Post by brigitte on Feb 2, 2018 12:55:58 GMT -5
Maybe this would be of interest to some. Not sure where it belongs as a topic. It's a stream of letter writing with a member of a Vegan organization (Be Fair, Be Vegan) I wrote to after I was sent a photo of the billboard posted prominently recently along I-91 in in Connecticut about calves cruelly being separated from cows. (The only moment they are together- it says, with an adorable calf with its mother cow) The media push is on from Vegan organizations. I took out the name of the woman I have been discussing this with, who has been very respectful.
Good afternoon,
As much as I have already learned from you (thank you), I hope you can also learn a bit from me. I'd like to share with you one of the many stories about life and death on a farm- a culture that can't be judged without knowing it intimately. This one is about Bernie, a young guernsey steer born and lovingly raised here last year.
It was with (author, chef) Dan Barber's voice in my head that I committed to using all of the animal. In his book, The Third Plate, Dan goes into amazing detail about the history of a single species of grain we had lost to the profit driven food industry. He speaks of the Mennonites- who eschewed rubber tractors because they move an agricultural business forward faster than it should.(I read that section in person to my Mennonite friend Mark Nolte and his family in Shippensburg Pa last year)
He talks about the need to use all of the animals we raise for food. This ethic supports much of what you say about the need to recognize our livestock and wildlife as thinking beings, much as native Americans once did.
It was with this education (and a conversation with Barber in person near here where he owns Blue Hills Farm) that last year I told one of my buyers that I would certainly retrieve the tripe (Stomach) for her because she wanted it. Linda Mironte is second generation Italian and wanted to give it to her Italian mother so she could learn again how to make it- part of a rich tradition of farm to table life lost in her generation.
Linda was thus as much of a novice as I when Joe Shortt had done his part and left the pile of steaming innards with a look of disgust for my plan. Joe does his job and moves on, and couldn't care less about the innards or Dan Barber. I wish that were different.
Bernie's entire carcass was used and respected, nearly spiritually so, including his hide.
We looked at the pile, which differed in smell and texture from the deer I process in the woods. We pulled out the stomach, and washed it of grass based green bile. Linda returned days later with a container of the tripe dish, made in a tomato (and vegetable ) base with a flavor unlike anything I had ever had. This was a food hundreds of years in the making.
As much as I am sure you would be horrified by Bernie's demise, I am quite sure he would be grateful. He lived well, with his mother, and died without suffering in a place he knew. He supplanted something raised in an industrial food factory that didn't.
His mother, I hope, will die of old age. If not, then I will euthanize her if she struggle with infirmity. The genetics of dairy cows have predisposed them to earlier susceptibility to systemic problems.
In my father's generation, a cow lived to have 15 productive years. Today a dairy cow rarely lives beyond five years. I have a cow named Thyme who is 9 years old, prone to milk fever and a pinched nerve at calved that would easily have been her death sentence on a large dairy. She has twice been given last rights, and with the help of a very good vet, is in excellent health. I have learned to manage her idiosyncratic issues, and she is very happy out there on a cold frigid day, pregnant with her sixth calf. She and I communicate better than most people with words on a daily basis.
To say that a bear or coyotes' method of killing is cruel is the key to the greatest flaw in the vegan debate. Although we are arguably more civilized, it's judgemental at least and arrogance at worst to say we are more intelligent, or even "right" as an animal species.
We have a moral obligation to be ethical predators and to minimize suffering- a growing movement led by the likes of Temple Grandin which is changing slaughterhouse practices.
The belief that we are above or somehow more necessarily responsible than other species seems to imply we are not a part of the circle of life and its essential connectedness in the food chain- which cannot be true. A bear is allowed to torturously and cruelly kill a calf or fawn because it lacks what we judge to be a certain level of intelligence. We are not above or more important than other species, nor can we live without the details of the connectness- everything from leather to the manure that nurtures the soil and is part of the carbon sequestration process that creates a plant based diet. And no, synthetic fabric and chemical fertilizers are artificially and even dangerous facsimiles. Im sure I could find portions of your life that rely on an animal culture.
At the very time we as a society are being called to be more kind and empathic to animals (I recently wrote about Desmonds Army) it seems we are being less compassionate to one another and more inclined to subvert less politically powerful forces supporting mainstream agriculture. So to me the argument in favor of compassion is a good thing, to a point. So I regard your mission as honorable, though it is far more likely that we will be able to amend the food system than end a portion of it.
If you are ever in Berkshire County, I would love to show you around. The eggs from my free range chickens (living in an eggmobile for movable pasture in accordance with Joel Salatin's model) sell out within hours of my deliveries at $7.50 a dozen.
It is true, as Gandhi said, that the greatest of nations can be judge by how its animals are treated.
-Brigitte
Hi Brigitte,
Yes, it's tragically true that, in the wild, animals have to kill or starve to death, and it’s also true that they often do it in horrifically cruel ways. No argument there. But it’s also true that, unlike them, we have abundant nonviolent choices that are not only ethical, but also healthy, and ecologically sustainable. Unlike other animals, we also happen to be moral agents who know right from wrong and are expected to act on that distinction. So, really, in this day and age, we have no excuse, and no justification, for continuing to exploit and consume fellow animals.
Mr Ramsey’s opinion that our brains need meat is just that: an opinion, and a rather unconvincing one at that, given that, as an assistant professor of Psychiatry (not nutrition) at Columbia University, his credentials as a nutrition expert are questionable at best.
By contrast, here are the conclusions that major health institutions have arrived at after years of rigorous research and review.
The official position of the American Dietetic Association is as follows:
"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian [and vegan] diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the lifecycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, child hood, and adolescence, and for athletes."
In their official materials, Kaiser Permanente, one of the largest managed care organizations in the country, now advise the 17,000+ physicians in their network to recommend a healthy, plant-based diet to all of their patients as a way of preventing and, in some cases, reversing disease.
In addition, there’s also the clout and expertise of the 12,000 physicians at The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
All that said, I have no doubt that you love the cows in your care, and that you'd do everything in your power to protect them from bears and other predators. I am sure, too, that it breaks your heart when/if you cannot ensure their safety. It’s worth noting, though, that, while these cows can, in most cases, be protected from bear attacks, virtually all of them will eventually become the victims of humans who, unlike bears, have abundant nonviolent choices. Yet we still choose to kill the individuals who know and trust us, perhaps even love us, and whom we claim to love, only adding betrayal to the horror of slaughter.
Please don’t think I mean this a personal attack. I realize we all grew up in a speciesists society that taught to regard other animals as resources for our use, not as individuals with lives and minds of their own. I am merely trying to get you to see things from a different perspective — not from the perspective of what we gain from using nonhuman animals, but from the perspective of the respect we owe them as fellow sentient beings who value their lives, and their loved ones, as much as we do. Because, no matter how well we treat them while we’re using them as resources, we are still violating their life and death concerns in order to further our minor interests.
Kind regards,
On Feb 1, 2018, at 7:06 AM, Brigitte
Hi
Thank you again for your thoughtful response, and again I agree with you to some extent. And a confession that might make this effort more worthwhile- In addition to farming I also work as a journalist for a large daily newspaper in Connecticut and am thus fairly well trained in maintaining a subjective point of view. Therefore I will also keep your contact information for times I am sure will happen when I need this perspective on topics that seem to be emerging more frequently these days.
As I gave this thought in the barn where I truly love my cows, I wondered how you would regard the big black bear that has lurked in wait for an opportunity to take a vulnerable calf. The baby calves don't want to die, nor do the fawns I have seen killed violently and brutally by bears and packs of coyotes. Despite my efforts to protect them, sometimes they do.
The predators will bite the back ends of the young (and snowbound) (deer) animals, taking them down. Sometime they then kill them at the throat, but often they will begin eating them alive, while they scream for help. Does are unable to protect their young against bears and packs of coyotes.
The does have taken to birthing their fawns near homes where they feel safer in human proximity. The bears have followed, Do we then condemn the predators in a natural rhythm of things for their instinctive want for food?.
Also, numerous studies have been conducted to find that the brain especially relies on many of the nutrients found substantially in meat. Yes, there are alternatives, but as the story I find very balanced points out below, it would be extremely difficult to monitor health on a vegan diet.
My great aunt was a vegetarian (not vegan) and died of diet related issues.
Here is the story, by a physician, in a respected publication.
Thanks again, and even though I don't agree, I appreciate your opinions
Brigitte
Drew Ramsey M.D.Drew Ramsey M.D.
The Farmacy
Do Happy, Healthy Brains Need Meat?
Debating the ethics of eating animals for proper nutrition
Source: richardwiseman.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/i-give-you-the-illusory-cow/
My goal for this blog is to help you think about your food as medicine and to highlight the many brain benefits of better dietary choices. Several of the molecules that science indicates are needed for optimal brain health are found in meat and other animal products.
The New York Times has announced the winner of its essay contest on the ethicsof eating meat. My own 600-word entry failed to make the cut for the six finalists out of thousands of submissions. I’ve decided to post my essay here because none of finalists made what I think is an important point: If the human brain requires animal nutrients for healthy functioning, how can it be ethical to deprive the brain of what nature says it needs?
The Ethics of Eating Brain-Healthy Meat
Since human health relies on a diet that includes animal-derived nutrients, a debate on the ethics of eating animals should be confined to questions of quantity and quality. How much meat and fish do we need to eat? What is the optimal quality of what we eat? What quality of life is granted to the animals on which our diets depend?
As a physician, it seems clear to me that there are considerable health benefits to eating animals. Current epidemiological data support the need for animal-derived nutrients to provide optimal brain health, in particular. For example, B12 and long-chain omega-3 fatty acids essential for the development of a healthy brain are concentrated only in animal products. Excluding animal products from your diet, on the other hand, carries significant risk. A recent survey of 689 men found 52 percent of the 122 vegans were vitamin B12 deficient, which leads to fatigue, depression, decreased cognition, and irreversible nerve damage. As we age, low B12 levels are associated with shrinkage in brain regions related to memory and moods.
So why not eat a vegan diet and use synthetic supplements? For one thing, studies increasingly find that many vitamin supplements increase the risk of illness and early death. Secondly, synthetic supplements are not fully equivalent to the animal nutrients they claim to replace. Finally, even if you are able to use supplements as a substitute for animal nutrients, the question remains: would you? Any physician can tell you that people are often unreliable when it comes to taking any medication regularly, dietary supplements included. Supplemental vitamin D is readily available, for instance, and yet millions of Americans suffer from vitamin D deficiencies, which increase the risk of a host of physical ailments including increased risk of depression. We need to do whatever we can to fight depression. The World Health Organization ranks depression as the most widespread cause of adult disability on earth.
Granted, how we raise and eat animals today leaves much to be desired. Crowded feedlots, antibiotic overuse, cramped cages and other inhumane features of our food production system are indefensible. Additionally, factory farming of meat and fish diminishes the beneficial nutrients we would ordinarily derive from them. Grass-fed beef and free-range chickens are more nutritious than their factory-farmed counterparts. Similarly, wild salmon is far more beneficial than farmed tilapia.
The answer to the ethical question of eating animals is that we should limit our intake, but eat a higher quality of meat and fish that are ethically and sustainably raised. A half-dozen sustainably-raised oysters provides a whopping 272 percent of daily B12 requirements, 100 percent of vitamin D, and more omega-3s than a fish oil pill. It is a far better choice than a supermarket steak cut from a factory-farmed cow that was gorged on grains in a cramped feedlot during the final miserable months of its life.
There are those who think it is never right to take the life an animal, for whatever reasons. I think those people should consider the alternatives for the animals in question. Mankind is often cruel to animals, but Mother Nature is much crueler. In the wild, defenseless creatures like cows and chickens would be subject to hunger, disease and predation. By contrast, when animal husbandry is practiced at the highest standards, the grass-fed cows raised in pastures and the cage-free chickens raised in open pens arguably have the most pain-free, hunger-free, stress-free lives of all animals on earth. In exchange for their meat, they enjoy the most mutually beneficial relationship with humans outside that of our beloved house pets. What is unethical about that?
Hi Brigitte,
I’ve answered your questions in pink, below, but perhaps I should begin by clarifying what being vegan means. Being vegan means excluding —as far as possible and practicable— all forms of animal exploitation for food, clothing, experimentation, or any other purpose. Being vegan is not limited to diet but, in strictly in dietary terms, it means dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
Hi
Thanks for taking the time and careful thought to a response.
You’re welcome!
I respectfully disagree, and would love to discuss it further and would gladly show you around a small working, ethical, farm (actually, we have applied for grant status that would give us this qualification).
I understand that the ethical treatment of animals is important to you, Brigitte, but please consider that there is nothing ethical about buying, selling, owning, breeding, and killing sentient beings. No mater how well treated they may be in their artificially shortened lives, the fact remains that they are reduced to commodities to be exploited and eventually killed. They are bred into an existence of servitude where they are to remain forever vulnerable and dependent on their keepers, where they are denied a say in the most important aspects of their lives, and, when their profitability declines, they are killed. Every aspect of animal farming is the opposite of ethical. The very act of owning another sentient being is the opposite of ethical.
On dairy-
You probably haven't done the research on the vast differences between processed dairy and raw milk, and the new European and New Zealand science on A2/A2 raw milk.
You’re right. I haven’t researched the science of raw milk and that’s because I know that, whatever its benefits to us, they cannot justify the exploitation of vulnerable others. We have the technology to find cures or immune boosters that are not predicated on owning and killing individuals whose only sin in the world is that they were not born looking like us.
Milk isn't naturally consumed by adults in the wild, but neither is medicine.
Medicine is necessary, milk is not.
Raw milk has saved lives from human pain and suffering, and is under attack by the conventional dairy industry and the FDA as unsafe. These small farms are where cows are nurtured and well cared for. The word "spent" doesn't enter our vocabulary.
What we stand to gain does not justify breeding animals into a captive existence that virtually always ends in a premature, violent death. And raw or not, milk remains the product of an endless cycle of breeding and killing. Also, no matter what word we may use to describe the cows who are no longer productive, their sad fate remains the same.
As to "there is nothing humane about someone who wants to live," I agree. Although we must step up treatment of livestock in general, they are not human and should not be given the same rights and privileges as a human.
Other animals don’t look like us, that much is true. But at a deeper, much more significant level, they are like us. They feel, they think, they remember the past and anticipate the future, they love their babies, they make friends, they communicate, they form deep bonds, they grieve, they rejoice, they fear, they forgive, they hope, they play, they despair, they fall in love… Yet we exclude them from the moral community for the most superficial and morally irrelevant characteristic: physical appearance, when the only morally relevant criterion is, and should be, sentience. If a being is sentient, s/he deserves equal consideration and respect.
That said, no one is claiming that other animals should have the same rights as humans. They don’t need most of the rights we need — they don’t need the right to vote, or get an education, or have a free press, etc. But, as sentient beings, they not only have a moral right to life and freedom from oppression, they have an equal right.
Better treatment of “property” is not the issue. The issue is that sentient beings are regarded and used as property.
Murder is illegal. Raising livestock for meat should not be a crime.
What’s legal or illegal is not the same as what is moral or immoral. Slavery was once legal, but it was never moral. Breeding, exploiting, and slaughtering nonhuman animals is still legal, but it is every bit as immoral as slavery because it, too, involves violating the fundamental rights of the weak for the pleasure and profit of the strong.
In India where cows are sacred and cannot be killed, they create a public health problem.
What would you propose doing with all of the calves that must be born to a cow in order for them to give milk. Would you then banish the dairy industry along with the beef industry?
Who would pay for retirement cow sanctuaries.
Our mission is to educate people how to live without participating in the oppression of the innocent and the vulnerable. However, we are not talking about banishing any industries. Industries exist only because of consumer demand. Our goal is to promote the use and development of animal-free alternatives, from food and clothing, to entertainment and more and, with them, the growth of new industries.
The solution is not to retire “used” animals to sanctuary. The solution is to not breed them for our use in the first place. No one should be brought into an existence of servitude that is destined to end in a violent, premature death. Why not produce items that satisfy the rapidly growing demand for vegan products instead? Farmer Bob Comis comes to mind. He used to be a “humane” pig farmer who decided to replace his piggery with a veganic farm that now supplies New York City restaurants with fresh produce. You may enjoy reading his reflections on day to day life on a pig farm, which he has chronicled for the past 10+ years. Here’s just one example but, if you click on his name, it will take you to the archive.
And what of hunting. I am an archery hunter. I responsibly and ethically, through fair play, harvest deer every fall for my own freezer.
Apples are harvested. Sentient individuals are killed. And, no, there is nothing ethical, or “fair play” about taking sentient lives when we have abundant nonviolent choices. Our freezers can easily be stocked with plant-based foods.
Without other predators in some areas to keep the population to a carrying capacity, it falls to us to correct the imbalance we have created in the ecosystem. And here, we depend on the meat.
Killing is not correcting a problem, it’s covering it up and, in many cases, making it worse. If one is concerned with controlling populations, one should investigate contraceptive methods. Other animals should not have to pay with their lives for the problems we have created.
And, of course, anyone concerned with the very real, and very dire, human impact on the ecosystem, should stop supporting the very industries that create and exacerbate it. Animal agriculture is the leading cause of global warming, water consumption, ocean pollution, world hunger, habitat loss, species extinction, rainforest destruction, and more. If you think all this sounds farfetched, please visit this facts page where dozens of studies are listed to prove this tragic point. And, if you have time, watch the documentary, too.
My hope would be that you devote your resources to educate people to be more humane in the treatment (and respect) of animals- whether it be livestock, wildlife or domestic animals.
You may have guessed by now what my answer is going to be. :-) How we treat the animals we exploit does not excuse, or justify, the act of exploiting them. They shouldn’t be there in the first place, brought into existence to serve our purposes.
Your position seems to suggest that we keep cows as pets or not at all, that we end the hunting culture and not recognize the value of raw milk to keep human adults healthy (free of asthma, better immune systems, better gut probiotics, etc)
No, our position is that, as a matter of justice, we ought to cease animal use in all its forms, including breeding them as pets. We don’t want cows (or other animals) to be retired to sanctuaries or good homes, we want them to not be bred and exploited in the first place. We can live healthy and happy lives without using animals and, whatever the benefits of raw milk, we have the knowledge and technology to obtain them from ethical sources because, as they say, the ends don’t justify the means. Vulnerable others shouldn’t have to suffer and die so we can get stronger immune systems, better guts, or alternative asthma remedies.
Hunting is as violent and as unnecessary as animal farming and, yes, we very much oppose it.
And the chickens out there I keep. Should they not also be harvested when they are beyond laying age? Then there would be no room for younger layers. Would we then be forced to keep chickens in a retirement community at someone's expense, or give up eggs too?
Not only should ‘spent' hens not be killed, they should not be exploited for their eggs in the first place. If we leave eggs and egg products off our plates, we eliminate the artificially created need to kill hens and baby or adolescent roosters, too.
-Brigitte
Hi Brigitte,
Thank you for reaching out! I’d be very happy to address your concerns.
I’m assuming you are referring to our billboards exposing common dairy farming practices, such as the separation of mother and child, the killing of male calves and ‘excess’ females, and the killing of their ‘spent’ mothers. If so, as much as we would love to include information about the entire process, the medium does not allow us more than a few lines, and our copy is already exceeding the recommended 10 words. However, the job and purpose of our billboards is to drive viewers to our website, where they can learn a lot more. And, as you will note, we do include our website on each billboard, and our website does have a page dedicated exclusively to dairy.
Regarding your statement that humans are omnivores, a couple of notes.
First, both anatomically and physiologically, we are far closer to herbivores than we are to omnivores. Many people can’t even digest dairy products — which is not surprising considering that no animal, including humans, needs milk after weaning. It is also well established that animal protein leads to a host of diseases that can be prevented and often reversed on plant-based diets. So much so, in fact, that giant healthcare provider, Kaiser Permanente, has asked its physicians to recommend plant based diets to all of their patients.
Second, being omnivores would not change our moral obligation to refuse to cause unnecessary harm. Quite the opposite, it would strengthen it. Omnivores have the ability to digest a large variety of foods and, considering that every nutrient we need can be obtained from plant sources, we have no reason, and no justification, for choosing to include foods that cause irreparable harm to other animals.
Last but not least, please consider that there is nothing humane, or excusable, about killing someone who wants to live. Life is every sentient being’s most valuable and most irreplaceable possession. None of the bull calves on your farm, or their “spent” mothers, wants to die, none of them deserves to die, and none of them experiences their violent, untimely death (often at the hands of people they knew and trusted) as “humane”. “Humane” killing is our fantasy, not our victims' reality.
The fact that a handful of farmed animals have a “very good life” before they are killed violently, prematurely, with premeditation, and in cold blood, does not mitigate the magnitude of their loss — life itself — if anything, it makes it even greater; nor does it mitigate the killing of innocent, vulnerable individuals who trusted us with their lives. If anything, it makes our crimes against them even more heinous.
On Jan 22, 2018, at 10:49 AM,
Good afternoon
I am a dairy farmer, a vanishing breed in New England. I have just a few cows and sell raw milk
I keep my calves with their mothers and engage in a process of milking once a day known as "calf sharing" Eventually, the bull calves are harvested- very humanely
Cows will eventually be harvested as well, after a very good life on pasture, sunshine and lots of attention.
Your billboards are not allowing for proper education for people who know nothing about this process and are thus irresponsible. Harvesting meat is part of the small farm culture, as it is here. Rejecting all meat, and all forms of dairy offhand without further information is wrong, It harms rhetorically the many small farms who are operating conscientiously
We are humans, omnivores. We should have at least that responsible option while we take good care of our livestock.