I've been reading 50 Things You're Not Supposed To Know 2 by Russ Kick, which by the way, only provided about 4 things that I didn't know. One of those things was how caviar is produced. I was horrified.

The fish (salmon?) is bashed on the head w/ a piece of wood to stun her (not kill her). Then her belly is cut open and the egg sack is removed by hand. Then the fish are thown onto the floor (still alive) where they eventually bleed out and die.

I'm not a big PETA person or a vegetarian, but why in God's name is the fish not just killed up front?

*sturgeon

"It's OK to eat fish 'cause they don't have any feelings."

Or to let them die slowly, like Terri Schiavo.

Honestly, this story about caviar is nothing compared to how they make fois gras.

Please share.

ya, i want to know also

same here

I'm not an animal cruelty activist by a long-shot, but this practice seems unneccessary.

http://www.hsus.org/farm_animals/factor ... _gras.html

I still vote for caviar as more cruel. Hell, humans pretty much make themselves into foie gras every day.

Although, this was disturbing:

Why anyone would eat caviar or foie gras in the first place is beyond me. Yuck.

As a side note, my grandfather once had about four pet sturgeons. They are really cool animals.

I don't know much about sturgeon and caviar production, but it is possible that it's necessary to take the roe from a live fish in order to preserve a quality in it. I don't know why the fish could not be killed and then the roe immediately extracted afterward, but like I said, I don't know much about sturgeon.

I do know that when you catch a tuna, you must immediately bleed out the fish in order to keep the meat fresh, and this must usually be done when the fish is alive. This is because tuna are warm-blooded fish and cannot simply be put on ice for the trip back to port like most other fish. There's nothing like a slice of fresh raw tuna cut right out the fish on the boat or the dock. Yum.

yuck.

what do you guys think about veal?

I'm becoming a vegetarian by the minute.

If anyone has witnessed a salmon swim itself to death going upstream, the whole bashing over the head thing sounds much more preferable. I'm not sure why it is neccasary though, I'm sure there is a reason.

Veal is pretty much the only food I won't eat. That practice is way over the top, and I'm not that big of a fan of it anyway.

i know some about how veal is "produced," but can someone give a more detailed explanation?

I don't eat veal either, but I was reviewing this fact sheet and it doesn't sound near as cruel as foie gras, caviar, and/or tuna.

http://www.hsus.org/farm_animals/factor ... sheet.html

The difference is that the former is a natural attribute.

I know the conditions under which veal is produced, but it's still one of my favorite foods. I could refrain from eating it, I can't refrain from thinking a nice veal parm or osso bucco is absolutely delicious.

I realize that of course, I am just comparing based on my own preference if I was a salmon. Neither sounds very tempting, but one is over and done with much quicker.

I found the way they are force-fed a bit disturbing.



Is killing a sturgeon in such a way as to get "fresh eggs" any different from tossing a live lobster into a pot of boiling water? They both seem unecessarily cruel. Although I remember reading recently that lobsters can't feel pain...but I don't know if I buy it.

Personally, I think it's much more cruel. It's the difference btw instantaneous death and having your stomach ripped out before you slowly bleed to death. Plus, if you're a good chef, you've had the lobster in the freezer to make him sleepy.

Oh yeah, and a lobster is really just a big cockroach. Very little brain activity.

[insert Terry Schaivo joke here]