Talk:List of captive-bred meat animals

Scope

I'm a bit confused about this article. Virtually every non-poisonous animal to which humans have access is consumed as food. Is the plan to just everything here? --Aranae 19:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This page would be useful if it listed what the meat forms of different animals are called (as it does with veal for calves, for example). As-is, it's useless, and was only moved here to help clean up the meat article. Only reason to keep it around at this point is the assumption that it'll be improved in the future, which seems fairly likely to me. -Silence 01:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe we should nominate it for deletion. Unless we can come up with some criteria for inclusion. I think that it should be limited to livestock animals that are raised for meat, not game animals that are kept on game farms to be hunted, or who are hunted for meat in the wild. Chrisrus (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It is better to segregate the common meat animals and the others - The animals which are raised for meat in one section and the animals hunted for meat in another section. The names of the meat of each animal (if present) can also be given against their names. We can also specify the regional preferences - which part of the world a particluar animal is rraised or hunted predominantly (eg: Dog farms in Korea, certain antelopes raised in farms in South Africa, Kangaroos hunted in Australia etc.)
Anish Viswa 08:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The title of the page is a "List of Meat Animals," which is a fine topic. But then it inexplicably limits the scope to those "raised in captivity." Thus, deer, moose, and elk (and many other game animals) are left off the list. Aside from idiosyncratic herds of deer kept fenced, they're generally not raised in captivity. But it's hard to argue that game animals aren't "meat animals." What else would "game" mean in that context? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.141.56 (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I don't like the title either. It's not really a list of animals commonly eaten. We tried that, but it ended up including just about any animal you could think of because people hunt and eat just about every animal. So it became a lame list, not a cool, interesting list. So that's the real reason we're not including any game animals. So, back to the name, what about Meat Livestock or some such? Chrisrus (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Shrimp

Is shrimp really meat? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.10.217.81 (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Good point about the shrimp. It is a bit wierd to call crustations and mullusca and such "meat". I know it's technically true, so there's no real reason it has to be changed. But if the pros and cons of the present title "List of Meat Animals" are ever weighed, this would be one reason to change it. Chrisrus (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Fungi

Mushrooms and truffles might also be considered meat since fungi seem to be closer to animals than to plants. :-) Steve Dufour 02:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Links to animal or food?

The links go to the animal. Shouldn't the links go to, for example: Goat meat not Goat, etc? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Such a change would result in a list of meats, rather than a list of animals. That actually might be more useful in the end, but it would be a separate list. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that the format should be to list the Name of the Animal (link to Animal) (link to Food) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.141.56 (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Black Falcon makes a very good point, but I've tried to do it as Anna suggests in terms of links anyway, even though it's not really a list of animals but rather of their use as meat livestock. This way, a user clicks on each and finds out about how this animal is a meat animal; how they are farmed or "ranched" or "cultured" or whatever for meat, proving that the animal belongs on the list and also serving a user better by sending them to where they are probably want to go; sending them to the article cat meat than to domestic cat. Chrisrus (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Scope, again

Does the scope of this list allow for a valid stand-alone list?

A meat animal is one whose flesh is used as food; yet, as noted above, virtually every non-toxic animal species (and even some toxic ones) is consumed by humans—see e.g. bushmeat/game and roadkill cuisine.

To restrict the list to animals which are used primarily for meat is a solution which invites a new set of problems. A few examples may help to clarify the possible range of issues:

• American Bison originally were hunted for their meat and skins, later mainly for their skins, and currently they are used for their meat, to attract tourists and for conservation.
• In much of the world, felines and canines are seen as pets (or, in the case of undomesticated species, wildlife), yet they are considered food in certain places and among certain cultures (see Cat meat and Dog meat).
• Elephants and lions are typical examples of charismatic megafauna, yet hundreds or thousands of specimens in Gorongosa National Park were hunted during the Mozambican Civil War; currently, the animals are protected and populations are slowly recovering.

Which time period(s), location(s), culture(s), and/or circumstance(s) should be considered when determining whether the use of a particular animal for food is its primary use, and sufficient to classify it as a "meat animal"?

So, then, what inclusion criteria beyond "animals ... that humans eat" could be applied in order to make the list more focused?

(FYI: The list was created in 2006 in order to remove the content from the article Meat, and it has changed little in five years: compare then and now.)

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents would dictate those animals developed specifically for food, fish and traditional game animals should be the only ones included. More exotic meats should get a hat note, foot note or see also template. Looking at the list, I would only include articles that are on subject, e.g. Beef, Chicken (food) or have a significant food section such as Salmon. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right. Like most things, there's a gray area around what constitues a meat animal. At the center you have nobrainers like cattle and pigs and such, and then you have some increasing iffiness about the edges until you could go either way before everyone starts agreeing in the other direction. So it is very good that we are discussing this.

First, though, I'd like to say that it's much better now than before when just about every animal was qualifying on the grounds that some people eat lions and such. We've got to keep the wild animals normally only hunted for food out or the list would be meaningless. I think the critera as it stands is that the article you link to must talk about how the animal is commonly raised or farmed for its meat by people on a regular basis. The American Bison and others qualify because their articles talk about how, even though they'd only been hunted for meat up until reletively recently, nowadays people have started to ranch them like cattle or whatever. If this is agreed we should work on the proper wording to clarify the lead if need be, and then check to be sure that either all the articles we link to here say they're being or have been so farmed or "ranched" if you pardon the term or art, or whatever.

If we want to limit the scope even further, we could insist that the animal have been changed by the biological effects of having been used this way. I think a true livestock animal may have to have been domesticated somewhat. That would mean that, even if it's demonstrated that deer or some such are in fact nowadays being "ranched" in a significant way, we still wouldn't include them. That migt mean losing the American Bison, though, so yeah, that's a tough one. And the Nureongi would be in, but the domestic cat would be out. I wouldn't want to have to write that guideline. That might be opening ourselves up to lots of nitpicking, so I donno. On the other hand, for many of us Wikipedians, hairsplitting can sound like a pleasant evening's entertainment. Chrisrus (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Split into two sections - Farm raised meat animals and Wild/Game meat animals.
Anish Viswa 05:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Aren't all animals game animals, just about? I mean, people have hunted since long before we were fully human. I think "meat animals" is a problem word. What about "livestock"? That's what this article wants to be. People hunt and kill and eat black bear and squirrels and monkeys and rattlesnakes and and and and ad astra. Please agree that we can't allow every animal people eat/have eaten. We've got to have some kind of reasonable scope or the article will not be very informative or useful. Please agree, if you think about it, I'm sure you'll agree. Otherwise, just about everything will qualify and then where will we be? Chrisrus (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done

To include or delete the following? Please give your opinion

I've been working on this list alot and wanted your opinions on the following items. Should we remove them?

1. Carabao: This article makes it seem that, although it’s meat is ‘’sometimes’’ eaten, they aren’t really kept for that purpose.

In my state (Kerala), beef mainly consists of meat of Carabo aka Water buffalo. The male is domesticated mainly for meat purpose while the female is mailny for milk.
Anish Viswa 03:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I see. Is Water Buffalo not part of the Indian taboo on beef? Or don't people in Kerala have that same taboo? I have been looking into Wikipedia's system of articles and redirects on different Water Buffalo, and it's pretty confusing and don't know which one or ones of these articles should be listed here if any. These articles seem to be saying that there are two subspecies of Water Buffalo that are domesticated, and that the South Asian Carabao is one of them, but aside from several wild species or subspecies there's another domesticated one from Southeast Asia, and so there doesn't seem to be one article I can link to here that covers both and only both. Wait,... is that right? Please help me have a look at these articles again. Water buffalo, Bubalus, Bubalus bubalis, Bubalus bubalis bubalis, Bubalus bubalis carabanensis. The way I read this, and I know you seem to think this is wrong, even though they are regularly but not frequently eaten, it might not be helpful for our readers to think of them as one more meat animal because they are primarily not meat animals so much as dairy and pack animals because that's the impression these articles seem to leave on the reader, so please if you believe/know that to be wrong help me fix that and also to determine which article or articles we should link to here. Chrisrus (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Water Buffalo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_buffalo) is not part of the ban on Beef. Only Cow and Zebu (Ox) are included under the law and only Cow is considered sacred.

2. Bovine slaughter and beef consumption happens in very few states and Kerala in the major consumer. Both Water Buffalo (Pothu in Malayalam, http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B4%AA%E0%B5%8B%E0%B4%A4%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%A4%E0%B5%8D) and Zebu/Ox (kaaLa in Malayalam) are slaughtered, main contributor is Water Buffalo. 3. The male Water Buffalo (Pothu) is mainly raised for meat and hide, while the female water buffalo (Eruma) is mainly for milk. In India, She-Water Buffalo milk production is more than the milk production from Cow.
Anish Viswa 02:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm very happy to be learning these things from you, but it's not me that you should be telling about these things but the readers of these articles. I'm not going to remove the link to the article Carabao from the article, but because that article doesn't really say these things you are saying, someone else could object and we couldn't really stop them because we're basing inclusion based on the contents of the articles we link to, only, and those articles as I read them (please read them and let me know if you disagree) leave the impression that to call a domesticated water buffalo a meat animal is to mis-characterize them because these articles make it seem more accurate to call them a beast of burden and a dairy animal. So please instead of telling me more about how they are an important meat animal, please go to those articles and tell the world.

In the meantime, however, another interesting matter has come to light. Please notice that I'm changing the subject. Please notice that you've made a mistake and understand that I'm not criticizing you, I just want you to notice how easy this mistake is to make, so easy that you've unknowingly make it. Please notice how this article you provide here, Water Buffalo, look at the taxobox, the infobox, it's about domesticated Bubalus bubalis species in general, but the animal that you seem to be referring to in context is specifically only Bubalus bubalis bubalis which is not the Carabao, the domesticaed subspecies of Southeast Asia, and which doesn't have an article. Notice how the only one linked to on the list is the Southeast Asian domesticated water buffalo, not yours! Are we missing another meat animal that we shouldn't be? Why should that not be there alongside the Carabao? See what I mean? There isn't just one domesticated water buffalo. We need to know if B.b.c. is also a meat animal, not just B.b.b, and add it if we can.

1. Japanese Quail: This article makes doesn’t leave the impression that it’s farmed for meat in any regular way. Please check it again, I may be wrong. Why isn’t there an article about the domesticated variety.

In my state, there are lot of farms of Japanese Quail and also a good amount of consumption, considering its medicinal value.
Anish Viswa 03:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe you. But if you read the article Japanese Quail, I think you will agree that that fact is not really present there in a very clear way. Can we fix that? Because the rule we've set for ourselves is that for an article to be listed here it has to clearly state that this is it's primary purpose or one of its primary purposes and that it has to be or have been cultivated and used that way on a regular basis. I think you can do this, you can fix this. Chrisrus (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

In the initial section itself, there is mention about the Japanese Quail farming and research happening in Kerala. More details we have included in its Malayalm article (http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B4%95%E0%B4%BE%E0%B4%9F)
Anish Viswa 02:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, it's all well and good that you should tell me these things and even better that you provide a citation. But why not add this to the article Japanese Quail. Please improve the article "Japanese Quail" by using this or other citation to get that article to clarify that in addition to whatever else they say about it, it's also a meat animal and tell us all about it. You've convinced me not to remove it, but someone could come along and remove it unless you or someone else teaches the article this important fact about the Japanese Quail in the article that we're linking to. Chrisrus (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Chapulines: This doesn’t clarify if they are harvested in the wild or cultured. I asked here at Talk:Chapulines about it and someone replied that they are so cultivated and he said he'd find picutures and info about it and we are waiting for him to do so. So I’m hopeful that this article will meet the new standard for being linked to on this page.
2. Maguey worm Please read this article and see if you think it meets the inclusion standard or not. It grows on Maguey plants on Maguey plant farms, not Maguey worm farms. So are they farming the worms or are they just selling an agricultural pest as food? Hmm…

Chrisrus (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Fish

This suggests there are only three types of fish consumed by humans. Suggest a seperate sub-group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.27.253 (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's the only three we've found whose articles say they are "farmed" or "ranched" or whatever, cultured somehow, for meat. If we included wild-caught, the list would be huge and lame. Chrisrus (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Lobster

Unlike the article Shrimp, the article lobster says they have never succeeded in ranching or farming them. They don't talk alot about what the problem is, but they do say the lobsters tear each other apart without the rubber bands on their claws. The rule here is that if it's not farmed or ranched, we weren't going to include it. Chrisrus (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That's an odd criterion, given the title of the page; but I'll revert myself. However, we should discuss the misdescriptive title, because this is an example of a meat animal that is not ranched or farmed. TJRC (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Article name

The title of this article is List of meat animals, but, as discussed above (#Lobster), the actual scope of the list is limited to meat animals that are ranched or farmed. If this is the agreed-upon scope of the list, I propose that it be renamed; my initial suggestion is List of domesticated meat animals. Thoughts? TJRC (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea! The reason the scope was limited was that it was becoming a list of just about all animals as someone somewhere eat/has eatern just about everything and so the list was becoming lame. But moving to a new title should be done to reflect that fact. Go for it, I say. Chrisrus (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It's been a week and no one has voiced an objection, so I've moved it. TJRC (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I know this sounds morbid...

... But what about humans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.5.220.18 (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not the morbiditiy that keeps them off. They are not considered domesticated animals. Chrisrus (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Octopus and squid

Octopus and squid ? Jellyfish ? 170.52.112.145 (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Insects

eesal insect is consumed in Tamil nadu state india 170.52.112.145 (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)