I received a lot of thoughtful responses to my blog post the other day, many from vegetarians who feel that the “less meat campaigns” are more about having people cook more, and helping people see that meat is not the only source of protein. I can’t argue with that at all, and because pastured and local meat is very expensive, “less meat, but better meat” is possibly the only way conscious carnivores can incorporate meat into their diet. However, eat less meat campaigns are dangerously simplistic and many promote the fallacy that animal fats are bad for us, which directly conflicts with sustainability (animals come whole with fat). I am also not convinced that eating a diet that includes meat is worse for the environment than one that omits it.

Humans have depended on, and eaten animals, for as long as we have been human. Have we always done this sustainably? Maybe not; we hunted the mastodon to extinction after all.  However, there are many historical examples of meat eating being part of a sustainable system. Before refrigeration, in rural America farmers raised pigs together so that there was fresh meat available year round. One farmer would raise a pig and then they would gather to slaughter and butcher the pig and share and preserve the meat.  Then a few months later the next farmer would host the pig slaughter when the meat and lard ran out, and so on and so forth. They fed the pigs scraps, whey and waste from their gardens.  People ate a lot of pork and lard, more than we consume now.  I would also venture to say that this way of raising pigs was not only economical, but highly sustainable.

In Albany, New York pigs where part of urban life too, serving as sources of protein and helping to clean the city of garbage. There are funny historical accounts of pigs running into Catholic cathedrals to the frustration of local priests—I guess having an over-excited pig could ruin the solemnity of mass.  Ha!  In 1849, the Albany Common Council received reports that there were “hogs running the streets at large number of 4,000.” Now, the idea of pigs running loose in the streets of Brooklyn is somewhat preposterous, but the point is that generations before us had a closer relationship with the animals they ate and even the poor enjoyed eating meat.

In England, “cottage pigs” helped rural and urban people maintain self-sufficiency, providing them with meat and extra income. Like the farmers in rural America, they fed the pig scraps and waste, keeping it in a sty close to the home. The pig wasn’t a pet, but in a time when pets weren’t common, a pig was a source of joy for the family, and the sty was a place where the family socialized.  There are numerous accounts of families scratching their pigs (pigs love this) and children playing with the family pig.  Fredrich Engels wrote, “The English love their pigs as the Arab his horse, with the difference that he sells it when it is fat enough to kill. Otherwise he eats and sleeps with it, his children play with it, ride upon it and roll in the dirt with it, as any one may see a thousand times repeated in all the great towns of England.”  In 19th-century London, pigs outnumbered Londoners 3 to 1 in North Kensington and for many were an important source of food.  A survey of rural English families in 1837 showed that 4 out of 10 were raising pigs for their own personal consumption.

Many rural families still carry on the tradition of “feeding out a pig” and many more supplement their diets with hunted wild game. It is as cultural as it is economic. It is part of life. When your relationship with meat is more immediate it is hard to see it as an abstract negative; it is part of life and beautifully complex. Is it practical to ask more Americans to raise their own pigs? Maybe not, but for those seeking a closer relationship with their food it wouldn’t be the craziest of ideas.

 Print Post

---

Written By Ulla on January 15, 2012 | 6 Comments | Posted in: Cooking the Whole Animal, Cooking The Whole Beast |