Food With a Face

A year go, in the dead of winter on a blistery cold day, I went with my friend, Andy, to an Amish family farm to help them butcher some pigs. We arrived just after the pigs had been cleanly shot, in time to see the first pig being hoisted up off the ground by its feet while the second pig was being skinned on the ground.

I had never seen a slaughtered animal in person before, and it wasn't as bad as I had imagined. I didn't feel an outpouring of sympathy for the pigs, mainly because I knew they had enjoyed a good life and a quick, painless death on the farm rather than in a factory. The worst part was the smell -- a mixture of blood and pig scent that rose up in clouds of steam through the winter air. It was 22 below that morning, the Amish men said. A bit cold, but a nice day for butchering.

We did most of the skinning and disemboweling outside. One pig was quartered, another was halved. We then carried the parts inside for further disassembly.

I quickly got into a grove trimming off the layers of fat and removing meat from the bones. The fat looked like butter and it was incredibly soft. There was a lot of it, too; we filled up at least three, large stainless steel bowls.

I skinned one of the heads, removing the snout and ears. I had to ask for help with the eyes; they were held in their tight, and I was too squeamish to use my fingers to pry them out.

The heads went into a stew pot and would be used to make head cheese. The rest of the pigs were divided up between two Amish families, minus the four pork chops they sent home with me as a gift.

Throughout the process, I learned their is a fine art to skinning and butchering animals. The Amish were very skilled and made quick, elegant work of the animal sections they had. Andy and I were a bit clumsier, to say the least. But we learned as the day went on and, I hope, got a little better.

Even with six of us, it took us all day to cut up two pigs and a frozen deer. We didn't get to the sausage-making or preservation activities, although the entrails were washed out, scrubbed and made ready to be used as casings. The work gave me a new appreciation for hunters, butchers, and yeoman farmers who raise, slaughter, butcher and cook their own animals. These folks know where their dinner came from and are intimately familiar with the whole farm-to-table process.

Most city folks eat in ignorance and denial, not knowing -- and not wanting to know -- just how that pork chop came to be on their plate.

What Comes First: the Chickens or the Eggs?

 

Much of the locavore movement is focused on getting produce (vegetables and fruit) from local farms. Sourcing meat and eggs locally is often overlooked, but it is vitally important in improving animal welfare and supporting small-scale, diversified farms. 

Whenever animals are raised on a large scale, their quality of life can't be very great. When eggs are labeled as organic or as coming from "cage free" chickens, it means much less than the average consumer might imagine. Industrial is industrial, no matter what buzz-words are used to make it sound more palatable. 

For eggs to be organic, they just need to come from chickens that are fed certified organic feed. Certified organic feed does not contain GMOs and is grown without pesticides, so it is better than conventional feed -- but giving chickens organic feed rather than conventional feed doesn't affect the chickens' quality of life. The chickens can still be raised in cramped, inhumane conditions. 

"Cage free" eggs are somewhat better, but still not great. Instead of being raised in small cages, the chickens are raised in a large barn, often in very cramped conditions. Their beaks are often burned off so that they can't peck and injure each other. The fumes in these barns can be horrid from the build-up of ammonia. In most circumstances, the chickens never go outside or see the light of day. However, they walk around on bedding (i.e. wood chips) and get to lay eggs in nests instead of in cages. 

"Free range" eggs are similar to cage free eggs, except that the chickens are given the "opportunity" to go outside. Often this means that the large barn has a small door on one side that leads to a small, fenced outdoor area -- which could be a two foot square of concrete. This door to the outside may be closed for long periods of time, such as during the winter. As long as the chickens have the opportunity at some point to venture out the door, they can legally be considered "free range." In these industrial "free range" systems, most chickens never go outside "out of choice." 

Eggs that come from small farms where chickens are raised on pasture are nutritionally superior to grocery store eggs; they have more Omega-3 fatty acids and vitamins, and less cholesterol. Why? The chickens roam around pasture by day, eating greens, weeds, and bugs. The chickens eat a more balanced diet and they get fresh air and exercise. It's simple: healthy, happly chickens make better eggs. 

Why Whole Foods Isn't the Solution - Part I

The meat that Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, and other more progressive grocery stores sell is raised using higher standards than the cheaper meat found at conventional grocery stores. Just as an example, Whole Foods sells grass-fed beef that is certified at GAP Step 5. GAP stands for Global Animal Partnership, and step 5 is the highest level of certification they offer for humane, safe farming practices.

Last year, I attended a meeting for beef farmers with representatives from Whole Foods. They wanted to start sourcing grass-fed beef locally for their stores in the midwest. They explained that they would only buy grass-fed beef from GAP Step 5 certified farms, of which there were none in the audience. At the end of the meeting, the consensus among farmers seemed to be, "that's never going to work here," because the amount of animals that Whole Foods wanted to buy on a regular basis far surpassed the number of grass-fed beef cattle in the entire state. Also, the requirements for GAP Step 5 certification were too daunting, and the buying/selling price was too modest.

To be GAP Step 5 certified, beef farmers must raise all cattle from birth so that they live their whole lives on only one farm. They must have breeding programs in place that select for cows and heifers that can birth their calves without assistance; no more than 5% of calvings each year can be assisted. Any and all use of antibiotics (i.e. if the animal comes down with a severe case of pink eye) is prohibited; if an animal is given antibiotics, that animal can no longer be sold at GAP Step 5 certified beef. The full requirements are explained on the Global Animal Partnership website. Of course, detailed records must be kept on everything and farms must undergo audits.

All the Gap Step 5 standards are admirable, and I strongly support the mission of Global Animal Partnership. However, it is not realistic to expect small farmers to raise animals in accordance with these standards and to keep detailed documentation on almost every aspect of their animal management. Large farms with paid staff are much better equipped to handle the record-keeping required for certification and can leverage economies of scale to fund and manage both cow-calf operations (breeding, birthing, weaning) and beef finishing operations (fattening cattle on pasture and/or grain). Small farms often only have one or two people working there, and they simply cannot handle all the tasks involved in calf-to-finish operations.

If people want to support local, sustainable farmers, then shopping exclusively at Whole Foods (or any grocery store) is not the answer. The meat may be raised in accordance with very high standards, but it's still part of the agroindustrial complex. There is no substitute for picking a farmer to raise your meat. Certification is a poor substitute for knowing your farmer, visiting the farm, and seeing for yourself how the animals are raised.

Don't know how to find a local farmer who raises meat according to your principles? Check out the website for my consulting business, Sustainable Food Solutions (SFS). I can help connect you with farmers.

Eating Lower on the Food Chain

Many vegans and vegetarians site the energetic gain of eating lower on the food chain as evidence of the ecological value of their choices. They may bring up feed conversion ratios as a basis for avoiding meat, explaining that it takes more energy to produce meat from livestock who eat crops than to just eat the crops directly. That’s logical. Eating lower on the food change conserves energy, right?

Not always. There is a critical piece missing in argument. Humans don’t eat the same plants/crops that animals eat, in the same form that animals eat them. In other words, humans don’t eat livestock feed. Humans don’t go and buy bags of chicken feed from the local farm store, bring that bag home, and dig in with a spoon to eat it raw. Humans may eat the same plants/crops as animals (i.e. soy, corn), but we don’t eat it in the same form (i.e. as livestock feed from a mill). And there is a lot of energy involved in transforming the plants/crops that livestock eat (corn, soy) into food that humans would eat (chips, veggie burgers).

When I was raising chickens, I fed the chickens corn that a neighbor grew and ground on his property, which was less than a mile from where my chickens lived. I would go to the farm, get the farmer, and he would turn on his grinder and grind the corn fresh into sacks that we re-used. (I had to bring back the sack to get more corn). The corn in question was Dent #2, which is very different than the sweet corn humans eat on the cob. Dent #2 is not at all palatable by itself; a fact I learned first-hand when I mistook a cob of dent #2 corn for sweet corn and tried to eat fresh off the stalk.

For humans to eat dent #2 corn or soy, it usually has to be used as an ingredient in processed foods like tofu, chips, or canned soups. The process of manufacturing and transporting these processed foods (along with their packaging) is energy intensive. I think that the energy lost in feed conversion (transforming chicken feed into chicken meat) is small by comparison, if we’re talking about backyard chickens or locally-raised chickens who are processed on-site (meaning, butchered by the end consumer).  In this case, the chickens never have to leave their home, never have to get packaged or labeled, and never have to be transported/distributed to grocery stores across the country.

My point is: it is not always more ecologically efficient to eat lower on the food chain, because humans don’t tend to eat plants/crops in the same form that animals do. If you saw humans eating chicken feed straight out of the bag, or eating weeds and grasses and twigs directly from their backyard, then would you have a fair basis of comparison.

The Downsides of Faux Meat

It bothers me when vegans or vegetarians state that their dietary choices stem from an environmental concern, and then eat "faux meat" products that can be worse for the environment than real meat. Don't get me wrong; I'm not anti-vegan by any means. Vegan diets can be great, but faux meat products are not by any means sustainable.

Michael Pollan writes in Food Rules that if a food item has a barcode, it's probably not a wise choice. Faux meat products all have barcodes and fancy labels, which means they are a product of a company that is large enough to create fancy labels with barcodes. And most of those companies that create products with fancy labels and barcodes are owned by bigger companies or corporations. Organic and natural foods are a booming part of agribusiness. And foods that are a part of agribusiness usually are trucked in from far away locations, making the connection between the farmers and consumers very distant indeed. Barcoded products are food without a face.

The problem with food without a face is that it's extremely difficult to trace the ingredients to their source -- which often is a benefit to agribusinesses who customers might be turned off if they learned about the origins of their food. And faux meat products have a lot of ingredients that are hard for the average consumer to trace, such as vital wheat gluten, canola oil, and soy protein concentrate. Could anyone trace these ingredients to the particular farms where they originated? Probably not, since many of these ingredients come from commodity products that are processed in aggregated form after having come from grain elevators around the country.

But let's imagine what some probably sources might be. Soy, corn, and canola are among the top commodity crops that are genetically modified. Even if they aren't genetically modified, they are grown in monocultures, which are inherently unsustainable and detrimental to the environment (more on that in another post). Most of the soy, corn, canola, and wheat grown in the US is grown conventionally, which entails the use of commercial fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides (the manufacture, marketing, sales, and distribution of which involve massive amounts of fossil fuels). Growing the monocultures themselves -- even if they are organic -- is incredibly fuel intensive and requires lots of irrigation, up to 70% of which evaporates, and the rest of which may become polluted due to the chemicals in the soil. After these monocultures of corn, soy, wheat, and canola are grown, they needed to be harvested, transported, and processed -- which is again very energy intensive.

It's hard to calculate just how much fossil fuel and water goes into growing, processing, and distributing faux meat products, but I can assure you it's a lot more than growing, processing, and distributing meat from humanely, locally raised animals -- especially if those animals are ruminants who eat vegetation that grows where they live.

When vegans claim that a soy burger is always a more ecologically-sound choice than a beef burger, it's just wrong. If the beef came from local grass-fed cattle, then the soy burger (based on monocultures and heavy processing and large-scale distribution) is by far more resource intensive.

Pastures a Plenty

One farm that I whole-heartedly support is Pastures a Plenty, located in Kerkohoven, MN. One of the main farmers, Jim VanDerPol, is the delightful author of "Conversations with the Land" as well as countless articles in sustainable farming newsletters. Jim and his family raise hogs as well as other animals on pasture using the Holistic Management model.

Pastures a Plenty products are sold at Seward Coop and Mississippi Market.

The Manifesto of a Conscientious Omnivore

Many vegans and vegetarians voluntarily restrict their diets in order to change their environmental impact and reduce animal suffering. At different times during my life, I have been a vegan and a vegetarian. Currently, however, I am a Conscientious Omnivore.

As a Conscientious Omnivore, I also restrict my diet in order to change my environmental impact and reduce animal suffering. However, I do this not by avoiding animal products, but by seeking out sustainable, humane sources for them.

Eating meat can positively impact the environment if the meat comes from sustainable, grass-based, local, humane farms. Animals play a key role in ecosystems; farming without them does not respect "nature as measure" (using nature as a guide for how to do things). As Sir Albert Howard said, "Mother Nature never farms without animals." Grass-based farms that practice strategic rotational grazing leverage animals' natural behavior and proclivities in order to built up the fertility of the soil and increase biodiversity.

Eating meat can decrease animal suffering if the meat comes from sustainable, grass-based, local, humane farms. The more customers these farms have, the more their business can grow, and the greater the competition they provide for conventional agribusinesses relying on CAFOs. The more consumers seek out meat from sustainable, grass-based, local, humane farms, the more money goes into supporting and growing those enterprises instead of CAFOs.

Could we survive without eating animals? Yes. But then think of how many animal species would cease to exist.

If we lived in a vegan society, there would be no demand for farm animals and no market to support raising livestock. (I doubt many people would raise cattle, sheep, and other animals as pets, especially since these animals require lots of land and the majority of our population is urban.) If livestock numbers were dramatically reduced, we would lose biodiversity as well as an important component of sustainable farming ecosystems. (Some have said that the biggest mistake in agriculture was separating fruit/grain/vegetable production from animal husbandry.)

There is still the question of whether it is morally acceptable to eat non-human animals. But here again, I look to nature as measure. Nature has no objection to animals eating animals; there are many animals that are carnivores and omnivores, and they are an important part of the food web. Should humans be among those omnivores? Well, humans are unique in having the capacity to care for animals and breed them to produce greater biodiversity. We are also unique in our ability to manage animals in order to build up top soil, sequester carbon dioxide, and revitalize arid regions. Humans can provide farm animals with good lives (better than they would have if left to their own devices in nature!) and, at the same time, provide nutritious protein sources to families and communities, taking market share away from agribusiness giants that are much less humane.