We eat horses, don't we?

[snopes]

Recently, an official for the American Horse Defense Fund, which is a fervent supporter of proposed legislation that would ban slaughtering horses for meat in the United States, declared that "the foreign-owned slaughter industry needs to understand that Americans will never view horses as dinner."

It's a ringing statement, but it's not an entirely accurate one. As much public support as the anti-slaughter bills have and as highly as we regard the horse as a companion, co-worker and patriotic symbol, Americans have made periodic forays into horse country, hungry for an alternative red meat.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/...ion/edweil.php

[llewtrah]

Can't see the big deal. Horses are taboo over here, but we regularly round up wild ponies and sell them to continental Europe for food. It owuld be cheaper to eat them locally and they're BSE-free.

[Floater]

Sorry, but what's the inherent wrong with eating horses? They taste good.

[snapdragonfly]

Didn't we discuss this on the other board once?

As I went through the typical OMG I HEART HORSIES XXOO phase as a 12 year old girl, ~ and eventually begged hard enough to get one, my beloved little dun pony Bucky with whom I spent much of my adolescence, it would feel like eating dog meat to me.

Which, I realize people eat also, but for me personally - I'll have a cheese sandwich, thanks anyway.

[Tantei Kid]

Originally Posted by Floater

Sorry, but what's the inherent wrong with eating horses? They taste good.

Really? I always got the impression horses would be all gamey. Unless there's some kind of veal equivalent? I guess there's nothing wrong with eating horses like there is with eating dogs. In that dogs eat meat, and it's best to stay away from eating meat-eaters. Of course, that cow eating chickens in India has me eyeing beef with suspicion now.

[Jay Tea]

I wouldn't call horse-meat gamey, it's quite sweet and does have venison-like qualities but I wouldn't call it gamey, though it is rich and very flavourful. Some of my family picked up a taste for horse meat in France during the Great War and a trade for it grew up in Ireland upon their return home.

As for dog, well that's good too. I remember reading about Shakleton's stranded party shooting their dog teams so they wouldn't suffer on the ice - they were all very sad to have to take this unfortunate step but they sensibly didn't waste the meat. Not one of the party had eaten dog meat before and they were initially reluctant, but the scent from the frying pan changed all their minds and the dogs were consumed with gusto, thought the cook was ordered to be careful not to burn any in order to honour the animals to the last

[frogpond]

The issue to me is that many of us view horses and dogs more as companions rather than potential food. It isn't any more morally wrong to eat horse or dog flesh than that of a cow, but we are used to traditionally regarding cows as beef.

I don't want to eat any dog meat because I'd be thinking of my two furbabies the whole time. I also have problems picturing graceful horses as dinner but I can't judge someone else for doing so, as long as they aren't cooking someone's pet!

[snapdragonfly]

Thinking some more on this...

It seems to me that there is something distinct and inherent about horses that humans are hard wired to respond to differently than other animals. (either that, or there was a very strong common cross cultural influence - I don't know history in depth enough to know if that was that case among all the horse owning societies or not - but what I do know doesn't seem to indicate this would be the case. Anyone know for sure?)

The reason I think this is because, looking at all the different societies and cultures all around the globe through the ages, that domesticated and used horses, they are treated in a pretty much universal way. The Mongols, the Romans, the Native Americans (after they were introduced by the Spanish) ~ all used horses to ride, and as a companion animal, and as a work animal, am I not right? Is there any culture that commonly and routinely bred horses to eat? (breaking down and slaughtering and consuming your mount because of being in a desperate situation and trying to stave off death does not count as routine) I know there's a small horse meat industry but overwhelmingly, most horses that have lived with humans have not been intended primarily for consumption. Is that not true?

I wonder if the qualities that make a horse so good as a war weapon might have something to do with it. If other four legged animals with a back of suitable size to sit upon were as well suited, we would use them as often or more often than horses, but we don't. The Arabs had camels but instead of breeding them specifically for war, they bred their beautiful and cherished Arabians. Camels worked well for slow plodding caravans across desolate lands but they don't have the willing nature of the horse and the speed that makes them such an advantage over someone on foot. Mules won't run - they'll tell you "go to hell" and just stand there if that's what they feel like doing or if they sense danger. (that's why people take mules instead of horses into dangerous areas sometimes, like down the Grand Canyon - in addition to being more sure footed, if a mule knows it's a bad idea to do something that the human doesn't realize, it's harder to convince it to do it anyway - unlike a horse, which can be convinced to obey orders instead of instinct more easily.) But mules don't make good war animals. They are very good pack animals, but nobody that I know of ever used mules the same way they did their warhorses.

Ox are strong and good for plowing, but instead of using them, the heavily armored knights of the Middle Ages bred strong draft horses.

Over the centuries, people have dedicated their lives and fortunes to breeding specific breeds of horses for specific things. Work, racing, pleasure. But I have never heard of a horse breed specifically or even incidentally bred on purpose for meat. The wild mustangs of the American Southwest have been caught for slaughter for decades, but, they weren't bred for this - they just happened to be convenient, and cheap.


Dogs and cats, I think, must have some similar sort of thing going on with us - although a few cultures do eat dogs, it's certainly in the minority compared to the hundreds that don't. I never heard of cultures breeding cats to eat, maybe they are not tasty.

Just my theory on it based on casual observation. Anyone have anything to dispute or support it?

[VeebleFetzer]

Originally Posted by snapdragonfly

It seems to me that there is something distinct and inherent about horses that humans are hard wired to respond to differently than other animals. (either that, or there was a very strong common cross cultural influence - I don't know history in depth enough to know if that was that case among all the horse owning societies or not - but what I do know doesn't seem to indicate this would be the case. Anyone know for sure?)

I don't really think there's any truth to this. North America and Britain have moderate taboos against eating horsemeat (though not really any stronger than against anything else that's not historically part of our diet, like snails, and a good deal weaker than those against eating monkeys, for instance) but these certainly don't apply in other parts of the world, or even in western Europe.

I believe the main reason that horses aren't bred more for slaughter is simply that they're not very good for the purpose, in that they have a relatively inefficient digestive process. Ruminants like cattle, sheep and goats have a digestive system that allows them to grow large and tasty on land that would leave a horse little more than skin and bones, and pigs' omnivorous foraging means they can fatten up on just about anything. So if you're raising animals for their meat, it only makes sense to go with the beasts that will give the best return per acre of grass.

Regarding the Mongols, I remember seeing a documentary some years ago which suggested that part of the reason that they didn't succeed in taking over all of Europe was their reliance on horses for food: they ate their meat and drank their milk and their blood. When fodder became hard to come by, the horses starved and so did the Mongols, while the more settled farming communities they were attacking were able to sustaint themselves and drive them back.