I'm no expert, but I feel like a ĉu should be in there somewhere; possibly as "Do, ĉu popoloj kuiras..." And possibly that kuiri ought to be conjugated in the conditional (kuirus) instead.
Anyone with a better grasp of the language have an opinion (or better yet, a definitive statement) on this?
I see what's weird.
My direct translation: So peoples are cooking beef barbecue for lunch? (Should be a question marker word in the original, I'll leave that to your l33t skilz) We cooked human barbecue for breakfast.
Did you intend for breakfast to be past but lunch present?
Are you sure?
Oh, no, wait, in The Brothers Grimm it was the horse that ate the kid, wasn't it? The cow is just innocent and misunderstood ;)
No. We don't know what the rest of the species could be up to. I'm currently a child in a state full of cows. I must flee!
According to The Sixteen Rules of Esperanto Grammar commented by Don Harlow, " The main difference between the use of the definite article in Esperanto and in English is that in Esperanto the article, with a singular noun, may be used to indicate an entire class.
EXAMPLE la leono estas danĝera besto = lions are dangerous animals"
So yes, I think it could mean "Cows do not eat children"
Bovo can mean either Bull (or any other word applied to such a beast) or bovine (in general). If you wish to emphasize the maleness of the critter you can say virbovo (there's a movement afoot to use boviĉo instead. I feel that ending can get lost in a busy sentence).
If you want a "cow" (a female bovine) you can say bovino.
A calf is bovido, etc.
Thankfully we don't anticipate the use of bobovo.
This sentence: exists
Cow: eats children anyway
Children: Those bastards lied to me!