• May 18, 2013

Previous

Next

Is Meat Murder? For These Students, the Question Is Personal

August 25, 2010, 12:00 pm

Laura and Oliver

Laura Wolfgang holds Oliver, her Black Welsh Mountain lamb. (Photos by Scott Carlson)

Poultney, Vt. — At Green Mountain College’s post-petroleum farm, students learn how to grow crops without using fossil fuels to drive tractors or haul in copious quantities of fertilizer. Much of the work here—plowing, mowing, improving the soil, and so on—is done with the aid of animals, which are vital partners in the farming endeavor.

Recently, I stood out in a sunny pasture here with two sustainable-agriculture students, Dayna Halprin and Laura Wolfgang, along with a cow named Princess. True to her name, Princess conveyed an air of bovine entitlement, amplified by the way that Ms. Halprin and Ms. Wolfgang stroked her hide and cooed at her.

“I love Princess—she’s a good cow,” Ms. Halprin said. A moment later, as Princess’s big, wet nose nudged her face, she added: “Hey, don’t eat my hat!”

“I see that you’re very affectionate with these animals,” I said, “so do you ever put them up for slaughter?”

The answer was yes, of course. This is a diversified farm, in which each plant and animal component, depending on the time of year, offers something to make this place productive or profitable. A chicken can be both a pest controller and an egg producer, for example. Pigs can consume waste food. Cattle can offer muscle power or produce calves and milk. And all of them produce soil-enriching manure.

And one of the final products an animal can offer — or give up, depending on your point of view — is its body. Ms. Halprin and Ms. Wolfgang see it as a “give-and-take relationship.”

chickens

“We really do love them, but they do have a purpose here, and that is part of a sustainable agriculture system,” Ms. Wolfgang said. “I see meat production in the Northeast as an essential piece of creating a less fuel-intensive food system. You can’t survive on vegetables that you can grow in the Northeast through the winter. You need to have a local source of fat and protein.”

These two young women have real emotional investments in the process. Last year, for example, Ms. Halprin took a calf named Philip to slaughter.

“That was really hard for me, because I had seen him get born—I pulled him out,” she said. As one of his primary caretakers, she spent a lot of time with Philip. She had been a vegetarian for years before his slaughter. “He was the first meat I had ate and pretty much the last meat I’ve eaten since then,” she said.

Green Mountain College probably draws more than its share of vegan and vegetarian students, Ms. Halprin and Ms. Wolfgang say, so slaughtering animals has been controversial on campus. The debate blew up a couple of years ago when some students were assigned to feed the farm pigs. Soon they found out that the pigs were destined for the dining hall, and they launched a campaign to save them.

Z. Vance Jackson, an assistant professor of counseling psychology at Green Mountain, said the college saw this as an opportunity to teach the students about “socially responsible dialogue”—that is, how to discuss a touchy subject without devolving into yelling and screaming. He was the moderator of a forum about the topic.

“It was a highly emotionally charged atmosphere,” he said. “You could tell that people had strong feelings one way or the other, and rather than exploding at each other, we wanted them to talk it out.”

Ms. Halprin was presented as one of the voices of the farm, arguing for meat production. The emotions around the issue led to surprising assertions from some of the anti-meat students. Some of them, Ms. Halprin recalls, said they would rather eat factory-farmed meat—from animals raised in often-horrific conditions—than eat the pastured animals on Green Mountain’s farm.

Laura and Astral

Eventually, the college conducted an online poll, and the vast majority of students said that the animals from the farm should be served in the dining hall.

Bloodshed has always been a part of farm life. E.B. White, who based a much-loved children’s story on the threatened slaughter of “a runty little pig,” was himself a part-time farmer. In The Points of My Compass, he wrote about shooting a fox that had been causing trouble on his farm. “The fox is not even the biggest and meanest killer here—I hold that distinction myself. I think nothing of sending half a dozen broilers to the guillotine…. I have plenty of convictions but no real courage, and I find it hard to live in the country without slipping into the role of murderer.”

Richard W. Bulliet, a professor of history at Columbia University who has written extensively about human-animal relationships, has said that since so many of us live in urban areas and are deeply separated from farm life, we have attitudes toward and relationships with animals that might have been unimaginable to previous generations. We live in an era of “post-domesticity,” he has said, that has influenced more than just our attitudes about animal rights and vegetarianism. He goes so far as to suggest that a separation from the mating and slaughter of farm life has amplified our interests in pornography and gore in cinema, for example.

Whatever the case, at Green Mountain College the process for Ms. Halprin and Ms. Wolfgang is certainly up close and personal—and they seem to embrace it.

As we were winding down our tour of the farm, Ms. Wolfgang said that she wanted to show me her lamb, Oliver—a Black Welsh Mountain Sheep that she had raised on a bottle after he was rejected by his mother. She jumped the fence surrounding the sheep pasture and called to him.

“Baby! Bay-bee! C’mere, babe! Come on, little boy!” He bounded over the tall weeds to her, bleating hungrily. She held him in her arms and explained that her arrival in the pasture once meant a bottle of milk. “But not anymore,” she said in baby talk. “Now it just means love and scratches. Love and scratches! Good boy!”

Oliver, too, will be slaughtered this fall, and Ms. Wolfgang plans to kill him herself. She wants to use Oliver as a demonstration animal to teach other students about sustainable meat production. But there are logistical challenges to work out, she explains. The killing shot should be done with a gun, and she has never fired one, so she needs to find someone to help her with that part of the task. Also, firing a gun is not legal near the college, and she wants to kill Oliver in a pasture where he is used to grazing, to reduce the stress on him.

“They get to know the pasture, and when it’s time to slaughter them, you don’t load them into a truck and take them to a place that they are unfamiliar with and put them in this stressful, horrible situation before you slaughter them,” she said. “It’s much more humane to come out to the pasture—it’s you, they are not afraid of you, and suddenly they are not there anymore.”

She doesn’t cry, but her voice tightens with emotion as she talks about it.

“It’s definitely going to be hard,” she says. “It’s an experiment in whether I can actually be a livestock farmer, because this is part of the process.”

Princess

Princess nuzzles Dayna Halprin in the pasture as Ms. Wolfgang watches.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Is Meat Murder? For These Students, the Question Is Personal

11272784 - August 25, 2010 at 3:47 pm

That’s a thoughtful article. I come from a land-grant university background and I appreciate the balance of sentiment and fact. Well done.

leichnit - August 25, 2010 at 5:28 pm

This article brought tears to my eyes. Everyone should understand where our food comes from and appreciate the process. If more of us understood how food was produced and respected the animals who provide us with protein maybe the horrific conditions in factory farms would not be the norm. Maybe we would not be dealing with e coli problems and other food illnesses because animals were treated better in the process of making it to our tables. One does not have to be vegan to care about how animals are treated before they are slaughtered. Thank you for a wonderful article.

inarchetype - August 25, 2010 at 6:25 pm

Yet another abuser of the word “devolve”.

wisensale - August 25, 2010 at 6:29 pm

Sorry, but I don’t mix well with animal cannibals. It’s the beginning of the pecking order that doesn’t stop at the property line of the farm. Does anyone remember how Hitler treated the dwarves? He gave them a wonderful meal and a beautiful ball with all of them dressed in beautiful clothing as they happily danced the night away. Then at midnight they were all gassed. So should I really feel better about myself by eating a free-range chicken? Try tofu.

coyotefred - August 25, 2010 at 7:44 pm

‘Enjoyed the article, particularly the idea that a college could facilitate a positive, face-to-face DIALOGUE rather than an adversarial DEBATE as we see so often.”You can’t survive on vegetables that you can grow in the Northeast through the winter. You need to have a local source of fat and protein.” True, but seems a bit like a contrived rationalization. I can’t type as well with one hand tied behind my back. But why is my hand tied there in the first place? Earlier “Northeasterners” (indigenous and introduced) certainly didn’t limit themselves with this kind of artificial constraint. They dried and stored a variety of protein-rich roots, veggies, nuts, etc. that could (and were) used throughout the winter. Now of course most of these folks were also meat-eaters which has to be part of the discussion, but I’m not sure why year-round fresh protein production is necessarily a standard to drive a food system.@wisensale: Talk like that won’t win you any converts. Merely asserting that non-human animals (and which ones by the way…just mammals or all the way down the complexity chain?) and humans are ethically comparable without providing any thoughtful discussion of personhood, treatment/welfare versus “rights,” etc. really doesn’t give us an intelligent place to start a discussion…

princeton67 - August 25, 2010 at 8:22 pm

No one examines the alternative: what happens if the animals are not slaughtered? Who feeds them? On what land? What happens to their waste (already a pollution problem up here in Vermont, and in the USA)? Who builds the barns for the winters? Where’s the $$ for developing the veterinary protocols for treating diseased or simply geriatric older food animals? Dealing with the extended life spans of humans is causing enormous problems: thinks of additional millions of doddering pigs, chickens, and cows. Or: simply eliminate food stock. Why invest in a pig if there is no return? Even letting milk cows live beyond their prime would be a huge expense in money,medicine, and material.

rmusser1 - August 26, 2010 at 11:52 am

I am waiting for someone to mention Hitler was a vegetarian. Is it murder when a lion or a shark eats its prey? For that matter our closest ancestor the chimpanzee eats meat in the form of monkeys, and such. We are part of the ecosystem like all animals, one of successes as animal is that we are omnivores. Not many other animals can eat all of the different kingdoms of life on just a slice of pizza. That said we should respect the organisms (even non-fluffy mammals) that we slaughter, if nothing else for our own sensibilities…

ampreston - August 26, 2010 at 12:31 pm

Great article. All the small eco farmers I’ve known specifically do not establish a relationship with their animals (giving them names for ex.) as depicted here because they state it makes it more difficult to slaughter them. Relationships are built only with the animals not slaughtered.All round important topic.

mjcahill - August 26, 2010 at 8:26 pm

Interesting article. I’m glad that the college has encouraged discussion and taken on a rather complicated project.However, as someone whose extended family is primarily traditional farmers, there are a couple of points I’d like to add. First of all, CANNING. That’s what farmers do, and that’s how families have vegetables throughout the year. Protein: Beans and rice; tofu. The argument that people in the north cannot survive without meat is weak. But what actually bothers me is that these women are academic types playing at being farmers; they befriend animals they are going to slaughter. My family members have slaughtered for food, and though I don’t like it, I get it. Animals are, in a sense, produce. Most family farmers treat their cattle well (we’re not talking big slaughter houses, an entirely different issues.) But they don’t slaughter and eat PETS. How can anyone walk their pets into a field, kill them, and then eat them? I eat meat and cannot imagine doing that. In addition, it’s harder than it looks to shoot an animal. I hope she has practiced, so that the animal does not suffer (which happens with inexperience).

fesmires - August 26, 2010 at 9:43 pm

A good article. The intellectual climate here is less self-assured about matters of diet than a reader might glean from the article. The principle student voice in the article is that of a vegetarian-turned-omnivore, based on the idea that this diet is ultimately more sustainable and in keeping with natural cycles of life and death. It’s the sort of view Michael Pollan and others have run with of late, and it’s a popular view among GMC students. Deservedly so. The opposing voice, equally self-assured, says we wrongly use these animals as means to human ends when we kill them, or that we unethically sacrifice their basic interests to satisfy our own secondary interests. These positions are also somewhat prevalent at GMC, including on the Cerridwen Farm Crew, and they’re given compelling rational formulations by the philosophers Tom Regan and Peter Singer, respectively. The majority of GMC students encounter both opposing voices (and many more) in an Environmental Ethics course relatively early in their time here, and the views are “in the water” here for any who don’t take that course. Yet both competing perspectives assume there’s such a thing as a “right thing to do” when it comes to diet. An alternative voice, one that doesn’t appear in the article, is that no diet can exhaust our responsibilities, so we must muddle through as best we can without taking what William James (who died 100 years ago today) called a “moral holiday.” This rich, pluralistic voice, so against the grain of our natural distaste for moral suspense, is uniquely common at GMC. Steven FesmireAssociate Professor of Philosophy and Environmental StudiesGreen Mountain College

tardigrade - August 29, 2010 at 2:23 pm

9. mjcahill:”Most family farmers treat their cattle well (we’re not talking big slaughter houses, an entirely different issues.) But they don’t slaughter and eat PETS.”This. Teaching students that it’s right and appropriate to have their animals form bonds with them. To encourage the cow or the goat to develop their forms of love and trust in the human, and then to betray that trust by killing them in their prime, when they are not terminally sick or injured?Killing wild animals, generic herd animals or even factory-farmed animals is one thing. But I’d never, under any circumstances, trust someone who thought this kind of slaughter was acceptable.

22118130 - August 31, 2010 at 6:20 pm

There are so many moral dimensions to this issue. I find myself, to one extent or another, in agreement with almost all the commenters. I am a vegetarian of 34 years, who started the practice for philosophical reasons and as a vegan. I now carry on the practic chiefly for health reasons, departing from it a handful of times a year, and am no longer vegan. Some argue against moral relativism, but this is an area where the morality is all about relativism. For example, I think coming to terms with killing an animal if you are going to eat it is much more honest than buying it in a plastic package in the store. On the other hand, I find it best for myself to live while killing as little as possible. I do not make choices for others, but only for myself. I would at least commend Green Mountain College for having a program where those choices are directly confronted.

rwakeman - September 1, 2010 at 6:55 pm

Thank you for this compelling and important article. My only reservation about this article is the meat-eating triumphalism evident in many of the comments. Aha! Thank you Green Mountain College! My carnivore urges are vindicated! Carrying on, we dear readers will patronize our local Giant Faceless Food Store purchasing ungodly quantities of eggs (from hens that have never seen the sky or breathed fresh air), bacon (from pigs standing shoulder to shoulder in concrete pens), and that miscellany of innumerable cows and poop known as hamburger.But to jump from that to, as Princeton67 does, “we can’t be vegan! what about the vet bills!” is preposterous. No one in her right mind can argue that human society needs to be treating so many animals so terribly. Meat eating is not going to disappear overnight (or, until we invent Star Trek-style replicators, ever – c’mon scientists! Get with the program!). Simply eating less meat will do much to alleviate the pressures on nonhuman animals – and that in itself is a noble goal for the next five, ten, twenty years. Simply onvincing the state of Ohio to ban pig gestation crates in 15 years has been an endless battle. That’s one state, one species, a modicum of improved conditions. As Jonathan Safran Foer is keen on saying, it’s not about taking the last step, it’s about taking the next step (and hopefully by the time we take the last step, the United Federation of Planets will have a good solution to satisfy human and nonhuman alike).As a vegan, I join the chorus in praise of GMC for forcing students to confront the issues surrounding their core beliefs.

  • 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037
subscribe today

Get the insight you need for success in academe.