Vegetarian/vegan tarantulas

Thobby1982

Arachnopeon
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
28
As Hobo and Jayefbe already pointed out, you're wrong on both counts.

Since we're getting technical here:

vertebrates

invertebrates

The red line underneath the word means you didn't spell it correctly.

You're right about my spelling, but your wrong about the red line. It does not pop up on my device. I also would like to apologize, I did not know that this forum was also an English/grammar forum. I was under the impression that this was a forum about arachnids and other exotics.
 

jayefbe

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
1,351
You're right about my spelling, but your wrong about the red line. It does not pop up on my device. I also would like to apologize, I did not know that this forum was also an English/grammar forum. I was under the impression that this was a forum about arachnids and other exotics.
You were the one that started the whole "english/grammar" thing by "correcting" everyone else about their definition of carnivore, you just happened to be wrong.
 

Anonymity82

Arachnoprince
Joined
Aug 12, 2011
Messages
1,579
My crickets definitely get the orange carrots squeezed out of them when being consumed by my T, or the green if I give them spinach. I like to believe my Rose appreciates the healthy selection of foods I feed my crickets :p
 

pnshmntMMA

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
465
For every animal a vegetarian doesn't eat, I will eat THREE. It's medically proven that people who eat meat in moderation are healthier than people who don't. We as humans are meant to do so.
 

Bill S

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
1,418
An article was incorrect regarding information about a spider? I'm completely taken aback... :sarcasm:
Frightening, isn't it. Next we'll be told that Wikipedia makes mistakes - then what will become of civilization?

But in this case, the "vegetarian" spider has been observed in Costa Rica where its diet appears to consist of about 60% Beltian bodies from the acacia and about 40% insects. If 40% of someone's diet is meat, can they really be called vegetarian?
 

Rob1985

This user has no status.
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
866
For every animal a vegetarian doesn't eat, I will eat THREE. It's medically proven that people who eat meat in moderation are healthier than people who don't. We as humans are meant to do so.
actually all the human body needs is the basic nutrients that come from meat products, which includes proteins, zinc and iron to name a few. Many vegans take vitamins or get these from other places.

The muscle tissues itself serves no value, it doesn't matter how the body get's its nutrients as long as it does. And the fat inside meat is mostly saturated.
 

Shrike

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
1,598
actually all the human body needs is the basic nutrients that come from meat products, which includes proteins, zinc and iron to name a few. Many vegans take vitamins or get these from other places.

The muscle tissues itself serves no value, it doesn't matter how the body get's its nutrients as long as it does. And the fat inside meat is mostly saturated.
I'm not sure I understand the concept of muscle tissue itself having no value. The benefits of the nutrients you listed are derived directly from the consumption of the meat. The very cells of the tissue being eaten contain the needed protein and nutrients. Therein lies the value. Regardless, evolution has decreed that we are omnivores and are designed to eat both plants and animals. Of course, this is just my personal opinion.
 

Rob1985

This user has no status.
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
866
I'm not sure I understand the concept of muscle tissue itself having no value. The benefits of the nutrients you listed are derived directly from the consumption of the meat. The very cells of the tissue being eaten contain the needed protein and nutrients. Therein lies the value. Regardless, evolution has decreed that we are omnivores and are designed to eat both plants and animals. Of course, this is just my personal opinion.
it means, the meat itself isn't what you need, it's the nutrients. You could put it in a milkshake and get the same results.
 

Anonymity82

Arachnoprince
Joined
Aug 12, 2011
Messages
1,579
it means, the meat itself isn't what you need, it's the nutrients. You could put it in a milkshake and get the same results.
Where would these nutrients come from? Would they be synthetically made? That's worse than eating the meat, granted the meat is lean meat that is properly fed natural foods and not filled with hormones/antibiotics etc...
I liked to see the bowel movements of a tiger fed synthetic or plant derived meat milkshakes. It would be like a Gallagher show! :p
 

hamhock 74

Arachnobaron
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
334
This off topic but wasn't there a thread in the watering hole awhile ago about a scientist trying to genetically modify a big cat (forgot if it was a lion or a tiger) so that it could absorb nutrients from plants and thus becoming a vegetarian? I think I'm thinking the whole thing out of context but that's basically what they were trying to do.
 

Ultum4Spiderz

Arachnoemperor
Arachnosupporter
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
4,546
genetic modification = playing god... and never ends in good results..
Tigers have large teeth for eating meat... plants would be a bad choice even if this were possible
Gene's can however be modified in plants so they survive harsh conditions.."though possibly being less Organic (healthy)"
 

Shrike

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
1,598
it means, the meat itself isn't what you need, it's the nutrients. You could put it in a milkshake and get the same results.
You can't separate the two unless you go to an alternative source for obtaining the nutrients. If you eat meat, then yes, the meat is what you need. Protein and nutrients come included.
 

jakykong

Arachnobaron
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
452
genetic modification = playing god... and never ends in good results..
Tigers have large teeth for eating meat... plants would be a bad choice even if this were possible
Gene's can however be modified in plants so they survive harsh conditions.."though possibly being less Organic (healthy)"
Humans have been modifying genes since millenia before we even knew genes existed (selective breeding) - that's why we have corn instead of maize, and white rice, and dogs, and everything else we've domesticated. Just because we can now do it faster and more selectively, why is it any different?

... And frequently, the modified genes not only increase crop yield, it can also make the foods MORE healthy. As an example, yellow rice is rich in beta carotene, so it is being spread to third-world countries as much as possible to help with vision problems. Or, strains of corn which, as a result of genetic modification, repel insects - avoiding or reducing the need for pesticides.

It's popular in Europe (and a growing trend here) to distrust GMO foods, but it is an excellent tool in our arsenal to keep 6 billion people fed.
 

jayefbe

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
1,351
Great post jaykong. Informative and accurate.

Ultum - genetic engineering of food crops has been wildly successful, a far cry from your statement that it "never ends in good results".
 

jbm150

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
1,650
genetic modification = playing god... and never ends in good results..
I've seen a ton of movies where this is true. Do we really want dinosaurs running amok???

Gene manipulation = germs, monsters, and dinosaurs; advanced robots = terminators. We're screwed as a species
 

Robotponys

Arachnoknight
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
172
For every animal a vegetarian doesn't eat, I will eat THREE. It's medically proven that people who eat meat in moderation are healthier than people who don't. We as humans are meant to do so.
Ok, no. Just no. It has been proven in Forks over Knives and other articles that meat activates cancer cells and is unnecessary.

Humans have been modifying genes since millenia before we even knew genes existed (selective breeding) - that's why we have corn instead of maize, and white rice, and dogs, and everything else we've domesticated. Just because we can now do it faster and more selectively, why is it any different?

... And frequently, the modified genes not only increase crop yield, it can also make the foods MORE healthy. As an example, yellow rice is rich in beta carotene, so it is being spread to third-world countries as much as possible to help with vision problems. Or, strains of corn which, as a result of genetic modification, repel insects - avoiding or reducing the need for pesticides.

It's popular in Europe (and a growing trend here) to distrust GMO foods, but it is an excellent tool in our arsenal to keep 6 billion people fed.
True, but corn is completely out of control. The whole food industry is. All of you need to watch King Corn, Fast Food Nation, etc. And read The Omnivore's Dilemma. I'm not going to explain, just watch some stuff on Netflix or/and read some articles and books. :)
 
Last edited:

jayefbe

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
1,351
True, but corn is completely out of control. The whole food industry is. All of you need to watch King Corn, Fast Food Nation, etc. And read The Omnivore's Dilemma. I'm not going to explain, just watch some stuff on Netflix or/and read some articles and books. :)
Corn isn't out of control because of GMO foods. It's always been out of control, since long before GMO foods were developed. That said, there are MANY aspects of the GMO world that I despise, Monsanto for one. But that's not inherent to GMO foods, it's due to a greedy corporation taking advantage of farmers. Your argument is a perfectly valid one, but it's only tangentially related to GMO foods. Rather, the argument is about the problem with America's food system in general.
 
Top