Thanks for the post, Natasha.  Very enjoyable.

As further evidence of the value of diversifying farm operations, see this study published by Cornell University in 2007.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Oct07/diets.ag.footprint.sl.html

Basically, the study found that while a low-fat vegetarian diet has less of a land requirement, diets consisting of a moderate amount of meat and dairy are more efficient because they rely on pasture land (as opposed to the high-quality land required to grow fruits and veggies) which is more widely available.

Thanks for your important comments on this. It seems to be necessary to demonstrate that meat-eating can be a principled position, and that it in fact may have the high ground overall.
  I won,t try your recipe, though it sounds delicious, as I am on a low-carb diet and don't use tomaoes. And please don't throw out the wholesome lamb fat! It is rich in fat-soluble vitamins, a mix of fatty acids and is needed to help digest the meat it is naturally associated with.    Laurie Warner

Thanks for the responses, especially the link to that study.

And Laurie, I hear you on that one. I have a friend who did really well on an Atkins diet (though she's long past the first stage of eating almost all protein) and still eats lower carb options than most people, but leaving too much of it in makes my skin break out. I only drain it in a spatula, though, so it isn't like I'm particularly obsessive about it.

Never mind how well intentioned and environmentally sound the raising of animals maybe, the fact remains that anyone who eats meat is not willing to go that extra step to spare non human animals´ lives ... and the cost remains too high in ethical and environmental terms.
As a practicing vegan for almost forty years I can admit that it may not be as simple for everyone to give up an old ingrained habit like eating meat, but how we relate to animals and nature is crucial for our ethical well-being and the future of the planet.

Oops - second try:

Natasha, Your data on behalf of animals is out of date... While animal agriculture is irrefutably known to be a major cause of global warming, your stats aren't reliable for chickens.  An interesting article in January's "Audubon" magazine states that: "Ironically, data released in 2007 by Adrian Williams of Cranfield University in England show that when all factors are considered, organic, free-range chickens have a 20 percent greater impact on global warming than conventionally raised broiler birds. That’s because “sustainable” chickens take longer to raise, and eat more feed. Worse, organic eggs have a 14 percent higher impact on the climate than eggs from caged chickens, according to Williams."  ...Yet the author has gone veg; see http://www.audubonmagazine.org/features0901/viewpoint.html for more compelling and reliable data than you reference. 

Yes, it is a struggle for many people who try to go veg to give up their meat habit. I'm sorry for your dilemma, but stop blaming it on your physical needs. I know many vegans who eschew both soy and gluten, yet successfully eat high protein, vegan diets.  If you care about minimizing suffering (both for non-human animals as well as the workers who suffer debilitating injuries in today's slaughterhouses), you do have more compassionate choices.  Contact me directly and I'll connect you with accredited vegan dieticians. Godspeed, and stop rationalizing your choices.  Either own up or try harder!!!

Natasha, I experienced problems as you did when I was vegetarian. My digestion imploded and I was pretty much stuck for years, as I couldn't add other foods back in, though I was getting sicker. For our vegetarian friends, I was not a haphazard vegetarian. I was careful and well-informed. It has been some twenty years of rebuilding my sysem to now be able to eat the kind of high-density diet my constitution requires.   Laurie Warner

Jill, I'm sure you mean the dietary advice well. I'm still not interested.

As for the author's arguments, I'm first of all not taking that obliquely referenced chicken data as the end of the matter. I can't see the study he references, I don't really know if he did take all factors into account. If the chickens in question are being used, for example, for pest and weed control on a property that then doesn't need herbicides and insecticides, is that factored in? Is density and population transition data taken into account? If an organic, free-range hen produces more greenhouse emissions than a factory farmed one simply because she lives longer, does she over her lifespan produce as much as the 2-4 birds, or more, that would grow up in a typical factory facility during the same time frame? Does she still do so if she eats mostly grass and bugs instead of grain?

Further, as Greg pointed out above, animals can be grown on land that is unsuitable for farming grains or vegetables. Any given soil is not interchangeable with all other soil. Animals can be grown on land that, for reasons of soil composition, weather, lack of organic matter, etc., is unsuitable for anything besides pasture or range and absolutely should not be tilled up and left bare for part or most of the year. Such land, provided that the pasture manager knows what they're doing, can even be improved by grazing. 

And if we ought not to raise animals because they emit methane, what's to be done with the inconvenient multitudes of them? Mass slaughter and extermination of breeds? Cows emit too many greenhouse gases, away with them all? I'd be rather disappointed in a world without cows.

The elimination of animals from any of the Earth's ecosystems is exactly, in my opinion, as wrong a direction to take things as it is for humans to cause GHG emissions by cutting down primary forest to grow row crops. Animals provide fertilizer, root stimulation, pest control, organic matter improvements and nutrient capture services to soils and plants in grassland ecosystems, they're supposed to be there. If humans had better control over our own emissions, or were managing the planet's plant cover better, the animals wouldn't be a problem.

Wow. You sure go out of your way to justify eating meat. As I think you know deep down, it simply is NOT sustainable. Wake up.

Thanks so much for your comments. We eat our own pasture-fed/kitchen scrap/insect/worm/and yes organic whole grains (some sprouted first)-fed chickens. We enjoy the meat from our local friends who also raise lamb and beef and raw milk. Now we are getting organic fertile eggs from happy free-running hens. It is nice to support our local economy, especially when it is also organic. Here in Maine, a huge proportion of our food is trucked in, from places like California and Florida and the Midwest, when really we can grow most of what we need right here.
People should read _Omnivore's Dilemma_, it addresses many arguments put forward by vegetarians and animal rights activists against consuming meat or animal products.
Sarah

As a starting point, I have no desire to convince anyone what they should eat.  Whether it's a vegan or vegetarian or omnivorous diet that suits your physical and ethical makeup, that's each person's decision to make.

Starting with the global warming issue, I do not consider a summary of a study (that does not even include a link so that people can read the study for themselves) "compelling data."  What "organic, free-range chickens" were studied?  Were they a factory farm with 10,000 birds in a building, having access to a small outdoor area that consist of bare dirt, and all their food brought in from factory organic farms?  That does qualify as "organic" and "free range" under the laws. 

Or were they part of a diversified, small farm where the majority of their food came from weed seeds and picking through the manure of ruminants for the fly larvae and parasites that would otherwise become pests?  The environmental impact of those chickens is completely different.

Check out http://www.holisticmanagement.org/n7/climate_07.html  Many of the people in this organization have devoted their lives to managing land in a way that is beneficial for the environment, looking at everything from carbon sequestration to biological diversity. 

I don't think there's a simple answer.  I used to view agriculture, as Natasha says, as "ecological sacrifice zones."  I got into sustainable agriculture almost entirely because I came to recognize the potential it has for being a positive benefit for the environment and for human health.  Natural systems are complex and intricate, and I have yet to see a "one size fits all" solution that actually worked well when people tried to impose it onto Nature. 

I highly recommend a visit to Polyface Farms for anyone within a days drive of I-81 in VA. About an hour east of Charlottesville, there is a farm where animals are raised in their own ecological niche and are healthy and non-polluting because of it. M. Pollan talks about this farm and its farmer, Joel Salatin, and presents this farm as a vision for the future. 

I was vegetarian for ten years until an avalanche of medical issues began...infertility, weight gain, an adrenal disorder. I was a VERY informed foodie vegetarian and was meticulous about getting protein, B12, etc. I was vegan for a very large part of these years. Yet I had chronic anemia and D deficiencies on top of everything else. I went through a series of food eliminations and other testing, and it turns out that I have Celiacs Disease as well as extreme allergies to casein and soy. Being a vegetarian was not a healthy diet for me. Eating veggies, nuts, eggs, rice/millet, and pastured, grass-fed meat is the diet that allows me to live without chronic and debilitating health issues.

I find articles like this disgusting and offensive. 

The first section, "Healthy Diet," basically says that "eating meat is OK because it makes my body feel good."  Well, some people (adults) have sex with children because it makes their body feel good or something like that.  Does that make it ok for them?  No, it's still exploitation.  You are not so great that your sense gratification is more important than the lives of others.

The section called "Environment" simply makes the case that animals are good for the environment if they're appropriately managed.  However, that does not give anyone the right to unnecessarily kill them for food.  

Personally, though I work a full-time office job in environmental protection, I also maintain a small farm at home.  We grow a wide variety of vegetables, and also maintain several farm animals.  The animals are all useful in various ways, but we neither kill them nor eat them.  It's not necessary.  Vegetables, grains, and milk are food for civilized human beings.  There is no need for killing animals.  In dire conditions, lower animals can be killed for food to prevent starvation, but that is not a normal condition in civilized society.

Ms. Chart says, "That's why I get meat, dairy and eggs, whenever possible, from range fed animals and I do most of my eating at home where I can control that."  What about other times?  "Whenever possible" implies that sometimes it's not possible, and then the rule does not apply.  Inevitably "whenever possible" becomes "whenever convenient."  It's not a new argument. 

Next is "Animal Treatment."  Remember the Golden Rule?  Consider the statement of Narada Muni quoted in the Srimad Bhagavatam, "Those sinful persons who are ignorant of actual religious principles, yet consider themselves to be completely pious, without compunction commit violence against innocent animals who are fully trusting in them. In their next lives, such sinful persons will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed in this world."  http://vedabase.net/sb/11/5/14/ 

People talk about so-called humane meat, but there is nothing humane about unnecessary killing.  It is murder.  As stated in the purport to that Bhagavatam verse, "When a man is raising an animal for slaughter, he feeds the animal nicely and encourages it to grow fat. Thus the animal gradually accepts its would-be killer as its protector and master. When the master finally approaches the helpless animal with a sharp knife or gun, the animal thinks, "Oh, my master is joking with me." Only at the last minute does the animal understand that the so-called master is death personified."  

The thing about animals, or any creature in this world, is that body and soul do not stay together forever, and sooner or later they die.  Rather than playing the role of death personified, why not just let them live their lives and die naturally in due course of time?  Then if you want to cut them up and eat, I have no objection.  That is humane, otherwise meat is murder.

You can't tell a bear not to eat meat. I've never understood why some people would compromise their own health (or that of their children) to keep an animal alive. Not everyone eats feedlot meats.

As for the comment regarding slaughterhouse injuries & cruelty, you can skip feedlot meat altogether & buy your meats from a local farmer & visit the farm frequently to see for yourself that the animals are always out on pasture & being treated humanely.

I agree with the statement that some diets are right for some, but not for others. If a vegan diet suits you, fine, but don't criticize omnivores who choose to eat local, grass-fed, humanely treated animals because a vegan diet doesn't work for them.

Great article! People need to know that there are alternatives to feedlot meat available.

Erin,
You can't tell a bear anything, but we're not bears.  We're human beings, and we're supposed to be civilized.  On one hand people justify killing animals with the idea that we are superior in many ways, and on the other hand people want to model their morality after animal behavior according to our desires.  These positions contradict each other.  We're either superior to animals, and therefore should strive for moral standards beyond what are found in nonhuman species; or we're no better than animals and shouldn't claim to be civilized. 

Why do people descend to comparing causes they disagree with to pedophilia? I don't understand that. The Rick Warren approach to making an argument...

Not to speak for Paul, but here's what I think he was saying with his pedophilia reference:

He wasn't comparing meat eating pedophilia. He was using pedophilia as an example to explain simply to you why "because it makes me feel good" is not good enough of a reason to justify an action.

I understand exactly what Paul was saying. He is still comparing meat eaters to pedophiles. His argument is this:  Vegans = normal but meat-eaters think like pedophiles. It is a facile and inflammatory argument, and used by prosthletizers everywhere to shame people into believing like they do. How do prosthletizers for other causes that you don't support fare in your world view when they use this argument? I thought so...

 

Unfortunately, it seems as though Paul and Lisa have misunderstood the point Natasha was trying to make in the Healthy Diet section of this post.

In my opinion (and please correct me if I stray from your intention Natasha), she is not saying that everyone should eat meat because it makes them "feel good."  It's not as though eating meat makes you jump higher, run faster or enables you to have some euphoric physical reaction (to use your pedophilia reference).  It is about choice.

For those that are not able to sustain a healthy lifestyle on a vegetarian/vegan diet, meat consumption is a necessary choice in order to allow them the freedom of good health.  If you experienced the health problems that many, including some who have commented on this post, have had on a vegetarian/vegan diet, I do believe that you would be singing a much different tune.

As a side comment, "whenever possible" only becomes "whenever convenient" for those that are not truly committed to eating sustainably.  If you really make an effort, there are very few times when this is not possible.

Marie,

I have to disagree with you here. I think you're taking what was said to be placing meat-eaters in the same category as criminals and monsters (and pedophiles).

I think the reasoning used for the specific actions are being placed in the same category. But, since like 98% of Americans eat meat, to place meat-eaters in the 'horrible monster' category is neither helpful nor truthful.

I also think that to imply vegans are 'normal' is ridiculous. The ratio itself of vegans to meat-eaters places them way outside of the norm.

It certainly isn't my goal, and I doubt it is any vegan's, to shame people into believe like they do. My goal is not even to make everyone stop eating animals (not really anyway). I simply want everyone to consider their decisions. I want people to think before they eat about how, for example, a cow came to be a steak. The same reason I want people to consider sweatshops before purchasing sneakers.

I think many people who frequent change.org (particularly the animal rights page) mistake the discussions as being "preachy" or "prosthletizing," when really these are all just friendly debates. And as such, defense and offense must be present.

Greg, right on. I feel no need to add to that.

Paul, you're close to getting banned. I don't want meat eaters being compared with pedophiles or murderers here. That is, imo, outrageously offensive. Go make that argument somewhere it's welcome, which is not this blog.

Lisa, you've made what I think is one of the most important points in the discussion of sustainable food: all people should/need to think about where their food comes from.

To me, this implies not only knowing how a cow became a steak (and how it was raised before that), but also how those of us living in seasonal climates can enjoy strawberries, oranges and other specialty items year-round.  It is important to understand both the source of your food, as well as the mechanisms in place that allow you the ability to purchase it.

Great comment, thanks.

Natasha,

I'm sorry my analogy offended you, but considering your threat, I'll refrain from explaining why I used it.  Meat eaters offend me every day in many ways.  (I didn't see any apology from you, only consideration of your own feelings.)  I maintain a small farm sanctuary, where we have sheep who were born on our farm, and I find it very offensive seeing things like "I love to eat the little lambs,” with recipe included, on a web site that also hosts discussions about animal rights.  

When I was in college (Environmental Science major), I wrote a paper demonstrating that eating meat causes most of our other environmental problems.  The professor, Lester Milbrath, author of _Envisioning a Sustainable Society_ scored it an "A-"  He commented that it was "Excellent," and would have been a solid "A" if I had discussed how meat-eating is a natural feature of what he called a "Dominator Society," in other words, a society where the desires of the powerful trump the rights of the weak.  That's the "choice" some people like to glorify. 

Very happy you received such an excellent grade on your paper, Paul.
 
When I was in college, I wrote a paper on how there should be no such thing as universal human rights because of the relativism of differing cultures.  Do I believe that?  No.  But the great thing about college is that if you make a good arguement, you get a good grade.  It has nothing to do with if you're "right" or not.  In other words, your professor told you that you had made a great arguement, not that he agreed with you (even if he really did). 

You've got a lot of learning to do Natasha.

Paul, an apology for my opinion on this is something you're never going to get from me. Will. Not. Happen. And I wasn't asking for an apology from you, just telling you what the guidelines are here.

Believe whatever you'd like. But if you want a pleasant discussion that conforms to your views, if you want to compare my food choices to criminal activity, there is a community on change.org's animal rights blog where I'm sure you'll be welcome. I won't show up over there, please don't come over here looking for a fight.

Natasha -
Accusing someone of being offensive...you're kidding, right? Your entire blog post (and not just the super offensive original title about eating the little animals) is offensive to the AR community. You know that and it was clearly written to poke, so feigning suprise at the AR folks coming over to "your" community??? Really?

This blog is about the sustainable movement (which is essentially about how do I rationalize continuing eating meat). Sustainable food is something many vegans are very interested in. It's too bad and unfortunate it's been made clear from week one that they are not welcome here on your blog.

And lastly, the vegans who have commented on your blog have been treated with nothing but contempt (and a vast majority of those comments were polite).

I don't want a fight; just a bit hard not to call out on this.

I know that this is a repeat of something I've already said on this post, but I really feel it needs to be reiterated.

Nobody is here looking for a fight. This Web site and the blogs on it are great because open discussion is welcome.

I would think the bloggers would welcome outsiders and dissenters. If not for us, who would learn from the posts on here? Certainly not those with the exact same viewpoints as the bloggers. Those people already know, right?

Please recognize that it's a positive thing for Paul and others to be here expressing their view and listening (reading) yours. How can any of us ever be expected to grow otherwise?

Lisa,

I once heard a pedophile say exactly the same thing you did.

There. Have we all grown as a result of that comment?

You have one issue, one answer to every problem, you have one point to make about it. Do that. Elsewhere.

This is a place where I want people who grow and eat meat to feel welcome. This is a place where I want to discuss managed grazing, mixed duck-rice farming, moving away from CAFOs, integrated pest management and the benefits of free range meat. You can see how those would be very tedious discussions for people to have when they're continually being accused of genocide, yeah?

Just today, I think the only things your crew of fanatics has yet to accuse me of are racketeering, grand theft auto, and the attempted sale of Barack Obama's Senate seat. Do you see how when I invite people from the sustainable food movement to come here and participate, I wouldn't want them to get that treatment?

It isn't your diet I dislike, it's your obvious disgust towards me and the others here who eat meat, along with your screeds about our wicked and felonious tendencies. Either be actually interested in the subject of this blog, dazzle us with the gastronomic superiority of your recipes for vegan cuisine, or please leave us all alone.

Natasha,
Your tone speaks for itself, so I'm going to leave that alone. 
Regardless of what you might think, I did not come here looking for a fight, nor did I come for "pleasant discussion."  I'm here to speak up for the causes I believe in.  There are Causes at Change.org that I don't agree with, but I haven't been going around disturbing them.  I just found this place last week, so maybe you could give me a break.  I didn't know the various communities were meant to be so isolated that I should stick to just one.  Actually I doubt that's the intention of Change.org, and as a matter of fact, sustainable agriculture is one of my biggest concerns.  I just happen to disagree strongly with your view of it, and my opinion is not an uninformed one.
As it happened, I saw the title of "Eating Animals," come up under the Sustainable Food section, and since I know very well that eating animals is not at all sustainable (unless you're a mountain goat herder, a dumpster-diver, a roadkill scavenger, or the like), I assumed it was an article presenting some of the many arguments supporting that fact.  Actually, that was exactly _why_ I became a vegetarian, because when I learned just how incredibly unsustainable eating meat is with a world population approaching seven billion (actually, whatever it was about 15 years ago) and growing.  So I was quite taken by surprise when I saw the content of your article.  Now I'm even more surprised to see that a meat-eater is in charge of the section on food sustainability.  Kind of a "fox guarding the henhouse" kind of situation, IMHO.  
On a more personal note (pleasant discussion?), I just noticed from your little bio paragraph that you studied at Evergreen State College.  I taught Kundalini Yoga there back around '95 or '96.  I wonder if you heard of or visited one place called "Sanctuary," a home near Evergreen built for shaman and healer gatherings.  I stayed as a guest there for a few months, one of the coolest places I ever lived, and owned by one of the nicest ladies I've known.
Last but not least, to the folks who've spoken up on behalf of me and the animals, "Thanks."  8^)

Animals are animals, you can't change the physiology no matter how "civilized" they become.

No, Paul, I hadn't heard of that place. Though there were a lot of great people around Evergreen. Good to be reminded of it.

i think there is a middle ground here in being largely vegetarian if your health allows, alongside the humane growing of animals for products such as eggs, milk and wool. even the benefits of animals in agriculture ecosystems may be enough to keep them without killing them.

>This blog is about the sustainable movement (which is essentially about how do I rationalize continuing eating meat).

Sweet Honey in the Rock sing a song called Are My Hands Clean?, written by Bernice Johnson Reagon. Some of the animal rights folks who've come here to point fingers are writing as if they know the one true way to righteousness.

I'm more interested in how we can grow more humane (that's a human-centered word, isn't it?) together. Putting people down doesn't help make that happen. Living an ethical life joyously, and sharing that joy might...

If we start by treating the animals better, overall, as a society, then more folks will take the stand that killing them is unethical. If you work together with those of us who want to treat animals decently, I think you will eventually affect more people.

I want to see all of the earth's creatures survive our stupidity. I want us all to move to sustainable lives. It will take working together.

Blessed be.

Sue VanHattum
Richmond, CA

Joshua said, "...even the benefits of animals in agriculture ecosystems may be enough to keep them without killing them."
 
Indeed this is exactly the kind of project I've been working to develop at my home.  Presently we're maintaining one cow, three sheep, three angora goats, five guinea fowl, two peacocks, five cats, a dog, and a macaw.  The bird was a rescue, and the others all contribute in various way.  We're lacto-vegetarians, and we never kill our animals.  In addition to their physical contributions like manure, wool, eating bugs, etc., keeping animals like this makes for a very wholesome-feeling lifestyle and is extraordinarily satisfying.  I couldn't imagine killing any of our animals.

Sue-I am here because your antagonistic leader poked the bear and clearly doesn't expect the bear to defend herself....all the while being incredibly defensive. I am not trying to change any minds here; lesson #1 in veganism is don't waste your time with folks who are this defensive.

Natasha-I've read through the comments and other than an unfortunate, completely misunderstood analogy, I can't see that anyone has accused you of anything other than being offensive, defensive (is it possible to be both?), and of rationalizing your meat eating ways. So, I'm more than a bit confused about your martyr like statement below...

"I think the only things your crew of fanatics has yet to accuse me of are racketeering, grand theft auto, and the attempted sale of Barack Obama's Senate seat."

Do you really think resorting to the name calling is going to make us go away? Have we called you names? No. We haven't.

So, for the record, you don't disgust me. Most of my friends and families eat meat and probably without as much thought or concern for the environment as you. I still love them and I don't spend my time judging them or trying to convert them to my brand of "fanaticism," but we do have adult conversations about the ethical implications. We also discuss the many, many other issues with meat eating including health, the environment, human rights, feeding the world. Veganism is not just about one issue as you've implied. It's a way of life, not just about what tastes and makes us feel good.

You had every right to write this post, but was it really necessary to write it with the attitude? That's why I'm here. I don't agree with you and I don't ever expect you to agree with me, but until you can have an adult conversation about this, you shouldn't expect the AR movement to "leave you alone."

Lastly, over on the AR blog, dissent is welcome. Greg P. has commented intelligently many times. He certainly didn't change my mind, but it was thought provoking and I am glad he was there. Did AR folks take pokes at him? Probably. I might have even gotten snarky with him. But who really wants to surround themselves with those that only agree with them?  As far I as can tell, most of the blogs at change.org aren't run by dictators who only welcome you if you agree with them. If that's how you choose to proceed, what exactly does that say? Me thinks she doth protest too much or something like that.

If I were writing the AR blog, I would regard many of the comments I've read there from meat eaters as trollworthy remarks and would treat them accordingly. Communities of diametrically opposing ideas become each other's trolls almost by definition, and if you troll someone's site, you should have zero expectation of respectful treatment. This is why I don't bother writing at Republican sites, anti-choice sites, anti-gay sites, or anti-immigrant sites, for example, because I would regard it as both a rude interruption of their community and a total waste of my time.

I would have no problem with every single pro-meat comment being treated as a troll remark at the AR blog, whether that means harsh disagreement, snark, insults or deletion, no matter my agreement or disagreement with the contents.

But I'm not tasked with running that blog. I'm running this one. I've been participating in online communities for quite a while, had lead editing roles or ownership roles on blogs for over 5 years now, and the toleration of trolls, *as defined by the particular ideological bent of the community in question*, turns every discussion into a knock-down, dragout fight. People with thoughtful comments promoting the goals of the site become quickly worn out, activism efforts are hindered. Commentors who might have become long-term participants get turned off and stop speaking up, or never do. They can become tense places to go and tend not to build up the sort of vibrant, close-knit commenting communities that more heavily moderated blogs do.

Pro-vegan and vegetarian commentary is welcome here. Insults towards meat eaters, accusations of criminality, bigotry or lack of ethics, are not. I don't know why this is hard for some to understand, because it's been the unspoken governing principle of every real life discussion I have ever had with people who are vegans or vegetarians.

My enjoyment of my food choices is perceived as an attack, but it's just my enjoyment of my food to me. I have no desire to become humorless and apologetic about it, to become incapable of writing about it in what I perceive as a playful or passionate manner. It would make me bad at my job and unrepresentative of my chosen political community. That's not a constraint attended to by any of the other people I know of writing in my issue space, who are free to treat this as a non-issue in keeping with their own principles.

/