Animal Husbandry: The evolutionary reason why it's so hard

 

 

A few years back, a government agency promoting the American agrarian ideal shipped baby chickens and piglets to Koyukon Indian villagers- people who have been hunters, trappers, and fishers all their lives. Some folks took to the notion, built pens, raised healthy pigs and successful flocks, and eventually found eggs under their hens. That's when things started going awry. After watching the chickens grow, many couldn't bring themselves to eat the eggs, and it was even worse to think of dining on the birds or pigs. "People felt like they'd be eating their own children," a Koyukon woman told me. "A lot of them said, from now on they would only eat wild game they got by hunting. It felt a lot better that way.

That's from the excellent Heart and Blood by Richard K. Nelson. I actually recommend this book more to former vegans than I do The Vegetarian Myth, because it's an incredibly well written eco-humanistic journey through our place in nature. I've been meaning to give it one big post, but it's hard to do because it's such an amazing book...so I guess I'll keep doing posts about it until I keep thinking about it. 

Having experience with farming, I can say that there are animal husbandry methods that make me uncomfortable. People make much ago about foie gras, but they would find other more common methods just as distasteful if they were exposed to them. But they aren't. People live in a fantasy land where Bessie the cow gets retired to Green Acres when her milk production goes down and chickens die a painless death for McNuggets.

Knowing what I know about human evolution, my uncomfortableness with animal husbandry makes sense. Paleolithic humans may have kept animals, but only as allies like dogs, not as future food. With the domestication of animals comes the issue of killing something you raised yourself, that often bears some resemblance physically or behavioral to your pets and children.

I've had this problem in particular with goats. Domestic goats, unlike sheep or chickens, often crave human contact and react towards humans in a way similar to dogs. I think most of my readers would have a hard time slaughtering a domestic goat, even if they have pretensions against sentimentality. I've known goat dairy farmers to cry when sending away the male kids who have been born so they can be raised for meat. Although this disconnect and unhappiness among farmers has certainly gotten worse since the USDA mandated all slaughter for sale for non-poultry animals be done in a USDA inspected slaughterhouse that is usually unpleasant and far away from the farm.

I think it's partially a recognition of this inappropriate relationship that humans now have with animals that more and more people are interested in hunting from former vegans to Betty Fussell, an 82-year old NYC food writer who I met at a hunting workshop. 

Comments

This is an interesting post

This is an interesting post and something I hadn't really considered before. It is the only argument against eating meat (note: but only from domesticated animals) I have ever heard that I could buy into, as it is based on humanistic values rather than "environmentalist" ones that lapse into metaphysics.

Do you know of examples of hunter-gatherer societies that have refused to eat domesticated meats when they have come into contact with more modern societies? This would add an interesting psychological sidebar to this line of argumentation.

I think the other side of

I think the other side of this argument is one that Keith and Dr. Michael Eades have made. Domesticated animals are likely those that would not do well in nature. Rather than allowing these species to simply die out, humans figured out how to create a relationship where both the animal and the human benefit. Of course there is a bit of a sticky wicket when we start talking about breeding the "animal" out of the animal, but you get my point. Keith went so far as to say that it may indeed be the animals that have domesticated us, echoing Pollan's thoughts on corn. This could branch into a debate about vegetarian vs. meat eater, but I'll save those thoughts.

All that said, I think that moving towards hunting makes sense, and that perhaps hunting is more ethical. Domestication must involve the cordoning off of land, which has numerous ecological consequences. Hunting brings us back to our roots, and allows us to be a part of the world as opposed to taking unnecessary ownership of it by modifying it for our assumed convenience.

I think this is similar to the "science vs. history" debate in certain respects. As Keith writes in her book, traditional cultures did not learn about the medicinal uses of plants by trial and error. They obtained this knowledge through the dreams, visions, and other spiritual experiences of their "medicine men". Just as it would be impossible for most to obtain their nourishment through hunting, it would also be impossible for most to obtain their knowledge of what to eat and how to treat illness through spiritual experiences.

So "paleos" continue to use science, but with a nod to traditional cultures, just as we continue to eat domesticated animals, with a nod to their desire to have pleasant lives. The question for me is where do we stop? Do we try to get to the point where we are so spiritually tuned in that we get our answers from our dreams as opposed to pubmed? Or where we no longer eat anything produced on a farm and instead eat only what we ourselves have procured by hand?

i get what you are saying.

i get what you are saying. traditionally the taiwanese farmer would never eat beef because of the appreciation he had for the water buffalo pulling his plow. couldn't humans survive without eating mammals, just on fish, shellfish, birds, maybe some reptiles?