cook and eat them, in public and feed them to your family. Ever think about that when you're enjoying your meat?
26: How about seafood? Catching, killing, skinning, gutting, otherwise preparing seafood for human consumption? Good with that?
27: How do you feel about Australian farmers exporting live animals and pre packaged/dressed meat to other countries?
28: Do you believe that the export of meat adversely affects the prices the Australian consumer pays (ie export creates scarcity which drives up the price we pay locally)?
29: and/or is meat export a vehicle to make the production of meat a sustainable endeavour for Australian farmers that makes it viable for Australian farmers to stay in business and provide meat for local consumption? Ie: local demand isn't enough to make the production of meat a viable proposition or financially sustainable for Australian farmers?
30: Talk about anything relevant you choose that I may not have included.

  • Hard hat on *

Comments

  • +23

    I usually pick the cutest animal, and go from there

    • +10

      lisaaaaa why did u have to eat meeeeeee

      • +4

        When I grow up, I'm going to Bovine University!

        • -1

          OP, WTF this now?

    • Had a calf called T-bone and a lamb called Cassie (short for casserole), they were tasty but I can't help but think of the Easter bunny when presented with rabbit or Bambi when eating deer. Makes me gag a bit - can't eat those but do like some other game (wild boar and duck).

    • This is your classic Bambi v Godzilla dilemma.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bambi_Meets_Godzilla_1969…

      (No animals were… oh, who are we kidding).

    • +2

      My brother-in-law treated us to a leg of lamb roast with all of the trimmings which was fantastic.

      He has more legs for later as he didn't have the heart to kill his pet grass muncher.

    • -1

      you can not discount pain.

      the more suffering the beast goes through during the killing process the more flavour.

  • +25

    JFC, what is the point of this?

    • +9

      Probably trying to troll vegans based on the fact they included a disclaimer

      • -5

        No, nothing against vegetarians, just pre empting the inevitable "meat is bad, eating animals is barbaric" rhetoric.

        • +10

          Why would you assume such rhetoric? Unless you are spoiling for a culture war. Your assumption that vegetarians and vegans can't even stand to hear meat eating discussed kind of says it all.

            • +5

              @Muppet Detector: I'm not in the least bit offended and eat all kinds of meat. But you seem to really want offence to be taken. But your advice about moving on is good, I'll take that on.

        • Vegetarian here.

          That line is more annoying than anything you're talking about lol. I understand why you felt the need to put it in, given there are so many vegans/vegetarians who are complete knobs about the subject - they're the problem.

          I genuinely don't get it, I have no issue with you or anyone else eating meat. It's something humans have done forever and unless it becomes a financial and / or supply related issue people are going to continue to eat meat.

          On the health side. There are some additional dietary considerations when you completely omit meat from your diet - more so when you omit everything / vegan.

          I'd assume that majority of vegetarians and vegans, particularly in the early stages of converting are probably eating like shit and throwing some satiating meat into the mix would probably result in a better diet all round. (this is coming from someone who literally doesn't know what meat tastes like it's been that long, so I might be completely wrong lol).

    • +4

      I like meat. I figured other people do as well.

  • +25

    30 questions. WTF.

    • +1

      You don't have to answer all of them (or any of them), I was just thinking of as many discussion points as I could to stimulate discussion.

    • +15

      What’s the reward for completing the survey?

      • +18

        Meat tray
        .

      • +3

        What’s the reward for completing the survey?

        Certification of one’s self diagnosed OCD.

  • +4

    R U OK?

  • +1

    You missed a conversation about Dry aged steak

    • Crap! Ive never come across it much, have you got anything to contribute for information or discussion?

      • +1

        I’d take it over any of the steak options you have above. I don’t eat steak out that much but I’ll try and find a place that sells dry aged steak when I’m going out for steaks

  • +5

    Is this a homework question? Feels weird.

    • Sure, let's go with that, I'm concerned about the methane production of cows, what gave it away?

      • No mention of Bovaer®10?

        • We had enough NIMBYs in the last few posts about that, don't bring them back

  • +4

    1: From where do you usually buy your meat? butcher
    2: What influences how you make those choices; quality
    3: Grass fed
    4: are you influenced by grading systems such as tenderness or marbling? MSA meat standards for example? Fat marbling standards? No
    5: How do you feel about Angus Beef? Meh
    6: How about Wyagu, what's your take on that? Meh
    7: How often do you eat meat? daily
    8: Favourite meat? Beef & chicken? What cuts? Fillet beef, Chicken breast
    9: Favourite meal that contains meat? Grilled steak with roast veg
    10: Favourite cut of meat? See Q8B
    11: any special hamburger patty recipe? Nah
    12: How about sausages? Lean beef
    13: When dining out at somewhere "posh", are you more likely to order something you know you should like (so you don't waste money on something you don't like) or do you take risks and are an adventurous diner willing to try new things? bit of both.
    14: What is your favourite home cooked meal? See Q9
    15: What is the most memorable meal you have ever eaten and why? Roast Venison peasant style - rolled and stuffed shoulder roast with a port wine sauce
    16: What is the best restaurant meal you have ever eaten, where was it and why was it so good? See Q15, Barossa Valley, accompanied by a 1966 Barossa Cabernet - last bottle in the cellar.
    17: Do you have a favourite restaurant that you tend to frequently patronise or do you roll the dice, mix it up and consistently try new restaurants? Bit of both, depending on the occasion.
    18: What influences how you choose a restaurant? Online ratings? Word of Mouth recommendations? Other? Word of Mouth
    19: Did you get caught up in the whole celebrity chef and cooking show hype? Nah
    20: Do you like cooking at home? sometimes
    21: How often do you get creative in the kitchen and what's your specialty/preference? BBQing or pan frying
    22: Are your meat purchases influenced by where/how it is sourced? Ie: anywhere in Australia? Prefer a specific state or only buy locally sourced? locally sourced
    23: How about game? Had any? Like it? Venison, pheasant, quail, roo, wallaby, crocodile, camel, rabbit. Enjoy the variety.
    24: Do you have an opinion about the ethics of killing animals for food and how they are processed for eating? We're omnivores, so I understand animals are killed.
    25: The slaughter of live animals is really quite barbaric when you think about it - if we did the same to humans, we'd be considered reprehensible criminals liable for lengthy prison sentences and social ostracisation and condemnation. Then imagine if we not only killed and broke down the humans into bite size pieces, but proceeded to cook and eat them, in public and feed them to your family. Ever think about that when you're enjoying your meat? Nope.
    26: How about seafood? Catching, killing, skinning, gutting, otherwise preparing seafood for human consumption? Good with that? Yep.
    27: How do you feel about Australian farmers exporting live animals and pre packaged/dressed meat to other countries? I think the live trade is iffy. No issues with chilled meat being exported.
    28: Do you believe that the export of meat adversely affects the prices the Australian consumer pays (ie export creates scarcity which drives up the price we pay locally)? No. We produce far more than we can consume.
    29: and/or is meat export a vehicle to make the production of meat a sustainable endeavour for Australian farmers that makes it viable for Australian farmers to stay in business and provide meat for local consumption? Ie: local demand isn't enough to make the production of meat a viable proposition or financially sustainable for Australian farmers? Free market mode, export means that the sector grows beyond local supply needs to fill orders. Same with all food stuffs and agricultural products in general.
    30: Talk about anything relevant you choose that I may not have included. Protein via meat consumption is convenient for most people.

  • +2

    1: From where do you usually buy your meat? Supermarket, butcher, farm? usually farm but if I get caught short, I have discovered a fabulous local butcher

    2: What influences how you make those choices; price, quality, variety? family discount

    3: Grass fed or Grain fed? either/either but since cows naturally eat grass, it just seems right to me that grass fed is a better product, so will choose that when available though grass fed does tend to be more expensive than grain fed and I know grass fed doesn't mean cows wandering around grassy paddocks at leisure

    4: are you influenced by grading systems such as tenderness or marbling? MSA meat standards for example? Fat marbling standards? Absolutely! MLA (creators of MSA) goes to a lot of trouble to identify tender meat - they even guarantee its tenderness. Also influenced by marbling rating as marbelling indicates taste and tenderness. It may also indicate how a restaurant has arrived at the prices they're charging as these scores do affect the price of the product. If I'm dining out and paying top dollar for my meal, I really do expect top quality produce is used. Similarly, if price is cheap, I understand this likely means more affordable quality product is used

    5: How do you feel about Angus Beef?
    6: How about Wyagu, what's your take on that?

    im not convinced that either of these guarantees a superior quality. Likely just a successful marketing campaign, but happy to be proven wrong.

    7: How often do you eat meat?daily

    8: Favourite meat? Beef, lamb, pork, chicken? What cuts? Beef - rib fillet

    9: Favourite meal that contains meat?Beef Wellington with mushroom duxelle rather than pate

    12: How about sausages?*once thought about a retail shop that only sold different varieties of sausages partly with consideration to shift in consumption of offal but also because meat cuts were possibly becoming expensive for regular consumption so sausages could be an affordable meat choice. As a result, came up with a bunch of sausage recipes. Idea never got off the ground though.**

    14: What is your favourite home cooked meal?all time favourite was my grandma's baked rice pudding, but she's been dead a long time, so these days it's most old fashioned stuff my husband cooks, particularly his stews and casseroles.

    15: What is the most memorable meal you have ever eaten and why?Sandcrab lasagne with seafood bisque and deep fried basil

    17: Do you have a favourite restaurant that you tend to frequently patronise or do you roll the dice, mix it up and consistently try new restaurants?we get mates rates at various places, so we tend to patronize thosem

    19: Did you get caught up in the whole celebrity chef and cooking show hype?Gordon Ramsay is my hero - totally love Hell's Kitchen

    20: Do you like cooking at home?*absolutely hate it.**

    21: How often do you get creative in the kitchen and what's your specialty/preference?rarely for pleasure, but a whole bunch of us do a progressive dinner every fortnight, so I roll up my sleeves for that, otherwise if catering for a larger group/function, but what I really like is desserts and chocolate work.

    22: Are your meat purchases influenced by where/how it is sourced? Ie: anywhere in Australia? Prefer a specific state or only buy locally sourced?prefer Moreton bay bugs and Tasmanian oysters

    23: How about game? Had any? Like it?yum, yum, pig's bum! Favourites are wild boar and duck, but went down the whole Bush Tucker rabbit hole once upon a time, so experimented with just about anything commercially available.

    25: The slaughter of live animals is really quite barbaric when you think about itfamily owns cattle stations, abattoirs and butcher shops so I've had exposure and first hand experience with all aspects of that production chain. We use humane processes but it is still pretty barbaric but you get immune to it.

    27: How do you feel about Australian farmers exporting live animals and pre packaged/dressed meat to other countries?exporting red meat is good

    • +4

      Is there a character limit on posts, or did you not answer the last three questions?

  • Me? I answered the questions that applied to me.

  • +2

    tldr?

    • U eat meat?
      Y?

      • Yum

        • +1

          Essentially, yes.
          That is the basic answer to those 30 questions.
          And price 😂

  • -1

    Avoid beef that uses Bovaer in its feed. No comprehensive studies have been conducted on Bovaers effect on humans.

    Coles uses it in their beef, as indicated on their website, and others probably use it too, but are not open and transparent.

      • Please cite or I call BS.

        • -1

          You're right, there have been no comprehensive studies on Bogart's effects on humans. It would be quite illogical to be dosing humans with a cattle feed additive that doesn't make it in to the meat or milk of the animal being consumed unless you were incredibly worried about the factory workers producing it, or the farmhands that administer it

          I will remove my comment about there having been 10 year studies because it's misleading. They have been conducting research for 10 years on the additive, including a cancer study in rats that lasted 2 years. It did increase the number of tumours that the rats developed. The additive is being used at 170x less than what was administered/kg to the rats as a margin of safety. It did not have a notable impact on the cows at this (lower) dosage. There were no negative impacts when these rats were dosed as directed

          As the additive doesn't make it in to the meat and cheese we eat in the first place (thus no exposure unless working directly with the additive), humans aren't rats, and the feed dosage is 170x less than what the rats were exposed to (when used as per the directions); fear surrounding this chemical should be lower than that of going outside

          There was also a concern about ovarian/testicular shrinkage at extreme doses. For you to be exposed to the levels the test animals were, you would have to eat 2-3 tablespoons of the additive per day. Again, this is very hard unless you work in the industry and like huffing random additives that don't get you high

          • @SpainKing: Bovaer is a toxin to any biological system. The immediate bodily reaction is to expel it. Some of it will end up in the meat and the effect on humans is unknown.

            What is also concerning is what ends up in the milk and diary products. During the nuclear testing by the UK last century in the Australian outback, fallout occurred on cow pastures and although the levels were low, the cows mammary system concentrated the radioactivity to unsafe levels.

            As the body expels the bovaer toxin it will use the mammary system as a pathway and concentrate the additive, as it did with the nuclear fallout. Its insane that proper studies on humans from bovaer downstream are absent and approved by our health authorities.

            • @bigticket:

              Bovaer is a toxin to any biological system… Some of it will end up in the meat…"

              This is quite a big claim, could you please show me where you learned this, and what you are defining as a toxin? A toxin is produced by biological organisms, and Bovaer is a man-made chemical mixture

              According to my research, alcohol and nitrate (the ingredients used to create Bovaer), are already a part of the cow's digestive system and thus it gets fully metabolised in the digestive tract before it can pass in to the flesh or milk (when used as directed)

              https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-social…
              https://food.blog.gov.uk/2024/12/05/bovaer-cow-feed-additive…
              https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-06/bovaer-maker-says-met…
              https://theconversation.com/bovaer-is-added-to-cow-feed-to-r…

              I could see giving a cow 1kg of Bovaer/kg of feed may result in the cow's gut not fully metabolizing the whole dosage (leading to its presence in the flesh), but the cow would also be dead with this being a farmer's standard practice and the farm would go out of business

              I didn't know about the UK doing radioactive testing in the Australian outback, so that's quite interesting that the milk ended up dangerously radioactive

              As the body expels the bovaer toxin it will use the mammary system as a pathway and concentrate the additive, as it did with the nuclear fallout.

              This is not what I have read in the many articles I have gone through, so I ask you again to please source your claims

              Its insane that proper studies on humans from bovaer downstream are absent and approved by our health authorities.

              You don't want people to consume Bovaer, but you also want them to do studies where people consume Bovaer to see what happens, even though it can't enter their systems unless they directly work with the product? I don't think it is super common for studies to directly (or indirectly) administer new products to humans. The best thing to do would be to make sure they aren't exposed to it in the first place (which is what happens, as it is fully metabolised by the cow). Can you provide any other cow feed additive that they have done this for? If not, I would expect you to stay away from beef entirely given it hasn't been tested on humans

              • -1

                @SpainKing:

                A toxin is produced by biological organisms

                and can be man made.

                According to the FDA the product is not for human use and states.
                https://www.msn.com/en-au/health/other/experts-verdict-on-ar…

                ‘Caution should be exercised when handling this product. 3-nitrooxypropanol may damage male fertility and reproductive organs, is potentially harmful when inhaled, and is a skin and eye irritant.’

                There is no long term research on Bovaer. Considering the FDA statement this product is toxic to humans, and it would not be to far of a stretch to say its toxic to cows. Nothing ever fully metabolises and this will absolutely end up in the cow tissues and anything that consumes the cows.

                This is not what I have read in the many articles I have gone through, so I ask you again to please source your claims

                Your first citation states. "there is no evidence that Bovaer causes cancer (as it does not damage DNA) or that it is dangerous to consume milk or other products from cows treated with it.

                Saying there is no evidence that is dangerous to consume milk or other products from cows treated with it. is the same as saying there is no evidence that is safe.

                The mammary pathway is well known in biology, no citation needed. What is fact, Bovaer is a toxin and it will end up in the cows tissues (basic chemistry, a reaction never goes to completion) and into humans.

                What is ironic is that the real cause of excessive CH4 emissions is not caused by the cows themselves but the feed humans give them. Cows are ruminate animals with 4 chamber stomachs with a species appropriate diet that is solely grass. Feeding them grains is the real cause of the flatulence. Its akin to feeding humans beans. The result is excess flatulence.
                Humans cause the problem and research a solution to fix the problem without addressing the root cause.

            • @bigticket:

              Bovaer is a toxin to any biological system. The immediate bodily reaction is to expel it. Some of it will end up in the meat and the effect on humans is unknown.

              It sounds like you don't have a clue about anything at all. You're just a standard conspiracy theorist that chooses the information that supports the conspiracy theory narratives.

              Practically everything in the universe is toxic to humans at certain doses. Even water can kill you if you drink too much at once. Salt is toxic at relatively small doses. The body's immediate reaction to eating salt even in a normal diet is to expel the excess salt via urine. Alcohol is a class 1 carcinogen, but most Australians drink it by the gallon, which is why we have so much bowel, breast and prostate cancer. Driving on the freeway every day is toxic, because the heavy metals in freeway air increase the risk of alzheimers and dementia, while the nanoplastics in highway air accumulate in your brain, and recent research has linked higher concentrations of nanoplastics in the body with various diseases and health issues. Caffeine is highly toxic at high doses, yet we stay well within the margin of safety when we drink a coffee or two per day.

              The thing about toxicity is to stay well within the margin of safety. And that's what they do with bovaer. I can't say the same about alcohol and nanoplastics and salt though.

              • -2

                @ForkSnorter:

                Practically everything in the universe is toxic to humans at certain doses. Even water can kill you if you drink too much at once. Salt is toxic at relatively small doses.

                There needs to be a clear distinction between what is toxic and what is not. Salt and water are not toxic, they are essential for life. Bovaer on the other hand is not essential for life and that is the difference. Stating an endless array of toxins does nothing to support your argument.

                I put it to you, say a safe level of Bovaer was 1mg/day, would you be happy to take that daily dose and will you be willing to give it to your children as well for the rest of their life? I don't think so.

                • +1

                  @bigticket:

                  I put it to you, say a safe level of Bovaer was 1mg/day, would you be happy to take that daily dose and will you be willing to give it to your children as well for the rest of their life?

                  Bovaer doesn't end up in the beef, nor in the milk.

                  There needs to be a clear distinction between what is toxic and what is not. Salt and water are not toxic, they are essential for life.

                  We are a sensitive organism that cannot overload on a myriad of compounds, even if those compounds are already in the body and essential for life. You need all kinds of metals in your body, but if you get too much of them, you will either die, or develop some kind of disease. The same goes for salt. If you get too much of it on a daily basis, you will end up with cardiovascular issues later in life. If you consume 10 times the standard caffeine intake of a normal person, you could easily die. If you drank 3 to 5 times the quantity of alcohol required to make you tipsy, you could end up in a coma, brain-damaged, or dead.

                  What would happen if you ate 5 times the daily beef intake of a normal person? Absolutely nothing at all. You know this, yet you fall for conspiracy theories spread by eternal bogans like Craig Kelly.

                  It doesn't matter how many scientific studies tell you that the bovaer doesn't end up in the beef, or in the milk, or that cattle are consuming bovaer with margin of safety of 170x, you'll just choose to believe what you prefer to believe, and ignore the data.

                  • -1

                    @ForkSnorter:

                    Bovaer doesn't end up in the beef, nor in the milk.

                    It doesn't matter how many scientific studies tell you that the bovaer doesn't end up in the beef, or in the milk, or that cattle are consuming bovaer with margin of safety of 170x, you'll just choose to believe what you prefer to believe, and ignore the data.

                    Cite the scientific studies that show the Bovaer concentration in milk in cows exposed.
                    Just be aware that any toxin/poison has a half life in the body and farmers must stop adding the it to the feed say for a week or two before harvesting. I don't see farmers doing this or managing it properly.

                    We are a sensitive organism that cannot overload on a myriad of compounds, even if those compounds are already in the body and essential for life. You need all kinds of metals in your body, but if you get too much of them, you will either die, or develop some kind of disease. The same goes for salt. If you get too much of it on a daily basis, you will end up with cardiovascular issues later in life. If you consume 10 times the standard caffeine intake of a normal person, you could easily die. If you drank 3 to 5 times the quantity of alcohol required to make you tipsy, you could end up in a coma, brain-damaged, or dead.

                    What is the point of this response. You are stating the obvious. My point is that, for example, salt and water are essential for life and if deficient in the body, the body will absorb these compounds whereas a body exposed to a toxin/poison, like Bovaer, will immediately start to expel it. That is a clear difference. Agree or disagree?

                    • +1

                      @bigticket:

                      the body will absorb these compounds whereas a body exposed to a toxin/poison, like Bovaer, will immediately start to expel it.

                      The body expels nearly everything it doesn't need immediately, including everything that is heading for the toxicity threshold. It expels nearly all nutrients and vitamins it doesn't need immediately, which is why your urine is colorful after taking a multivitamin pill (these are practically pointless, if not harmful). It expels any excessive amount of heavy metals it can metabolize within a certain period of time (if you consume any more than the body can metabolize, you will be poisoned, and if you consume even slightly too much on a long-term basis, you will have an increased risk of dementia or alzheimers). Human urine contains all kinds of substances from a normal diet that, if left in the body to accumulate, would poison you.

                      My point is, you are at much greater risk from over-exposure to common substances like alcohol, salt, heavy metals, nanoplastics, etc. than you are from bovaer, which is well-within the safe limits in cow feed (and does not end up within the beef and milk that we consume.)

                      • @ForkSnorter:

                        …bovaer, which is well-within the safe limits in cow feed (and does not end up within the beef and milk that we consume.)

                        Cite the scientific studies that show the Bovaer concentration in milk in cows so exposed, otherwise thank you for your opinion.

                        • +1

                          @bigticket: 3-NOP is metabolized very quickly into compounds that are naturally present in the rumen of cows.

                          A study by Kebreab et al. (2022) provided data showing that after dairy cows consume 3‐NOP (Bovaer 10), neither the parent compound nor its main metabolite (NOPA) can be detected in milk or edible tissues above the analytical limits. This indicates that 3‐NOP is extensively degraded in the rumen, with its carbon incorporated into endogenous compounds or exhaled as CO2, so that 3‐NOP does not pass into milk or meat.

                          Food Standards Agency. (2023, March 31). Outcome of assessment of 3-Nitrooxypropanol “3-NOP” as a feed additive for all ruminants for milk production and reproduction. This assessment confirmed that 3‑NOP is metabolized rapidly in the cow’s digestive system, with residues (if any) in milk and tissues being below detectable limits, thereby posing no consumer safety risk.

                          https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2021…

                          • @ForkSnorter: Its quite discerning that your citation starts the first line that reads "Scientific Opinion"

                            This document appears to be an application from the maker or distributor of Bovaer for approval in the EU. "The present assessment is based on data submitted by the applicant" p4.
                            In other words, the studies were conducted by the applicant and not an independent body. The fox supplying the studies, a clear conflict of interest. If the "applicant" spent tens of millions or more in development, would they be incentivised to leave data out or cook the books to keep their investors happy. That is something to consider.

                            "In vivo studies.
                            For 7 days, a lactating goat received (3-14C)-3-NOP by gavage at daily doses of 4.34 mg/kg bw per
                            day, corresponding to a concentration of 111.7 mg/kg DM if given in feed. From the total
                            radioactivity applied, 1.9% was excreted via faeces, 3.5% via urine and 6.42% via milk while 4.98%
                            remained in the total edible tissues and 1.14% in the intestinal tract content."
                            p11.

                            It appears my predication that Bovaer and its by-products concentrations would be higher in milk was correct in the study using radioactive tagging. In any case, this is an application focusing on approval for the EU market and its effect on cows and people handling the product. It is not a study on the effect on humans.

                            If you are comfortable trusting self regulating corporations marketing their wares whose sole goal is profit, thats on you. The human food supply is already contaminated and now they are purposely adding another contaminate. No thanks.

                            • @bigticket:

                              Its quite discerning that your citation starts the first line that reads "Scientific Opinion"

                              You don't seem to understand what is going here. By the way, "discerning" is a positive word, which means "having or showing good judgement". Did you mean "concerning"?

                              This is not concerning at all if you know what is going on.

                              What happens is, in order to grant approval for use of a product, the government (European Union) requests the "European Food Safety Authority" (EFSA) to analyze the submitted data to determine whether the product is safe and effective. The EFSA, which consists of a large number of qualified experts, analyzes the submitted data, and reports its conclusion. That's why it is called "scientific opinion". The government seeks the opinion of experts to determine whether something is safe. Why would this be concerning? Nearly all governments in the world follow a similar process.

                              This is not a single, exploratory study by a couple of postgraduate students seeking to advance their careers. This is the final step in the scientific testing process, where multitudes of studies by all kinds of laboratories are examined all at once by a large panel of independent experts to advise the government.

                              Can you see how you seem to always take the unscientific approach of interpreting everything to favour your preferred narratives?

                              In other words, the studies were conducted by the applicant and not an independent body. The fox supplying the studies, a clear conflict of interest.

                              This is absolutely incorrect. All biological studies are conducted by independent laboratories, which are strictly monitored, and regularly audited by further independent auditing bodies.

                              If the "applicant" spent tens of millions or more in development, would they be incentivised to leave data out or cook the books to keep their investors happy.

                              You clearly are not up to date on the state of regulatory affairs in today's world. This is the standard line of the conspiracy theorist: discredit without knowledge and without proof. The reality is that manufacturers constantly complain about how ridiculously strict regulatory agencies are. Regulations tend to become stricter over time, and it is more and more difficult to demonstrate safety. Even when a product (for example a medical device) undergoes a tiny modification, like replacing one material with a very similar material, the manufacturer is often required to request an independent laboratory to conduct 6 months of biological testing, even though it is well known that the product will be effectively identical and the biological safety of the new material is already established. Or when a slight modification is made to the manufacturing of a well-established pharmaceutical, it might take 12 months of testing and data gathering to demonstrate to the government's regulatory agency that the change has no impact on the finished product.

                              Manufacturers and independent test laboratories are frequently audited (by both the government and independent auditors), and they are constantly required to improve transparency, and improve their documentation practices (GDP= good documentation practices) to avoid misunderstandings, errors, etc.

                              One thing I find most hypocritical among rightwing conspiracy theorists is this: They constantly complain about the size of the government and its hugely strict restrictions (regulations) on all aspects of society, while simultaneously pretending that pharmaceutical and medical manufacturers are not subject to those strict regulations. This is so far from the truth, it almost makes me laugh out loud if it wasn't so sad.

                              It appears my predication that Bovaer and its by-products concentrations would be higher in milk was correct in the study using radioactive tagging. In any case, this is an application focusing on approval for the EU market and its effect on cows and people handling the product. It is not a study on the effect on humans.

                              This demonstrates your lack of knowledge of radioactive tagging. The results you cited actually support the safety of 3-NOP. The researches tagged the substance with a radioactive isotope in order to track where the substances should end up. They found those radioactive isotopes in the locations you mentioned, and yet there was no 3-NOP in those locations. This demonstrates the substance was completely metabolized into other substances. If you continue reading the same paragraph:

                              "No nitrate esters, i.e. 3-NOP or 3-nitrooxypropionic acid (NOPA), were detectable in milk with a limit of detection (LOD) of 0.82 and 0.43 mg 3-NOP-equivalent/kg for milk collected 0–8 h and 8–24 h post-dose, respectively. The only radiolabelled metabolite present in the aqueous phase of milk was identified as lactose. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that 3-NOP (and/or its gastrointestinal degradation products) is almost completely absorbed, is unlikely to accumulate, and, considering possible biochemical pathways, is extensively metabolised to building blocks for endogenous compounds (radioactivity associated with lactose, milk protein, milk fat, plasma protein) and primarily exhaled as CO2."

                              In order to support your preferred narratives with your lack of knowledge and conspiracy theories, you have also completely ignored the rest of the document, for example where is says (taking about cows) :

                              "Based on in vitro and in vivo studies, 3-NOP is rapidly and is almost entirely metabolised by rumen bacteria to 1,3 propanediol, CO2, NO3−, these being the main metabolites."

                              "3-NOP is quickly and nearly completely degraded in the rumen before entering the intestine"

                              "the consumer is not exposed to 3-NOP"

                              It's also worth nothing that the panel is clearly unbiased, because in regard to other (non-cow) ruminants, it noted that "A margin of safety could not be established. Consequently, the FEEDAP Panel is not in a position to conclude on a safe dietary concentration of Bovaer® 10 for other ruminant species/categories."

                              "The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the active substance 3-NOP may be harmful if inhaled. It is irritant (but not corrosive) to skin, irritant to the eyes but it is not a skin sensitiser. As the genotoxicity of 3-NOP is not completely elucidated, the exposure through inhalation of the additive may represent an additional risk for the user handling the additive."

                              The overall conclusion is that 3-NOP is entirely safe in cow products (because it is not detectable in beef or milk), but its safety in other ruminants is still (slightly) unknown, so an opinion could not be provided about safety in other ruminants.

                              If you are comfortable trusting self regulating corporations marketing their wares whose sole goal is profit, thats on you. The human food supply is already contaminated and now they are purposely adding another contaminate. No thanks.

                              They're not self-regulating, and if you had any knowledge of the industry, you would know that.

                              All companies, and even all governments pursue profit, because without profit, we spiral into poverty. I'm much more concerned about real unregulated threats in our food supply, in particular microplastics/nanoplastics, which seem to be almost entirely unregulated.

                              • -1

                                @ForkSnorter: That is a well written and detailed response.

                                This is not a single, exploratory study by a couple of postgraduate students seeking to advance their careers. This is the final step in the scientific testing process, where multitudes of studies by all kinds of laboratories are examined all at once by a large panel of independent experts to advise the government.

                                Can you see how you seem to always take the unscientific approach of interpreting everything to favour your preferred narratives?

                                This is absolutely incorrect. All biological studies are conducted by independent laboratories, which are strictly monitored, and regularly audited by further independent auditing bodies.

                                Yes, in an utopian world this would be the case, but the real world, this is far from reality.
                                Independent laboratories do not exist. They are funded from outside sources and their financial survival depends on this funding. The funding issue is the main reason studies may become corrupted through top down pressure or plain cognitive biases by researchers. In this case for example the majority of the funding of the product research would be from the maker of the product. An "independent laboratory" that tends to be produce reports that highly rigorous and critical compared to other laboratories producing studies that are more favourable will loose out because the additional costs and in future repeat business that the favourable labs will receive instead.
                                History has shown this to be the case with numerous drugs and chemicals unleashed to the public.
                                Its not a narrative I have per se but from an understanding of how the system works(outlined above), history and human nature, is to be wary of anything new until proven otherwise.
                                You are obviously an intelligent guy. Surely you do not believe what you have written about the utopia of independent laboratories/studies do actually exist.

                                This demonstrates your lack of knowledge of radioactive tagging. The results you cited actually support the safety of 3-NOP. The researches tagged the substance with a radioactive isotope in order to track where the substances should end up. They found those radioactive isotopes in the locations you mentioned, and yet there was no 3-NOP in those locations.

                                This is not actually the case. Tagging a molecule with C13 identifies where C13 ends up and not the breakdown of 3-NOP or its metabolites. Its used to direct and support further biological assays in studies.

                                In order to support your preferred narratives with your lack of knowledge and conspiracy theories, you have also completely ignored the rest of the document, for example where is says (taking about cows) :

                                "Based on in vitro and in vivo studies, 3-NOP is rapidly and is almost entirely metabolised by rumen bacteria to 1,3 propanediol, CO2, NO3−, these being the main metabolites."

                                I actually did read that, and it does support the claim of safety.
                                Im asking you to step back and look at the bigger picture.
                                Bovaer is a poison, it has no nutritional valve and is promptly extreated.
                                Its purpose is to reduce excessive methane from cows that is caused by humans in the first place. Just feeding cows an ancestral appropriate diet, problem solved. Feeding an animal a poison is going to produce an unhealthy animal and the long term effects/exposure are unknown.
                                Humans have done a terrible job at husbandry in modern times due to profit. Agricultural feed is GMO, sprayed with herbicides/pesticides, chemically processed for feed(humans receive the same treatment). We need to get back to nature, the gold standard, and stop messing with it. And yes. plastics(man made just like Bovaer) are bad.

  • +1

    Eating meat is why humans were able to as quickly evolve to have the intelligence they do.

    Meat is easy to digest and get the energy out of. Our brains use a huge amount of energy. By eating meat you only need a relatively compact digestive system to get enough energy to support a large energy-using brain. A vegetation diet would have required a much bigger digestive system to extract enough energy, and would not have been able to produce enough to spare to support a big brain.

    We don't still need to eat meat because, thanks to our big brains, we have our pick of the world's high energy vegetation-based food, not just what we find growing around us. But we wouldn't have gotten to here where being a vegetablist is possible without eating meat.

    And we could have gotten to here over a lot longer period by progressively evolving a more efficient brain. Like a bird's, which is much smaller and uses much less energy for how smart it is. Birds are the decendents of the dinosaurs so they've had hundreds of millions of years to evolve efficient enough brains that they were light enough and small enough they could fly and live on vegetation like seeds which are also high energy and easy to digest. But we only got to here as fast as we did by eating meat. We took the evolutionary short cut. Meat.

    And what have we done with that intelligence? Taken over the planet with billions of us everywhere, depleted its resources, and destroyed it climate in just hundreds of years. Looks to me like from the planet and the rest of its species point of view us eating meat was the biggest mistake evolution has ever made. And the planet is a closed system, so if we don't correct the problem, the planet will in ways our decendents may not like.

    • +1

      Will I offend you if I asked whether linking intelligence with "meat" eating is an opinion/anecdotal or is backed by some research/science.

      Disclosure - I eat meat regularly. I like to believe it made me more intelligent. My wife has different opinion though.

      • I heard if you want more brain, you need to eat brains.

        doesn't seem to work too well for zombies though.. even after eating hundreds of brains they still can't climb the bottom step of stairs. 🤣

        does explain why they want to eat more "braaaaains" though. they want that climbing step ability so bad.

    • Eating meat is why humans were able to as quickly evolve to have the intelligence they do.

      Actually, more recent research identified carbohydrates as critical for the expansion of the human brain and the evolution of human intelligence. The brain practically runs on glucose. A study found that ancient humans and neanderthals were eating a carbohydrate-rich diet 100,000 years ago.

      • recent research identified carbohydrates as critical for the expansion of the human brain and the evolution of human intelligence.

        It is well documented that the advent of agriculture started arount 10k years ago.
        Therefore its not possible humans had a plant based diet.
        Prior to that humans were primarily hunters. This is supported by Nitrogen 15 essays of early humans.

        The brain practically runs on glucose.

        This is actually true, however the brain prefers ketones and runs much more efficiently on ketones and it would not be too far of a stretch to say a superior brain development fueled from ketones, or a meat diet is a no brainer.

        • -1

          It is well documented that the advent of agriculture started arount 10k years ago.

          If you read widely and indiscriminately, which you obviously don't, instead of just wishfully thinking your preferred beliefs are undoubtedly true, you would know that recent research has shown that carbohydrates were critical for the expansion of the human brain and the evolution of human intelligence. The brain practically runs on glucose. Recent research found that ancient humans and neanderthals were eating a carbohydrate-rich diet (starch-rich foods such as tubers) 100,000 years ago. There are a wide variety of carnivorous mammals, and the vast majority of reptiles, birds and fish are carnivorous, but they haven't developed human intelligence.

          • @ForkSnorter:

            Recent research found that ancient humans and neanderthals were eating a carbohydrate-rich diet (starch-rich foods such as tubers) 100,000 years ago.

            There is no evidence of agriculture 100,000 years ago. There was literally an insufficient carbohydrate source to sustain and grow an evolving population over a millions of years. Cite these studies and do they account for this discrepancy.
            The length of the human digestive track evolved to be smaller than apes, for example, because animal products digest much more efficiently than tubers or other carbohydrates.

            recent research has shown that carbohydrates were critical for the expansion of the human brain

            The majority of research suggests otherwise. Such claims are opinion based. There is no direct evidence to support that claim and conversely there is no evidence that a carnivorous diet did the same.

            The brain practically runs on glucose.

            I have already addressed this. You are just reiterating without specifically addressing my response, that is-

            "This is actually true, however the brain prefers ketones and runs much more efficiently on ketones and it would not be too far of a stretch to say a superior brain development fueled from ketones, or a meat diet is a no brainer."

            There are a wide variety of carnivorous mammals, and the vast majority of reptiles, birds and fish are carnivorous, but they haven't developed human intelligence.

            This absolutely does not make sense and is a logical fallacy. The opposite is also true, as herbivorous animals have not developed human intelligence, such as apes for example.

            • @bigticket:

              This absolutely does not make sense and is a logical fallacy. The opposite is also true, as herbivorous animals have not developed human intelligence, such as apes for example.

              The reason I included this information is because you seemed to be suggesting that eating meat facilitates evolving high intelligence and eating carbohydrates does not, for example where you said:

              Eating meat is why humans were able to as quickly evolve to have the intelligence they do.
              Meat is easy to digest and get the energy out of. Our brains use a huge amount of energy. By eating meat you only need a relatively compact digestive system to get enough energy to support a large energy-using brain.

              Can you honestly say that you know for sure that eating meat increases the likelihood of developing a larger brain and higher intelligence compared to eating carbohydrates or a combination of both? Are you suggesting it is not easy to get energy from carbohydrates? Can you say for sure you know how big the population of human ancestors was 100,000 years ago, and you know with certainty what they were eating, and it was 100% meat based or mostly meat based?

              • @ForkSnorter:

                Eating meat is why humans were able to as quickly evolve to have the intelligence they do.
                Meat is easy to digest and get the energy out of. Our brains use a huge amount of energy. By eating meat you only need a relatively compact digestive system to get enough energy to support a large energy-using brain.

                I did not say this. It seems to be part of what @GordonD said.

                Can you honestly say that you know for sure that eating meat increases the likelihood of developing a larger brain and higher intelligence compared to eating carbohydrates or a combination of both?

                Again I made no such claim. I in fact said its unknown.

                *The majority of research suggests otherwise. Such claims are opinion based. There is no direct evidence to support that claim and conversely there is no evidence that a carnivorous diet did the same.

                Can you say for sure you know how big the population of human ancestors was 100,000 years ago, and you know with certainty what they were eating, and it was 100% meat based or mostly meat based?

                As has been already pointed out the human digestive track evolved to be shorter indicating a meat based diet. That is not to say the human diet was solely meat based, there has always been famine and in times of food shortages humans are very resourceful and plants would have been a supplementary food source. But the human diet was predominately meat based.

                • @bigticket: First of all, billions of herbivores have roamed this planet for hundreds of millions of year. So somehow saying "carbohydrate were insufficient" prior to agriculture makes no sense. There was always enough, till humans bred into billions.

                  If anyone believes in the theory of evolution and that humans evolved from family of primates (hello chimpanzees) should not be surprised that all of them are plant and fruit eaters. So implying Homo sapiens inherited heaps from their ancestors but somehow evolved digestive track of a carnivore lion - Yeah, nah.

                  and p.s. I am a meat eater

                  • @ozb1ozb2ozb3:

                    First of all, billions of herbivores have roamed this planet for hundreds of millions of year. So somehow saying "carbohydrate were insufficient" prior to agriculture makes no sense.

                    It does make sense. Its more nuanced than that. Different animals develop and evolve a specific appropriate diet for that particular species. A diet of one species may not, and in most cases, be appropriate for another species and can result death. Most plants contain toxins, for example avocado is poisonous to cats and dogs, but animals evolve enzymes that break these toxins down and can consume that plant while others find it poisonous. This is a dietary limitation and for humans most plants were poisonous.

                    So implying Homo sapiens inherited heaps from their ancestors but somehow evolved digestive track of a carnivore lion - Yeah, nah.

                    That is literally what happened. The human digestic track is different to that of chimps.
                    Chimps have a bulging stomach that contains a larger digestic track.

  • Why would you eat an all-meat diet, OP? You should eat some vegetables once in a while for a healthy balance.

    • Now you're just being silly. Of course I eat veggies with my meals. I never said otherwise.

      • +3

        The first word in your title is “carnivores”. People on the carnivore diet don’t eat anything other than animal products.

      • +1

        So you're an omnivore?

  • so many damn numbered points. 🤔

    just eat chicken it's the best. nutritious healthy not too expensive.

  • Many butchers are disappearing unfortunately and people are forced to go to Colesworth. Ive noticed that Colesworth price gouge on red meat. The few butchers left are always cheaper for rump. Its illogical.

  • I go to my local family butcher which has seen three generations of the same family. I say "what's good today" and I have never been disappointed.

  • +1

    I don't eat much meat because it's so expensive. I mainly eat raw oats, bananas, soy milk, cheese, home-grown veggies/fruit, and home-baked bread. This accounts for about 95% of my diet. I occasionally eat meat when my girlfriend cooks it. Honestly, I really enjoy my simple diet and it saves me heaps of money. It's really good for my bowels too. The oats and bananas keep me regular. The lack of processed sugar-intense foods in the diet, like chocolate and supermarket cookies prevents my bowels from clogging up. And the lack of peanuts helps me avoid bloating.

    • I completely agree, keeping a simple diet makes things so much easier, and avoiding meat not only saves money but also removes a lot of hassle. I get my essential amino acids and protein from whey protein, so I don’t have to worry about anything asked on this post. Consuming meat feels too risky due to commercial practices and the possibility of improper cooking. I’m not vegan or vegetarian, I just prefer clean, hassle-free options since food isn’t my main source of entertainment.

      I recommend measuring and recording everything you consume. It helps with planning, understanding exactly what you need, and spotting trends in your habits. I’ve found that keeping records of other aspects of daily life is just as beneficial, it gives a clear picture and makes adjustments so much easier.

  • 1: From where do you usually buy your meat?

    Butcher shop, supermarket for chicken

    2: What influences how you make those choices; price, quality, variety?

    Quality, price a little bit

    3: Grass fed or Grain fed?

    Grass all the way, grain fed is bad for the animals, and not that good for us either

    4: are you influenced by grading systems such as tenderness or marbling? MSA meat standards for example? Fat marbling standards?

    MSA is made up bulltish. I can gauge for myself whether it will be good or not

    5: How do you feel about Angus Beef?

    Over rated, plenty of breeds taste just fine

    6: How about Wyagu, what's your take on that?

    Lovely. It's just become a catch all term for very fatty though, so its losing its lustre

    7: How often do you eat meat?

    Very

    8: Favourite meat? Beef, lamb, pork, chicken? What cuts?

    Beef - scotch fillet from the chuck end. Lamb cutlets.

    9: Favourite meal that contains meat?

    Roast lamb leg

    10: Favourite cut of meat?

    Beef scotch

    11: any special hamburger patty recipe?

    Fatty mince, panko crumbs, grated onion (almost minced), 1 egg, basic spice mix

    12: How about sausages?

    Recipe? Too many to list

    13: When dining out at somewhere "posh", are you more likely to order something you know you should like (so you don't waste money on something you don't like) or do you take risks and are an adventurous diner willing to try new things?

    If i see beef ribs, I'm getting it. Beef cheeks are second on the wish list

    14: What is your favourite home cooked meal?

    Roast lamb, all the trimmings

    15: What is the most memorable meal you have ever eaten and why?

    Pork bones and watercress, takes me back to my childhood with all the extended family

    16: What is the best restaurant meal you have ever eaten, where was it and why was it so good?

    Unsure

    17: Do you have a favourite restaurant that you tend to frequently patronise or do you roll the dice, mix it up and consistently try new restaurants?

    No

    18: What influences how you choose a restaurant? Online ratings? Word of Mouth recommendations? Other?

    If i hear it's good, it's natural to be tempted to go there

    19: Did you get caught up in the whole celebrity chef and cooking show hype?

    No

    20: Do you like cooking at home?

    Yes

    21: How often do you get creative in the kitchen and what's your specialty/preference?

    All the time. Need to mix it up and bring new recipes into the rotation every now and then

    22: Are your meat purchases influenced by where/how it is sourced? Ie: anywhere in Australia? Prefer a specific state or only buy locally sourced?

    No

    23: How about game? Had any? Like it?

    Heaps. Kind of indifferent on it. Im hesitant to get commercially sourced game. If youve ever shot your own, and seen how many animals are riddled with worms etc, you would understand haha

    24: Do you have an opinion about the ethics of killing animals for food and how they are processed for eating?

    Yes, humane killing is a must. Some countries and cultures can almost torture the animals before killing, i absolutely despise that

    25: The slaughter of live animals is really quite barbaric when you think about it - if we did the same to humans, we'd be considered reprehensible criminals liable for lengthy prison sentences and social ostracisation and condemnation. Then imagine if we not only killed and broke down the humans into bite size pieces, but proceeded to cook and eat them, in public and feed them to your family. Ever think about that when you're enjoying your meat?

    I guess? I worked in abbatoirs when i was younger, it certainly takes a special kind of person to do that.

    26: How about seafood? Catching, killing, skinning, gutting, otherwise preparing seafood for human consumption? Good with that?

    Love it.

    27: How do you feel about Australian farmers exporting live animals and pre packaged/dressed meat to other countries?

    No good, i wish they'd stop

    28: Do you believe that the export of meat adversely affects the prices the Australian consumer pays (ie export creates scarcity which drives up the price we pay locally)?

    Of course it does. Not just the price, but the locals also get the inferior products - generally speaking

  • I eat meat every meal, yes I'm carnivore (mostly), but more ketovore at the moment. I just buy from the supermarket with the rest of the shop. I don't buy into the whole grass/grain fed debate. I just get what ever is cheapest that I'm looking for. I'll east sausages or other "mixed" meats as long as they contain little to no carbs. Works well for me.

  • +2

    Primary school lesson:

    People are omnivores, meaning we are consumers who eat vegetation, crops, meats and other animal products.

    A carnivore, or meat-eater, is an animal or plant whose nutrition …

    Big difference.

  • I like meat, removing meat from my diet means I have a lot less choices when it comes to variety. I feel sorry for vegans.

    I'm not into wagyu it's a slab of oil, I prefer lean protein.

    In regards to exporting meat, I travel often and the local supermarket prices(after currency conversion) of exported Australian beef is super competitive often cheaper than our woolies and Coles. I wonder how they do it with the transport cost and everything added up but I'm impressed I can have high quality Aussie beef in many places in this world.

    I also like the idea of lab grown fish protein. There has been lots of advancement I hope this will fulfil demand for wild caught or farmed. I don't think we really need lab beef but if vegans love it why not. It's also a good tech for Mars exploration.

    • prices… super competitive often cheaper than our woolies and Coles. I wonder how they do it…

      Competition is how they do it. They don't have a near duopoly that has their fingers on the inflation/profit dial.

  • 5: How do you feel about Angus Beef?

    Although my friend Angus and I have grown apart and no longer see each other regularly, I don't think there is any beef between us.

    • +1

      Colonel Angus is my wife's second best friend…

  • Bucher (home delivery)

    grass fed only, don't want glyphosate bathed grains feeding my meat

    avoid chicken / pork for the same reason

    avoid fish because the ocean is too dirty now (heavy metals, micro plastics, etc.)

    avoid vegetable oils, only cook with animal fat

  • +1

    23: How about game? Had any? Like it?

    • I have 1700 hours in CSGO but I'm very bad
  • Was that list of questions AI generated? If not, you have far too much time on your hands!

  • 21: How often do you get creative in the kitchen and what's your specialty/preference?

    TBH it has been a while being creative in the kitchen. May be a few times in my younger wilder days. But now I only go there to load the dishes and mop the floor.

  • I check if it's halal and go from there, so no pork for me. Thankfully there is no dearth of options in Sydney. I absolutely love that I can find Halal options for almost every cuisine here. A truly multicultural city.

Login or Join to leave a comment