Not Under My Hoof

Umbra on homegrown meat 33

Dear Umbra,

I try to eat as many vegetarian meals as possible, but I haven’t “gone all the way” yet, mostly because my in-laws (whom my husband and I live with at the moment) raise beef, chickens, and hunt deer; and my husband and I end up with a lot of free, locally produced meat. How does this fit in with eco-friendliness? Would it still behoove (no pun intended) me to continue to push for vegetarianism? I am by no means a meat-lover and it’s fairly easy for me to pass it up, except when it comes to eating and cooking with my husband’s family. In other words, when they roast one of their own chickens for dinner, does it really make an environmental impact if I said “no thanks,” or am I still reducing my eco-footprint even though I’m the only one at the table not eating it?

Chickened Out
Fayette, Mo.

Dearest Chickened Out,

Two questions here: Is homegrown meat just as bad as all other meat, and if meat’s going to be eaten anyway, can’t we just join in? Maybe the first question will help us answer the second. I freely admit, I want the answer to the first question to be no. (I’m happy to take up hunted meat in another column, but I don’t have enough room to do so here.)

From Mom’s pasture to your plate.

I think we can look at the research on agricultural climate impacts and make some decent inferences. Agriculture contributes significantly to global warming.

Consumers can take simple action to reduce harm through eating meat and meat products less frequently, or cutting meat from their diets entirely. But what of eating ultra-local animals, grown on the farms of family and friends? I think the answer can be found in examining the details of livestock’s impacts, via both the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization report “Livestock’s Long Shadow” and a recent U.K. study from the Food Climate Research Network.

The FAO estimates livestock-related emissions at 18 percent of the world total. It identifies land degradation, water use and pollution, and loss of biodiversity through deforestation and other pollutions as other major problems affiliated with livestock. The climate impacts of livestock production include creation of potent methane via poop and enteric fermentation in ruminants (cows & co.), refrigeration in the supply chain, food transport, fertilizers, feedstock production, and deforestation. The U.K. study found that agriculture did contribute to CO2 emissions, but the larger footprint came from methane and nitrous oxide emissions.

Looking at this list, I believe that homegrown meat is potentially better than industrially produced meat on many levels. If a farmer is growing in a sustainable manner, using land appropriate to grazing, feeding appropriate and well-grown foods, and managing manure well, it’s all better than poorly managed ag, and they already have the benefits of no refrigerated supply chain and no transport. Additionally, sustainable small-scale growers have opted out of the industrial livestock system as eaters. They aren’t necessarily eating less meat, but they are not supporting irresponsible meat production.

Of course, this is basically a well-informed opinion on my part, not anything supported by data. Fortunately or unfortunately, the dire problems lie in the global supply chain, industrial ag, and resource-poor farmers, and these are the folks whose impacts have been studied. Your family is kind of under the radar.

As for your own diet, carry on eating less meat, and by all means refuse it at restaurants or other people’s homes. If your family is willing to take you into account as they plan their year’s harvest, then refusing it at home will also reduce the amount of meat produced, and that’s no bad thing. If you think they are responsible farmers or you simply wish to maintain domestic harmony, eating some of their meat is also no bad thing. It may even be tasty.

Homesteadingly,
Umbra

 

Yours is to wonder why, hers is to answer (or try). Send your green-living questions to Umbra.

Umbra Fisk is Grist Research Associate II, Hardcover and Periodicals Unit, floors 2B-4B.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. mckittre Posted 11:40 am
    16 Dec 2008

    Where would the tofu come from?Assuming you will eat the same number of calories regardless, refusing the meat means you'll be eating something else it its place.  
    If the tofu, beans, etc... that will replace that meat are equally local, and grown in a way you know is just as sustainable, then that's probably lower impact.  
    But if you're replacing that meat with industrially grown soybeans shipped across the country, you may be better off with your family's food.  
    -Erin

    Permalink

  2. BernardBrown Posted 10:06 pm
    16 Dec 2008

    re: soy concern, low on the food chain still helpsErin,
    It's true that soybeans are often grown in unsustainable ways, but since it generally takes less grain (including soy) to produce the tofu, bread, or whatever you're eating instead of the grain-fed meat, you'd ultimately be eating food created from smaller quantities of the offending soy.
    One way to think of this is that animals 'process' grain into other forms of food (meat, eggs, milk), but they do it inefficiently, so that it takes more grain to produce the meat, milk, and eggs than it would take to replace them in your diet.
    Of course organic, locally produced tofu would be best, but you'd be decreasing the amount of industrial soy even if the tofu isn't organic or non-GMO.  

    Permalink

  3. nycowboy Posted 11:46 pm
    16 Dec 2008

    re: soy concern, low on the food chain still hRegardless all forms of pollution are not equal for the environment's ability to sustain it. A 20-cattle head grazing operation on 50 non-brittle acres back east, probably has minimal environmental impacts.
    Pollution is a problem with the overuse of land, where more resources are taken from a parcel of land then are put back. While maybe your own 50 acres won't fix the world's woes, they don't necessarily have to make it worst either.

    Permalink

  4. ebrown53717's avatar

    ebrown53717 Posted 3:43 am
    17 Dec 2008

    Sometimes livestock are actually good for the landI know a farmer friend in Columbus WI (http://www.fountainprairie.com/) who made the decision a number of years ago to put his land (formerly corn and hogs) back into grass.  The question then became, "how can we still make a living off this land?"  The result is one of the finest herds of Scottish Highland cattle in the midwest.  He chose this breed after much research as one best suited to help to improve his land; he discovered later that he was raising some of the best-tasting (sorry, vegetarian friends) beef around.  He now supplies all of the best restaurants in the Madison WI area - and sells the leftovers to the rest of us at the weekly farmer's market.
    So here's a case of my eating his beef helps him keep his land healthy... seems to be a win-win.

    Permalink

  5. ruth117 Posted 4:09 am
    17 Dec 2008

    Grazing good for grasslandsAs a biologist on the prairies I just want to mention that grazing can be very beneficial to native grassland habitat, maintaining and even improving native prairie diversity. These grasslands evolved with the bison grazing them and as it would be very difficult to have bison running around in the numbers that sustained the grasslands before cattle are a good substitute. Without ranchers willing to graze these native grasslands they would all have been plowed under by now, which would be a huge loss of biodiversity. Please choose meat that is raised on native grass!!!

    Permalink

  6. kimsikes Posted 4:17 am
    17 Dec 2008

    I'm a meatatarian...all of my meat is grassfed and comes from local farms that heal the land. This type of food is certainly much better for your health and the planet than conventionally grown vegetables. I just read this excellent article regarding meat, vegetarians and ... cow farts!
    http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog/articles/grass-fed-m ...
    And here is a super philosophical (and of course, informational) article from Michael Pollan...
    http://michaelpollan.com/article.php?id=55

    Permalink

  7. MeowAllieCat Posted 4:24 am
    17 Dec 2008

    If you care about the planet...Consuming animal products is irresponsible and hypocritical. Period.

    Permalink

  8. estark Posted 5:19 am
    17 Dec 2008

    A real environmentalist won't eat animal productsWhy? To:
    -Save massive amounts of water - 3,000 to 5,000 gallons of water for every pound of beef you avoid;

    -Avoid polluting our streams and rivers better than any other single recycling effort you do;

    -Avoid the destruction of topsoil;

    -Avoid the destruction of tropical forests;

    -Avoid the production of carbon dioxide (Your average car produces 3 kg/day of CO2. To clear rainforest to produce beef for one hamburger produces 75 kg of CO2. Eating one pound of hamburger does the same damage as driving your car for more than three weeks);

    -Reduce the amount of methane gas produced;

    -Reduce the destruction of wildlife habitat, and

    help to save endangered species

    -Reduce welfare ranching.
    more info: http://www.earthsave.org

    Permalink

  9. meadow20 Posted 5:32 am
    17 Dec 2008

    land isn't always suitable for livestock In the arid west, cattle grazing is very destructive even in grasslands. The number of cattle has to be consistent for the rancher to make money which means drought years are grazed as intensively as wet ones. (in nature, the herd would die out or reproduce less in drought) Perennial grasses get replaced by annual ones, toxic and/or woody vegetation begins to take over, and erosion and soil loss increase- sometimes irreversibly so and grasslands convert to desert. Cattle don't graze like migratory bison which move on as they eat. Cattle hang out in streams and eat everything there before moving to drier areas which ruins the stream for all the other creatures that depend on it.

      I live in the heart of ranch country and I concluded long ago that the more of us who stop eating meat, the better off the planet will be.

    Permalink

  10. kimsikes Posted 6:15 am
    17 Dec 2008

    Locally raised grassfed animals are okay!This is all very true in regards to industrial farming. However, if you review the statistics in regards to biodynamic farming, it's a clear benefit to the environment. See below...


    Save massive amounts of water - 3,000 to 5,000 gallons of water for every pound of beef you avoid ...  Grass farmers don't use grain or soy feed and have no need to wash away all the animal waste (two main sources of water waste) since it's used to fertilize the grass.
    Avoid polluting our streams and rivers better than any other single recycling effort you do ... Manure from grazing animals is an invaluable resource for healthy, fertile and nutrient-rich soil.
    Avoid the destruction of topsoil ... Grazed grass improves water retention and erosion issues.
    Avoid the destruction of tropical forests ... This is not relevant at all to local biodynamic farms.
    Avoid the production of carbon dioxide (Your average car produces 3 kg/day of CO2. To clear rainforest to produce beef for one hamburger produces 75 kg of CO2. Eating one pound of hamburger does the same damage as driving your car for more than three weeks) ... Local farms do not clear rainforest and some farms do not deliver food more than a half day's drive. They typical fruit or vegetable travels an average of 1,500 miles to arrive on the average American's plate.
    Reduce the amount of methane gas produced ... "nitrous oxide from fertilizer adds up to 26 per cent [and] carbon dioxide from ploughing up grassland is the major contributor...45 per cent" compared to methane from livestock: 20%.
    Reduce the destruction of wildlife habitat, help to save endangered species ... Biodynamic farmers enhance the landscape, even ones that are not used directly for grazing, and welcome local wildlife to interact with their animals.
    Reduce welfare ranching ... Local farms refuse to take subsidies from the government, in fact, the government is generally their enemy! Most subsidies are for corn and soy which are used for industrial animal feed and all kinds of processed foods, like tofu.

    Permalink

  11. meadow20 Posted 6:44 am
    17 Dec 2008

    it can be said, but that doesn't make it trueI have no idea what "biodynamic" farming does that is different from the ranching I see. You can say there will be no erosion and that the landscape will be enhanced, but what is done differently that makes these things happen? The only thing I can think of that would work is fewer cattle for a shorter time which is simply not economically viable.

    Grazed grass if grazed too far, has shorter tap roots which means it is weakened and less drought tolerant. Then you get a bare dirt patch which begins to erode away when the rain comes. In the west, the biggest source of non-point water pollution is cattle on the range which have fouled pristine waters all over the Rockies.

       I don't know one rancher who won't take a subsidy if its offered. The government is still enemy though- no doubt about that. Moreover, the western ranches are too far from viable markets to sell direct and they must sell to factory feedlots.

    Permalink

  12. BernardBrown Posted 9:18 am
    17 Dec 2008

    Kind of Like Clean CoalAs far as I've been able to tell, this carbon-storing ranching is possible, but I have no sense of how to know when livestock is raised in this manner, I have no sense of what proportion is produced this way now, and while sustainable ranching could sequester comparable quantities of carbon under ground as a prairie, I still haven't seen how it can sequester as much carbon as a forest (including the above-ground carbon stored in a forest in the form of trees).
    Maybe there could be a shift to all of us buying pastured animal products that are raised sustainably (I certainly try to at the local farmer's market), but as far as I can tell it's more expensive than factory farmed product, so ultimately less would be consumed - something I have no problem with as long as we don't cut down forest and overgraze the West under the fuzzy label of biodynamic ranching.  

    Permalink

  13. Cassman47 Posted 9:58 am
    17 Dec 2008

    tofuwell cows can consume up to 25 times what a human will consume on the same amount of land to produce the same amount of calories i think the number 14 for pigs and 2 to 3 for chickens

    now this is not that they eat more than us per body weight its that after it is converted to muscle and then we consume the muscle it becomes grossly inefficient

    in Australia we produce 450 million chickens each year that is 22 chickens per person per year that same amount of feed and land use could feed a person  of a approx 50 kilo's in body weight for a year yet the 22 chickens would not be enough food for one person to survive for a year

    the other issue is that if all 6.5 billion of us ate meat at the rate of the western world we would require 650 billion animals each each year in order to meet demand.. plus the breading stock to produce 650 billion animals

    my point is no matter how it is produce 2 things must happen first you need to have available land to grow the food for the animal second you must kill the animal the first can be easy but degrading to environment the second comes down to ethics and for me there is no choice no kill

    thanks Craig

    Permalink

  14. kimsikes Posted 11:30 am
    17 Dec 2008

    continued...Wikipedia's definition of biodynamic farming:

    Biodynamic agriculture, a method of organic farming that has its basis in a spiritual world-view, treats farms as unified and individual organisms, emphasizing balancing the holistic development and interrelationship of the soil, plants, animals as a closed, self-nourishing system.
    This type of farming is anti-industrial, humane, nourishing, responsible and conscious. Check out http://polyfacefarms.com/video.aspx for how this is accomplished. These farmers call themselves "grass farmers". They know more about grass than anyone - it's quite amazing!
    As far as western ranches I know nothing of their farming practices. I consider myself lucky I live in Virginia!
    The product that comes from these farms are actually cheaper than conventional foods. Conventional foods carry a price tag that's not reflected on your receipt: actual dollars (subsidies and cleanup costs that we pay for in taxes), environmental (pollution and loss of wildlife habitat), health (obesity, diseases, poor nutrition, contaminated food) and quality of life (tasteless food, loss of the pleasure of preparing food and eating together).
    Yes, we would need land for these farms but I don't see how that would be degrading especially when the other option for that land would be strip malls and mcmansions.
    And sorry but if you're eating conventional, even organic veggies from huge farms, you're still killing animals with all the chemical inputs and the tilling of the soil and indirectly from all the shipping, packaging and waste of processed foods especially.
    There is a lot to learn and I certainly don't know it all but I'm on a constant quest for nourishing, real whole foods.

    Permalink

  15. bailsout Posted 1:43 pm
    17 Dec 2008

    methane productionI don't have the evidence or statistics but I bet the current human population creates a lot more methane than livestock. So let's start harvesting humans in an UNSUSTAINABLE way or at least raising humans so that they do not overpopulate. Maybe then we could create a sustainable diet for the omnivore human.

    Permalink

  16. dgjessee Posted 9:49 pm
    17 Dec 2008

    Oil and Gas Auction in UtahTomorrow the BLM will auction off over 100,000 acres of pristine wilderness in Southern Utah.  Where can we find out what sort of public comment was made during the 30-day period that took place in November?  Judging by the media and popular backlash I have read, I can't imagine the comments were good.

    Permalink

  17. rockypandora Posted 11:16 pm
    17 Dec 2008

    dairy and eggs I'm vegetarian, but I eat local organic eggs and milk products, albeit sparingly and with a side order of guilt.  I have tried cooking without them, but margarine tastes like petroleum to me and it ruins my baked goods.  Egg replacers don't cook up the same way.  Am I just being spoiled and selfish?  I suspect that the dairy industry does just as much damage to the environment as the cattle industry does.  

    Permalink

  18. redambrosia99 Posted 1:19 am
    18 Dec 2008

    re: dairy and eggsYes, the industrial dairy industry does as much damage as industrial meat, and the egg industry is an inhumane blot human history.
    But organically/sustainably raised cows and chickens are generally much better.  If you're unsure and want to assure yourself, call the farmers you get your eggs and dairy from and ask for a tour.  Many small farmers are happy to meet their customers and show them around.
    And yes, margarine is not nearly as good for baking as butter, and fake eggs are just... fake.

    Permalink

  19. mary martin Posted 7:03 am
    18 Dec 2008

    re: dairy and eggsrockypandora,

    Earth Balance is a fabulous butter substitute; there's no difference in baked goods whatsoever, and I bake several times a week. Egg replacer in a box isn't a favorite of mine, and depending on whether you're using egg for structure or moisture, there are a handful of substitutes, including unsweetened applesauce, ripe banana, ground flax seed, tofu, soy or coconut-milk yogurt. If you're not into palm, Earth Balance isn't even necessary, as safflower or canola are fine, and even applesauce is a great substitute. When I realized that the dairy industry and the veal industry are siblings, it wasn't too tough to mentally get rid of dairy and try a little harder with my baking. But as it turns out, it's not hard at all.

    Permalink

  20. maladapted's avatar

    maladapted Posted 9:58 pm
    18 Dec 2008

    re: If you care about the planet...You'll die and leave no descendants. Period.

    Permalink

  21. rockypandora Posted 10:14 pm
    18 Dec 2008

    dairy but (t)?Hi Mary, I've tried the earth balance buttery sticks 3 or 4 times, each time I keep thinking that maybe this time they'll work.  They smell and taste rancid to me.  The tub spread is okay for toast I guess, but it just doesn't taste the same as real butter.  Also, I try to eat "real" food, not stuff that's processed.  I will not be giving up my quest for good substitutes for dairy and eggs in my baking as I have a vegan daughter.  But personally I think I'll probably continue to consume the kindest and smallest amounts of dairy that I can find.  Maybe I  need to do more research on the downside of the organic local farms that I'm buying from.  It's so hard to know where to step to make the lightest imprint on the earth and still enjoy yourself.  

    Permalink

  22. CyberBrook's avatar

    CyberBrook Posted 2:43 am
    19 Dec 2008

    delete meat

    Eating meat, regardless of how it is raised, has certain serious problems, among them: a worse environmental impact (i.e., meat ---> heat) and the unnecessary killing of an animal to satisfy a selfish desire.
    As for margerine, I find Earth Balance (organic) in the tub to be just fine for cooking. Likewise with Ener-G egg replacer, which comes as a powder in a box. Both come in yellowish containers.
    Please visit Eco-Eating at http://www.brook.com/veg for much more info.

    Permalink

  23. tlarsen Posted 8:53 pm
    22 Dec 2008

    Homegrown vs huntedI'm really surprised no one has separated the two, both of which were in the original question. Land-use for homegrown meat will be inherently inefficient relative to vegetable protein. But eating venison in most places actually helps the environment. Since we've already removed most predators of deer, they become hyperabundant and ecologically destructive. No habitat needs to be converted at all for deer populations to thrive (forests, fields and even suburban settings), so there is no land-use cost. Eating locally hunted deer is one of the most environmentally friendly things we can do.

    Permalink

  24. Avelhingst Posted 4:48 am
    23 Dec 2008

    re: dairy and eggs  There is no substitute for butter, period.  Nor eggs. People can try, and they might find a substitute 'adequate' enough for their tastes.  Whatever.  Not only do I choose not to pollute my body with margarine or fake eggs, I choose to eat well but sparingly.

      All that aside, it is important for folks to know that the average dairy cow in this country produces the equivalent of 2.5 fatted steers in protein EVERY YEAR.  She does not have to be replaced, nor grown again, but just calves again and keeps giving.  The extraordinarily healthy fats are a bonus!  Cows are truly amazing creatures.

      If you can afford or find it, milk products and egg products produced from actively grazing animals is both better for you and better for the land then most folks would suppose and/or admit.  For centuries, agrarian societies have understood that land must be fallowed and then allowed to be grazed.  Grazing enhances topsoil fertility and biodiversity, reduces erosion problems, and suppresses weeds.  It is vital that our lands be allowed to be in an intensive rotation with crops to prevent exhaustion - that goes double for the concept of organic/sustainable production (and I'm talking to everyone here now, not just to RockyPandora).  Likewise, the products themselves are far more beneficial than corn-fed animal products.  Eggs, to, are more healthful for a consumer if the hens producing them are bright, out-of-doors, and snacking on bugs.  The likelihood of cows living it up properly is thin under commercial production, but still does occur without the 'organic' label being stuck on the milk. However, I can think of no single producer of eggs in the mainstream that can provide the best, so you'll just have to hope or buy from some neighbor or farmer you trust.  Go ahead - you're not being selfish, you're treating your body to some of the finest nutrient sources available to nourish flesh AND soul.

    Permalink

  25. Avelhingst Posted 5:17 am
    23 Dec 2008

    good heart  I would like to reintroduce a term to popular usage:  "Keep the land in good eart." Also spelled in some cases, 'heart.' Grazing animals (usually cattle since they don't have upper incisors) has long been known to be a crucial rotation in cropping systems to keep the land in good eart - that is to say, reestablish soil fertility, rest the land from disturbance, and allow the natural flora and fauna of the soil to flourish and enhance nutrient cycling and porosity and water retention and all that good stuff.  If we truly want to have a sustainable agricultural system, then it is crucial to keep animals as part of that system, usually in rotation.

    Permalink

  26. electric worry Posted 5:18 am
    25 Dec 2008

    Interesting conversationIt might be worth considering, regardless of how many acres it takes to feed a vegetarian vs. how many it requires to produce meat, that land doesn't just fertilize itself.
    And plant compost is not a fully balanced fertilizer.
    A truly sustainable farming operation mixes field crops with animal husbandry, most of the founders of the organic movement recognized this and wrote about it at length.  Unfortunately, a great many of their followers ignore those words of wisdom because they don't fit into a certain world view.
    Yes, land can be overgrazed to its detriment, but it doesn't have to be.  To suggest that all meat is bad and use statistics from industrial livestock farming to support the argument is disingenuous.
    And, by the way, soy is a terribly destructive crop that requires heavy fertilization and herbicides.  "Organic" soy (at least the mass produced variety) gets around the herbicide issue by employing near slave immigrant labor to burn the weed growth between rows.  Does that fossil fuel combustion get counted in the environmental impact?  Furthermore, the "organic" fertilizer to feed it often comes from the livestock industry.
    Converting our collective lifestyle to vegetarian will not end climate issues, nor will it repair our agricultural system to health.  Raising what we can ourselves and buying the rest as locally as possible would be far better, but would leave less room for militant harangues.
    I'd be interested to know what percentage of the comments come from city apartment dwellers who shop for their food, and then visit the internet to tell a person who's living with the food how she could do better.  Now, off to Whole Foods for some "organic", Argentinean, out of season asparagus...fumigated on arrival but still "organic".    

    Permalink

  27. natureguru Posted 4:48 am
    26 Dec 2008

    We've started something hereWhat a great conversation we've got going. Thanks, Umbra, for getting it started. It's important to get people thinking about where there food is coming from. As a former meat-eater, I can understand the resistance to totally eliminating meat. Although I'm vegan, I say that any steps you take to eat healthier and live better are steps in the right direction. Small farmers aside, commercial enterprises are not interested in treating their animals with respect and dignity. They are interested in "processing" as much flesh as possible as quickly as possible. How can the product be good for you? I stopped eating meat and dairy for many reasons - health (too much saturated fat and cholesterol), ethical (I love animals - you wouldn't eat your dog, would you?), and environmental. We grow much of our food, and what we don't grow we pick up at our local co-op. Many believe that going "veg" means that they eat alot of soy. That's not the case. My boyfriend and I eat soy maybe twice/week. We make our own soymilk or rice milk (easy!) from organic beans, and do our own cooking, eating out only rarely. Is it difficult? Yes! Do family members treat us differently? Yes. Do we regret it? No. Having lost 25 pounds, and feeling and looking better than ever, I know that I've made the right choice for me. Find your path, ChickenedOut, and stick with it!

    Permalink

  28. mckittre Posted 3:06 pm
    28 Dec 2008

    local ecologyTo put some of the hunting from the original question back in here...
    Not all land is equivalent for all types food production.  I live in Alaska.  Here, anyone who tries to have a significant part of their diet be sustainable or local ends up eating a lot of animals:  salmon, halibut, moose, bear, etc...

    As do/did all native populations in northern areas.  I'm not a hunter myself, but this makes sense to me.  Why not eat whatever your area can produce best?
    So if the original questioner's family have figured out what works best on that piece of land, maybe it is the best thing to be eating if you live there.
    -Erin

    Permalink

  29. meadow20 Posted 6:24 am
    30 Dec 2008

    huntingAs I recall, about a millionanimals are slaughtered for food every day in the US. There are about 30 million white tailed deer. If everyone switched to venison but ate the same amount of meat, deer would be extinct in mere months. (assuming they could all be found and killed)

    Permalink

  30. Cara_J Posted 10:43 am
    30 Dec 2008

    missing the pointmeadow20, I don't think anyone is suggesting that everyone in the US switch all their meat-eating to venison.  Americans currently eat a rather excessive amount of beef and poultry and could make a real improvement in both environmental and personal health if they significantly reduced their meat consumption.
    Eating hunted deer may make sense if you live in one of the many areas with a high deer population.  

    Permalink

  31. mary martin Posted 4:36 am
    31 Dec 2008

    the taste of butterRegarding trying to replace the taste of, say, butter (but anything, really), that kind of thinking can be a recipe (get it?) for disaster. What I bake is delicious but does not taste exactly like it has been baked with butter. And in fact on the rare occasion when I do accidentally eat something cooked with butter, I find the taste repulsive. Your palate changes as you remove animals from your diet. But as for the function of butter or eggs, they really are easily replaced with what you call "real" food. Also remember that yogurt, bread, and cheese are just as "unreal" as their vegan counterparts. And when you think about what eggs are (menstrual secretions) and think about drinking the milk of a cow or a dog or an elephant, the idea of drinking almond milk and using a ripe banana or some ground flax seed rather than an egg becomes very appealing.

    Permalink

  32. chrislizotte Posted 7:03 am
    01 Jan 2009

    Find the Aristotelean happy medium@ dgjessee:

    Please be advised that referring to any part of the United States as "pristine wilderness" is akin to writing the native people of this hemisphere out of history. The pristine myth is one of the most damaging relics of the environmental movement's frankly racist beginnings.  
    @ mary martin:

    calling any food any more "real" or "unreal" is totally meaningless; you're inserting your own preferences for what you mean to pass off as objective descriptions.  I for one have no problem drinking milk or "menstrual secretions" and I will continue to do so.
    Fortunately the last few posters on this subject have balanced views on the subject of food.  Congratulations, electric worry, for recognizing that "organic" is sometimes nothing more than greenwashing to turn a buck.  If you feel good about yourself for buying "organic" yet wildly out-of-season produce that had to be flown from halfway around the world, you might want to reexamine your priorities.  Congratulations also to others who recognize the importance of animal grazing to the health of the land.  As there has never been, to my knowledge, any ecosystem that sustained itself without animal matter, it seems pretty blithely ignorant to declare that we don't need animals of any kind to maintain a sustainable food system.
    If you don't want to eat animal products, that is totally fine, and it is possible to live healthfully in that way. However, please don't tell others that any other way of living is unequivocally harmful to the earth, because that's just not true.  The farmers who live in my part of Vermont and eat meat they've hunted or raised are living much more sustainably than a Whole Foods-shopping urban dweller who nevertheless has the nerve to act as an expert in matters they should leave alone.

    Permalink

  33. MeowAllieCat Posted 5:02 am
    05 Jan 2009

    ResponsesRockyPandora: As others have said, there are plenty of egg & milk substitutes. Something they haven't suggested, though, is recipes that are already egg & dairy free. Try depression-era recipes such as Wacky Cake (chocolate) or WW2 (eggless, butterless) cake. Also, you said EB sticks taste rancid to you. I use the stuff in the tub, even for baking. :)
    redambrosia99: These "fake eggs" are completely natural things that you probably already eat. Flax or applesauce, to name two that I use. Ener-G egg replacer is mostly cornstarch. I don't really see how that is "fake."
    maladapted: That is exactly my plan. I will work in life to change attitudes and make the world a better place, without spawning. If I ever get to a point in my life (I'm 23 now) where children seem like a good idea, I will adopt or, more likely, become a foster parent. It is selfish to have biological children at this point.
    Avelhingst: See response to redambrosia. "Fake eggs" do not "pollute" your body. Margarine, if hydrogenated, is harmful to your health. Not all margarine is made of hydrogenated oils, though.

    Also, what do you think happens to these calves who must be birthed in order for your dairy operation to stay in business? They either become dairy cows themselves (after being ripped away from their mother and deprived of the milk which is produced by her mother FOR THE NEWBORN CALF) or they are sold for meat.

    Cows are no more or less amazing than any other creature. The "healthy fats" in cows milk are the same "healthy fats" in human breast milk. They're intended to nourish the infant. End of story.
    Electric Worry: Cows eat more soy than vegans. If you are truly concerned about soy production and the chemicals associated with it, there is no excuse not to eliminate animal products from your life.
    NatureGuru: Thank you for sharing your experience, and for pointing out that being a vegan does not mean you eat soy for every meal!

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement