Re: pork question

[Guest guest]

Carolyn:

>>>> I was just wondering if most folks here are, in practice, ignoring the

comment that Sally makes in NT about pork meat? She says that there is some

evidence that the *meat* of pigs is linked to cancers... and she suggests

that perhaps the meat is suspect, but the fat is okay. (ly, the

statement seemed weak to me, but I haven't done any research on it.) Sally

doesn't include any pork recipes, correct?

Me:

I half ignore the comment. Pork is my least favorite meat from a health

standpoint, but I still eat it and enjoy it. I just don't make a point to

try to include it in my diet. It works out well anyway since I'm not that

big of a fan of most pork products. Bacon and prosciutto are definitely

massive exceptions to that, however. In general, I include meats

proportionate to my comfortability with eating them between medium rare and

raw. Chicken and turkey are very de-emphasized in my diet for that reason

(I'm also just not a huge fan of them). I've had fabulous medium rare-rare

duck on a few occasions and would like to include more duck, but the

opportunities to get *good* duck aren't that common. That leaves pork and

the red meats. I refuse to eat pork that isn't pretty thoroughly cooked.

Red meat on the other hand, I'm fairly comfortable eating in just about any

state other than well-done.

ly, the intelligence of the animal is a minor factor for me too. All

things being equal, I prefer to eat the animal which has the least potential

for what I would consider actual thinking. Since pigs are *supposedly*

smarter than dogs, I'm pretty certain that they engage in more *thinking*

than many people I've gone to school with and worked with over the years.

I also prefer my animal consumption to come from animals that are lower on

the food chain than pigs are...

[Guest guest]

>

> I was just wondering if most folks here are, in practice, ignoring the

> comment that Sally makes in NT about pork meat? She says that there is

> some evidence that the *meat* of pigs is linked to cancers... and she

> suggests that perhaps the meat is suspect, but the fat is okay. (ly,

> the statement seemed weak to me, but I haven't done any research on it.)

> Sally doesn't include any pork recipes, correct?

>

> I ask because it seems like quite a few people here eat pork and I

> love the taste and would like to feel okay about eating it. In an email

> a few months ago someone pointed out that the diet of pigs can be the

> problem: they don't just eat grass, so what is going into them varies

> more and could be problematic. Bacon sounds SO good to me, I wanna eat

> some. And probably will.... :-) The farm that I am buying from raises

> pigs in a humane way, but isn't using organic grains and such. I am not

> really sure about what all they are feeding them.

I believe Sally once said that one of the reasons for no pork is her

co-author, Enig, is Jewish. She also said that pork can be used in

any of the lamb recipes. I consume pork only a few times a year. It is

usually bacon. I like beef bacon but it is harder to find without

nitrates. Here is some information about pork:

http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/30/pork_more_problems.htm

http://www.mercola.com/1998/jan/5/pork_and_hepatitis_e.htm

http://www.mercola.com/2001/apr/11/pork.htm

http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/16/pig_virus.htm

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/22/2002 9:03:41 AM Central Daylight Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> ****IF that's the reason for not including pork in NT, then I agree with

> you. It ocurred to me while I read your post, that pork is forbidden in

> Islam, as well. I did a quick web search and found two immediate references

> that pork is also forbidden in the bible. While I don't belong to any of

> these religions, I avoid pork because I feel it is unclean, although,

> oddly,

> probably more in a spiritual sense, than physical. Or perhaps both. Don't

> know why. It's not like I've been pouring over the religious texts of these

> three dominant religions...but maybe I've been indirectly influenced by

> them

> nonetheless.

>

If any animal should be deemed " unclean " it is the chicken! It amazed me the

first time I met somebody who would not eat pork because the animal is dirty.

Go figure.

Belinda

[Guest guest]

>Alec wrote:

>I believe Sally once said that one of the reasons for no pork is her

>co-author, Enig, is Jewish.

That's nice. So NT is based on somebody's religious dietary taboos? I

thought there was supposed to be science behind the work. I don't

have any problem with not wanting to contribute to a book with

pork or shellfish recipes in it. But they should be forthright about

this, instead of throwing fuzzy science at it.

[Guest guest]

>>>That's nice. So NT is based on somebody's religious dietary taboos? I

thought there was supposed to be science behind the work. I don't

have any problem with not wanting to contribute to a book with

pork or shellfish recipes in it. But they should be forthright about

this, instead of throwing fuzzy science at it.

****IF that's the reason for not including pork in NT, then I agree with

you. It ocurred to me while I read your post, that pork is forbidden in

Islam, as well. I did a quick web search and found two immediate references

that pork is also forbidden in the bible. While I don't belong to any of

these religions, I avoid pork because I feel it is unclean, although, oddly,

probably more in a spiritual sense, than physical. Or perhaps both. Don't

know why. It's not like I've been pouring over the religious texts of these

three dominant religions...but maybe I've been indirectly influenced by them

nonetheless.

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

> >>>That's nice. So NT is based on somebody's religious dietary taboos? I

>thought there was supposed to be science behind the work. I don't

>have any problem with not wanting to contribute to a book with

>pork or shellfish recipes in it. But they should be forthright about

>this, instead of throwing fuzzy science at it.

>

>****IF that's the reason for not including pork in NT, then I agree with

>you. It ocurred to me while I read your post, that pork is forbidden in

>Islam, as well. I did a quick web search and found two immediate references

>that pork is also forbidden in the bible. While I don't belong to any of

>these religions, I avoid pork because I feel it is unclean, although, oddly,

>probably more in a spiritual sense, than physical. Or perhaps both. Don't

>know why. It's not like I've been pouring over the religious texts of these

>three dominant religions...but maybe I've been indirectly influenced by them

>nonetheless.

Could well be. I guess the taboo against eating horsemeat began with

the Celts, and it's still with most of us. I don't figure it's

worthwhile arguing about people's irrational beliefs. But using

science as a means to rationalize the irrational is another matter.

Though if a number of unrelated cultures (not Jews and Moslems) start

avoiding the same things, it might be a suggestion for further

research, as that would make it definitely " "

[Guest guest]

>>>>Though if a number of unrelated cultures (not Jews and Moslems) start

avoiding the same things, it might be a suggestion for further

research, as that would make it definitely " "

***Interesting point...I'm not convinced that avoiding pork, which is

forbidden in 3 of the world's major religious texts (and perhaps others?) is

necessarily irrational. I'll have to go read the reasons why it's forbidden

in the Bible, Quran and Torah before I develop a strong opinion one way or

the other.

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

To add to the list: I don't think Hindus (in India and elsewhere) eat pork or

beef...they tend to be vegetarian, especially if they come from a high caste. I

know that cows are considered sacred, but I'm not sure about the pork

restriction. I've never seen pork on an Indian menu. Maybe this is because

there are many Muslims in India as well? I would love to find out more about

any true health benefits from keeping kosher or keeping away from other

religious " taboo " foods. I'll see what I can find....

***Interesting point...I'm not convinced that avoiding pork, which is

forbidden in 3 of the world's major religious texts (and perhaps others?) is

necessarily irrational. I'll have to go read the reasons why it's forbidden

in the Bible, Quran and Torah before I develop a strong opinion one way or

the other.

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Suze wrote:

> >>>>Though if a number of unrelated cultures (not Jews and Moslems) start

>avoiding the same things, it might be a suggestion for further

>research, as that would make it definitely " "

>

>***Interesting point...I'm not convinced that avoiding pork, which is

>forbidden in 3 of the world's major religious texts (and perhaps others?) is

>necessarily irrational. I'll have to go read the reasons why it's forbidden

>in the Bible, Quran and Torah before I develop a strong opinion one way or

>the other.

If you take out the part of the Torah that has been incorporated into

the Bible, there are no Biblical restrictions against eating pork

(see 's vision in Acts re: eating unclean foods). Thus, that's

really 2 sources. As for the reasons, it's because God said so. There

has been a certain amount of theorizing as to why God said so, but if

you really want to know, you'll have to ask Her. <g>

At 1:04 PM -0400 4/22/02, wrote:

>To add to the list: I don't think Hindus (in India and elsewhere)

>eat pork or beef...they tend to be vegetarian, especially if they

>come from a high caste.

And if they don't, they can't afford meat anyway. The south of India

tends to be more vegetarian than the north.

> I know that cows are considered sacred, but I'm not sure about the

>pork restriction. I've never seen pork on an Indian menu. Maybe

>this is because there are many Muslims in India as well?

Yes. Most are now in Pakistan, but there was a great cultural

influence. The Portuguese Christians of Goa inspired a pork-based

Indian cuisine. Vindaloo was also often made with pork.

--

Quick

www.en.com/users/jaquick

" Representative government -- where many crooks get to vote

one crook into office. " --ny Hart in the comic strip " B.C. "

[Guest guest]

>>>>To add to the list: I don't think Hindus (in India and elsewhere) eat

pork or beef...they tend to be vegetarian, especially if they come from a

high caste. I know that cows are considered sacred, but I'm not sure about

the pork restriction.

***Hmmm...I *should* know this since my undergraduate major was south asia

regional studies, but i guess my program didn't get into food restrictions

too much. I *can* tell you that hindus don't eat cows, but they do eat water

buffalo. Which frankly seems the same to me from a consumer's pov. I don't

recall any taste difference when i had it in nepal. A pork restriction for

hindus doesn't ring a bell but I just did a quick web search and one cuisine

site mentioned that pork is taboo for 'many' hindus. i'm not sure if that's

accurate or what it means by 'many.' But I was thinking, most nepalis are

hindu, although there's a large subgroup of tibetan buddhist's in nepal (who

fled the chinese takeover of tibet). and most nepalis i knew were vegetarian

simply for the fact that they couldn't afford meat.

also, i don't ever recall seeing a pig there among the many animals

wandering about, but it sure would've appealed to them, i'd think, as the

streets were piled with garbage when i was there in 1985. they had been

closed to the west up until 1957, and after that i guess lots of in-organic

matter (ie plastic) made it into the country. So the piles of garbage that

were formerly consumable by street animals, became nonconsumable. they had

no sewer system or garbage disposal system at the time, either. actually,

they did have waste cleanup - dogs! kids always pooped in the street and the

dogs would clean it up pretty quickly. anyway, if pigs can truly survive on

trash, that would've been an ideal place for them to be - i don't mean to

eat the plastic, because there was plenty of organic waste as well.

especially kathmandu where there was street garbage everywhere. i just

wonder if they are not indigenous to that region, and no one felt a need to

import them, nor had the $ to do so. that's the only reason i can think of

as to why hindu nepalis were not eating pork at that time, other than

poverty. i don't recall it being on the menu of the restaurant in kathmandu

where i worked either, and the restaurant catered to westerners.

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>>>>If you take out the part of the Torah that has been incorporated into

the Bible, there are no Biblical restrictions against eating pork

(see 's vision in Acts re: eating unclean foods). Thus, that's

really 2 sources.

***Um, but the torah IS part of the bible, so why would you take it out?

According to this site

(http://216.239.35.100/search?q=cache:lRkh5XQ4St4C:www.themuslimwoman.com/ch

ooseyourpath/eatingpork/whatgodsaid.htm+muslim+pork & hl=en & ie=UTF8) pork is

prohibited in Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Isaiah. Of course it could be wrong

for all I know. but if it's correct, are they not all part of the bible?

i'm now curious as to whether pork is prohibited in any other relgions or

cultural groups. For any of you who have read NAPD in its entirety, did any

of the healthiest groups WAP studied consume pork? for that matter, did ANY

of the groups he studied consume pork? if so, what was the general health

status of the group?

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

At 11:45 AM 4/22/02 -0400, you wrote:

>>>>>Though if a number of unrelated cultures (not Jews and Moslems) start

>avoiding the same things, it might be a suggestion for further

>research, as that would make it definitely " "

>

>***Interesting point...I'm not convinced that avoiding pork, which is

>forbidden in 3 of the world's major religious texts (and perhaps others?) is

>necessarily irrational. I'll have to go  read the reasons why it's forbidden

>in the Bible, Quran and Torah before I develop a strong opinion one way or

>the other.

>

There are Polynesian/ South Asian Island cultures today where pork is still

the

mainstay. Maori capture and raise wild boar. Every continent had/has wild boar

as far as I know. All the religions forbidding it originated in the same

general area. The devil in my Catholic upbringing has cloven hooves. We always

raised pigs though and Mom ate it.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

At 10:01 AM 4/22/2002 -0400, you wrote:

> >>>That's nice. So NT is based on somebody's religious dietary taboos? I

>thought there was supposed to be science behind the work. I don't

>have any problem with not wanting to contribute to a book with

>pork or shellfish recipes in it. But they should be forthright about

>this, instead of throwing fuzzy science at it.

>

>****IF that's the reason for not including pork in NT, then I agree with

>you. It ocurred to me while I read your post, that pork is forbidden in

>Islam, as well. I did a quick web search and found two immediate references

>that pork is also forbidden in the bible. While I don't belong to any of

>these religions, I avoid pork because I feel it is unclean, although, oddly,

>probably more in a spiritual sense, than physical. Or perhaps both. Don't

>know why. It's not like I've been pouring over the religious texts of these

>three dominant religions...but maybe I've been indirectly influenced by them

>nonetheless.

>

>Suze Fisher

I've always heard it's best to consume animals that are not at all close to

you biologically. I.e. humans are not very much like ruminants or chickens,

so they are safer to consume. But humans should not eat monkeys, because we

share too many of the same pathogens and allergens. I feel pretty much the

same way about pork (though we do eat it sometimes and I sure love bacon!).

Pigs are omnivores, like ourselves, and we are so close biologically that

they have done organ transplants between pigs and humans, and the flu virus

jumps from birds to pigs to humans. Eating raw or rare pork is much more

dangerous than eating raw fish or beef, because you have a better chance of

" catching " anything the pig had.

A number of researchers have noted this, and that may be one of the reasons

for lack of pork recipes. Sally Fallon also notes that there have been

links between pork and cancer and some changes in blood chemistry. But she

DOES include recipes for shellfish (shrimp especially), so I don't think

the issues are primarily religious. I'd have a hard time including pork in

good conscience in a book about healthy eating, even though there isn't a

lot of hard science on it, because it is an iffy subject (though I don't

have any religious issues with it).

Heidi Schuppenhauer

Trillium Custom Software Inc.

heidis@...

[Guest guest]

> >>>That's nice. So NT is based on somebody's religious dietary taboos? I

> thought there was supposed to be science behind the work. I don't

> have any problem with not wanting to contribute to a book with

> pork or shellfish recipes in it. But they should be forthright about

> this, instead of throwing fuzzy science at it.

>

> ****IF that's the reason for not including pork in NT, then I agree with

> you. It ocurred to me while I read your post, that pork is forbidden in

> Islam, as well. I did a quick web search and found two immediate

references

> that pork is also forbidden in the bible. While I don't belong to any of

> these religions, I avoid pork because I feel it is unclean, although,

oddly,

> probably more in a spiritual sense, than physical. Or perhaps both. Don't

> know why. It's not like I've been pouring over the religious texts of

these

> three dominant religions...but maybe I've been indirectly influenced by

them

> nonetheless.

I just bought a book on the anthropology of food preferences and taboos last

week. I haven't read it yet, but I know that it specifically addresses this

point (pork vs ruminant flesh). When I get around to reading it, I'll try

to remember to post on the subject...

[Guest guest]

>>>>I just bought a book on the anthropology of food preferences and taboos

last

week. I haven't read it yet, but I know that it specifically addresses this

point (pork vs ruminant flesh). When I get around to reading it, I'll try

to remember to post on the subject...

***OK, now THAT sounds like an interesting read. Could you please post the

name and author?

TIA

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>

> Though if a number of unrelated cultures (not Jews and Moslems)

start

> avoiding the same things, it might be a suggestion for further

> research, as that would make it definitely " "

The point isn't simply 'unrelated cultures' but 'healthy primitives'.

I don't know much about the health of ancient rome, but my

understanding is that they don't fit the bill. Indeed, my guess would

be that they are significantly less healthy than the average american

on the SAD.

[Guest guest]

Suze:

>

>***Um, but the torah IS part of the bible, so why would you take it out?

to eliminate redundant information. Since Christianity started as a

Jewish sect, it's not really fair to count it as two different things.

[Guest guest]

Heidi wrote:

> Sally Fallon also notes that there have been

>links between pork and cancer and some changes in blood chemistry.

" Notes " is right! A brief mention, footnoted IIRC from a secondary

source. There's really not enough information there to make an

informed decision.

--

Quick

www.en.com/users/jaquick

" Representative government -- where many crooks get to vote

one crook into office. " --ny Hart in the comic strip " B.C. "

[Guest guest]

>>>>>I just bought a book on the anthropology of food preferences and taboos

> last week. I haven't read it yet, but I know that it specifically

addresses this

> point (pork vs ruminant flesh). When I get around to reading it, I'll try

> to remember to post on the subject...

> ***OK, now THAT sounds like an interesting read. Could you please post the

> name and author?

Certainly! It's apparently been reprinted under a new title since the copy

I got was published...I was spelunking a labyrinthine used book store called

The Book House when I found it. Here you go. The new title is first; the

old one second:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1577660153/qid=1019508080/sr=1-1/ref=

sr_1_1/104-4103451-7936745

Good to Eat : Riddles of Food and Culture

by Marvin

Paperback (July 1998)

Waveland Press; ISBN: 1577660153

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671633082/qid%3D1019507915/ref%3Dsr%

5F11%5F0%5F1/104-4103451-7936745

The Sacred Cow and the Abominable Pig : Riddles of Food and Culture

by Marvin

Paperback Reprint edition (January 1987)

Touchstone Books; ISBN: 0671633082

[Guest guest]

<<< ****IF that's the reason for not including pork in NT, then I agree

with

you. >>>

Way back when Sally was on this list someone asked her about pork. That

was her answer. Sally didn't want to offend her co-author, who is Jewish.

Carmen

[Guest guest]

> ***OK, now THAT sounds like an interesting read. Could you please post the

> name and author?

Here's some more that might interest you. I haven't read these either, but

Amazon is so very good at cross-marketing related products that these all

popped up practically by themselves.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0877226687/qid=1019508528/sr=1-1/ref=

sr_1_1/104-4103451-7936745

Food and Evolution : Toward a Theory of Human Food Habits

by Marvin , B. Ross (Editor)

Paperback - 648 pages Reprint edition (September 1989)

Temple Univ Press; ISBN: 0877226687 ; Dimensions (in inches): 1.37 x 9.00 x

6.01

also by another author:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415917107/ref=pd_rhf_f_1/104-4103451

-7936745

Food and Culture : A Reader

by Carole Counihan (Editor), Penny Van Esterik (Editor), Penny Van Esterik

(Editor)

Paperback - 416 pages (August 1997)

Routledge; ISBN: 0415917107 ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.91 x 10.02 x 7.02

also by another author:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/029914254X/ref=cm_huw_qp_2_/104-41034

51-7936745

Eat Not This Flesh : Food Avoidances from Prehistory to the Present

by Frederick J. Simoons

Paperback - 568 pages 2Nd/Rv/ edition (December 1994)

Univ of Wisconsin Pr; ISBN: 029914254X ; Dimensions (in inches): 1.20 x 8.95

x 5.99

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345440153/ref=pd_pym_sim_3_1/104-410

3451-7936745

In the Devil's Garden: A Sinful History of Forbidden Foods

by Lee

Hardcover - 320 pages (February 26, 2002)

Ballantine Books (Trd); ISBN: 0345440153 ; Dimensions (in inches): 1.12 x

8.50 x 5.78

stretching a bit farther afield we have:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0804732078/ref=cm_huw_qp_2_/104-41034

51-7936745

Golden Arches East : Mc's in East Asia

by L. (Editor)

Paperback - 280 pages (January 1998)

Stanford Univ Pr; ISBN: 0804732078 ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.63 x 8.50 x

5.55

and:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0807046299/ref=pd_pym_sim_6_1/104-410

3451-7936745

Tasting Food, Tasting Freedom : Excursions into Eating, Culture, and the

Past

by Sidney W. Mintz

Paperback - 176 pages (September 1997)

Beacon Pr; ISBN: 0807046299 ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.72 x 8.43 x 5.47

[Guest guest]

--- Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

>I *can* tell you that hindus don't eat

> cows, but they do eat water

> buffalo.

I was discussing this with several hindu coworkers.

They said that only female cows are considered sacred.

Roman

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

--- Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

>I *can* tell you that hindus don't eat

> cows, but they do eat water

> buffalo.

>>>I was discussing this with several hindu coworkers.

They said that only female cows are considered sacred.

***LOL *Cows* are, by definition, female.

Males are called " steer " or " bulls. "

So, *cows* are considered sacred. Now, I don't know if that means that bulls

(steer) are consumed by hindus. In Nepal, hindus consume water buffalo, as

i've mentioned. Although, i'm not sure what sex. maybe they also consumed

steer...i honestly don't know.

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Quick wrote:

>

> >Alec wrote:

> >I believe Sally once said that one of the reasons for no pork is her

> >co-author, Enig, is Jewish.

>

> That's nice. So NT is based on somebody's religious dietary taboos? I

> thought there was supposed to be science behind the work. I don't

> have any problem with not wanting to contribute to a book with

> pork or shellfish recipes in it. But they should be forthright about

> this, instead of throwing fuzzy science at it.

Opinion seconded.

It's a no-win situation for an author of such a book, though. Whenever

you intentionally leave out subjects that might offend some people you

usually end up offending and equivalent number of people.

I spent a number of my growing up years in eastern North Carolina, the

home of east Carolina barbeque, which is based on pork. I practically

grew up on the stuff, and to this day it is one of my favorite foods.

The only bad effect I've had from it has been that " roll me out the

door " feeling when my local barbeque restaurant has their monthly

pig-pickin' all you can eat deal. (A bad habit, I know.)

And when it comes to shellfish, my girlfriend can practically eat her

weight in crabs with no ill effects.

What about all of those traditional pork and shellfish dishes from

Polynesia and the pacific islands? What about all of those pork dishes

from the far east? To leave out pork and shellfish, regardless of the

reason, leaves out traditional dishes from _huge_ areas of the world

that do not have the judeo-christian-moslim food taboos. Not to mention

the traditional New England Clambake.

But then we westerners have a lot of our own food taboos that we are so

used to that we don't even think about them, they are an ingrained part

of our collective psyche. Particularly, we don't eat dogs, cats, rats,

horses, worms, or insects. Among others. We wouldn't even think about

eating them. When you mention to most westerners that many cultures

_do_ eat them the typical reaction is something along the lines of

" eeeewwww " .

Now I must admit a pot of stewed locusts is somewhat less than appealing

to my American palate, but you know what? They're kosher.

Alan Petrillo

--

Aviation is more than a hobby. It is more than a job. It is more than

a career. Aviation is a way of life.

A second language for the world: www.esperanto.com

Processor cycles are a terrible thing to waste: www.distributed.net

[Guest guest]

> >I *can* tell you that hindus don't eat

> > cows, but they do eat water

> > buffalo.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Something might be clipped here>>>>>>>

> >>>I was discussing this with several hindu coworkers.

> They said that only female cows are considered sacred.

>

> ***LOL *Cows* are, by definition, female.

> Males are called " steer " or " bulls. "

>

>Clipped>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Suze Fisher

> Web Design & Development

> http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

> mailto:s.fisher22@v...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No direct attack (honestly) Suze but what's the spin

on this phrase, " Males are called " steer " or " bulls " . " ??? Any of you

folks find this statement difficult to understand??????? I think we

need to work on our communication skills. I know I'm always trying to

myself. Males of the cattle family are called " bulls " . A farmer

generally calls a male calf, " a bull calf " . Now I haven't had time to

check all the postings to see if this has been corrected, however, you

will want to, before publishing for farmers. Generally and not

loosely speaking, a steer is a castrated male of the cattle (bovine)

family. Best regards, Dennis Kemnitz