Food Is there a delicious food thread?

wetwille

Butt Hamster
May 24, 2018
13,957
15,984
323
60
Mid MIchigan
Marklar
₥53,753.48
Marklar
M53,753
View attachment 10623
I like to imagine that the duder on the left's loincloth is made from a beaver pelt, but woodchucks and beavers are both rodents of similar size, so it'd probably work just as well to cover your junk.
BEaver and muskrat skins are thin. Muskrat being the thinnest. Trapped a lot of those as a teen, $5-10 a pelt.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Jehannum

HipHugHer

Looks like Ted Nugent, Smells like Sasquatch
Apr 18, 2016
27,067
39,841
673
78
Marklar
₥89,643.86
Marklar
M89,644
BEaver and muskrat skins are thin. Muskrat being the thinnest. Trapped a lot of those as a teen, $5-10 a pelt.
Our big trapping thing as kids was pocket gophers. The ones that push up dozens of mounds of dirt all through the fields.

$1 each, except our county took the front feet as bounty and the next county over took the tails so we could work the system and get $2 from each gopher, lol.
 
Last edited:
  • Gravy
Reactions: Immigrant

Jehannum

Eats bananas with the peel still on
Jul 24, 2013
35,613
36,738
723
Albuquerque, NM
Marklar
₥84,231.16
Marklar
M84,231
And what do you think a good bit of that fertilizer is? There's a whole lot of *animal* waste and petroleum. Hmmmm
You don't gain efficiency by adding layers between the producer and the consumer.

Not that I care one way or t'other, but cows don't provide more calories than they consume.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Ledboots

Jehannum

Eats bananas with the peel still on
Jul 24, 2013
35,613
36,738
723
Albuquerque, NM
Marklar
₥84,231.16
Marklar
M84,231
At no point did I make that argument. I mean, it's probably more efficient to eat soylent green!
You're arguing that we need animals to fertilize the plants that make the food.

That's equivalent.

Even if we didn't have the animals, the Haber-Bosch process fixes nitrogen more efficiently than cow shit ever will.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: wetwille