The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan

he doesn't live alone.  others eat it.

Woh, half the population of the world is not vegetarian. They may be mostly vegetarian, but saying that they are essentially vegetarian is a gross stretch of the truth.
For example in cambodia, most people don't eat their cows and buffalo, not because they don't eat meat, but because they can't afford to kill their work animals. They need them to grow crops to make money. But almost everyone forages for bugs and fish and turtles and frogs... most farmers raise a few chickens or ducks...

I tend to think a more plant based diet is more healthy for most people. However for me, it seems I have trouble eating enough butter and milk, the more I eat, the more energy I have, the more mental clarity I have and the better I feel. When I drink raw milk, I never get sick. Haven't been sick a single day I drank raw milk to date. I used to be such a sickly child, in fact I was sick, most of the time.
As soon as I start running out of really good food (grass fed meat, dairy and fruits and green vegetables) and start resorting to cooking soaked grains and root vegetables, i start to feel lethargic, dopey and eventually sick again. And no, greens are not enough alone combined with fruit and vegetables and grains... I should know, I was vegetarian for 6 years and near vegan for 3, though I cheated with cheese now and then...

Anyways I think there is a better question to be asked, which I believe the answer is no. Is a vegetarian diet sustainable for the humans on planet earth?

Unfortunately, growing grains and vegetable is possible for any decent length of time on only 1/3 of the farm land in the world. And how long is it sustainable for? I doubt that 1/100th of that 1/3 will be able to grow vegetables and grains for another 100 years with chemicals.

The choice is really not vegetarian or omnivore, it is more, Animal or Chemical?

Let us not forget that domestic animals are a big part of who we are, and the majority of us wouldn't be here if it wasn't for them.

Who am I to look back at my family history of small homesteaders throughout northern Europe who all raised dairy animals and tell them that they were wrong? No relatives rolling over in their graves over here.

  Veganism, in a truly healthful sense, is very difficult. Many vegans eat a lot of wheat, legumes, and soy, all of which are somewhat suspicious nutrition-wise (meat, fruit, and veggies constitute an ideal diet).

It all comes down to overpopulation.  Until we reduce the number of people on the planet we can't afford to transform the two unhealthiest groups on the planet: Those who eat too much, and those who eat too little. 

Or, one might say it comes down to mis-population. Too many people in some places, too few in others. If the entire world were managed using permaculture methods, it could sustain the current population easily (if it were spread across the globe- no cities).

Found a compelling blog post by a woman who had to give up being vegan for health reasons: http://voraciouseats.com/2010/11/19/a-vegan-no-more/.

The author, Tasha, commented today that "my blog crashed the server several times, I had tens of thousands of people visit my blog in 48 hours, hundreds and hundreds of comments were written, and almost that many personal emails and tweets. Wow."

I only skimmed the post (I'm supposed to be working!) but Tasha definitely touches on the environmental and ethical issues around veganism (not sure if she cites sources). She is very interested in food justice.

Thought others in this thread might be interested in her experience and her moral dilemma.

Jocelyn Campbell wrote:
Found a compelling blog post by a woman who had to give up being vegan for health reasons: http://voraciouseats.com/2010/11/19/a-vegan-no-more/.

it's a reasonable post.  I think she strays into risky territory when she extrapolates too much from her own experience, but mostly she kept it personal.  sounds like her doctor was careful to say that some people can't be healthy eating vegan, not all people.

she acknowledged that there are much more responsible ways to raise animals than factory farms, which is good.  she didn't seem to extend the same courtesy to growing plant food.

so, I would say it's pretty good, overall.  talking honestly about the misconceptions that led her to veganism is good.  she added a few more misconceptions in the process, though.

i think someone mentioned this on the vegetarian myth thread, but maybe i read it from a link posted.  someone was saying that author described he health and well being doing a total 180 minutes after consuming meat.  i see the same thing in this former vegan blog post:

My first bite of meat after 3.5 years of veganism was both the hardest and easiest thing I’ve ever done. Tears ran down my face as saliva pooled in my mouth. The world receded to a blank nothingness and I just ate, and ate, and ate. I cried in grief and anger, while moaning with pleasure and joy. When I took the last bite I set back and waited to feel sick. I had just devoured a hunk of dead animal, the most evil thing I could conceive of, surely my body would reject this debasement and I would feel vindicated that I truly was meant to be a vegan.  Instead, my face felt warm, my mind peaceful, and my stomach full but….I searched for a word to describe how it felt….comfortable. I realized that for the first time in months I felt satiated without the accompaniment of stomach pain. I had only eaten a small piece of cow flesh, and yet I felt totally full, but light and refreshed all at once. I reveled in that new and unexpected combination of sensations. How amazing it was not to need to eat for an hour solid till my stomach stretched and distended over my pants just to buy an hour or two of satiety. How beautiful it felt to be able to eat the exact thing that for so long my body had been begging for. I felt profoundly joyful in finally listening to the wisdom of my body. What a revelation.

if she was sick from not eating meat thats fine, whatever, but there also seems to be something else going on psychologically.  probably the hardest part of being vegan is the isolation and ostracising you can feel even if people are very accommodating about it.  there is also some guilt i occasionally feel just for making things difficult or akward foodwise.  anyway the above reads to me like it has a lot more to do with emotions than purely physiological responses.

personally if i somehow had  to eat meat for health reasons i wouldn't be quite as bothered by it because my choice has less to do with a visceral emotional response to animals being killed.

    I'll leave the moral debate to the philosophers among us, but here is the science-that-is-rejected-by-the-corrupt-scientific-community take on this issue:

  Each individual has a unique 'metabolic type' meaning a different set of ideal diet configurations. They generally group people into three groups: the protein type (healthiest when consuming a larger proportion of protein), the carbohydrate type, and the mixed type (in the middle, with some leaning more one way or the other. These types are the result of evolution to deal with life in different areas. The Inuit (aka Eskimos) live almost entirely off of meat (that includes fish) and are very healthy. People in the deep tropics, however, may only eat meat occasionally. Now, of course, these types are thrown out of their natural geographic ranges to to migration and interbreeding between these different groups.

Wow, that's how I feel every time I eat bacon!   

Kirk Hutchison wrote:
     I'll leave the moral debate to the philosophers among us, but here is the science-that-is-rejected-by-the-corrupt-scientific-community take on this issue:

   Each individual has a unique 'metabolic type' meaning a different set of ideal diet configurations. They generally group people into three groups: the protein type (healthiest when consuming a larger proportion of protein), the carbohydrate type, and the mixed type (in the middle, with some leaning more one way or the other. These types are the result of evolution to deal with life in different areas. The Inuit (aka Eskimos) live almost entirely off of meat (that includes fish) and are very healthy. People in the deep tropics, however, may only eat meat occasionally. Now, of course, these types are thrown out of their natural geographic ranges to to migration and interbreeding between these different groups.

That's pretty much my opinion. I struggled for years on a so called healthy diet (low fat as recommended by the national health service in the UK) that was just making me more unhealthy.  I don't believe it is good for the majority of people but I'm really not interested in arguing about it. 
My main concern is my health.  Eating paleo style makes me feel great so that's how I eat. Nobody can convince me I'm doing the wrong thing for my health.  I'm nearly 50. My body fat percentage is ideal. I'm fit, strong, and have the same size waist measurement I had when I was 15.
I don't eat what makes me politically correct or fits in with what my friends eat. I really don't care what anybody else chooses to eat. It's up to them what they eat but I get really annoyed when people try to tell me I'm on the wrong diet. Most people with an opinion on what we should be eating are either unhealthy or overweight or both. Until they sort themselves out they should really just keep their opinions to themselves. 

Warren David wrote:
Most people with an opinion on what we should be eating are either unhealthy or overweight or both. Until they sort themselves out they should really just keep their opinions to themselves. 

maybe they should keep their opinions to themselves even after they sort themselves out.  like you mention, there's a good chance that our bodies are different enough that there isn't a single (or five) ideal human diet.  I had a roommate who tried the paleo diet and felt really terrible so he ditched it and felt much better.

talking about what works for each of us seems reasonable, though, especially if we're open to other folks making different choices that work for them.  for a while, this thread was mostly dealing with which diet would use the least land and inputs, and not which diet was healthiest.  like choosing a diet, I think that issue is going to be specific to each piece of land.

tel jetson wrote:I had a roommate who tried the paleo diet and felt really terrible so he ditched it and felt much better.

One of the problems that many people have with the paleo/low carb diets is they switch over to them too quickly. It's a shock for the body to switch from a typical high carb diet to a high protein or high fat diets like paleo/low carb. It is no wonder that people drop it after a few days. I eased into it very gradually and painlessly over a period of several weeks. If I had just jumped in feet first like so many people do then I would have probably felt terrible too and may have given it up. I am so glad I took my time because it really has done me the world of good.
That said though, it might not suit everyone but my advice would be that whatever diet somebody chooses, they should ease into it gradually. Don't be in such a rush. Don't shock your system.

talking about what works for each of us seems reasonable, though, especially if we're open to other folks making different choices that work for them. 

Definitely. The problem is these days is that so many people make recommendations on diets, that when you see them obviously are not working for them.

for a while, this thread was mostly dealing with which diet would use the least land and inputs, and not which diet was healthiest.  like choosing a diet, I think that issue is going to be specific to each piece of land.

The thread actually started off talking about diets, not use of the land. The lead post  even mentioned eating a retarded  orphan among other things (not tried that myself  ). 
If somebody thinks they are doing the planet a big favour by eating a certain way then I'm  happy to let them carry on but as far as I'm concerned my main priority is my health.
The planet can supply many of us with healthy food and I think it can be done without damaging the planet.
That's part of the reason I signed up to this place recently. My plan is to produce more and more of my own food and maybe one day I will be producing all of it with the helpful of advice from you people ere. Luckily I'm not much into food from far off places. My diet is basically eggs, meat and salad. All things that can be raised or grown in this area. 

Warren David wrote:
One of the problems that many people have with the paleo/low carb diets is they switch over to them too quickly.

my former roommate is kind of a special case.  he definitely eased into it and gave it a good couple of months trial after the transition.  he's a professional endurance athlete, though, and needs an awful lot of quickly available calories.  the paleo diet was terrible for his athletic performance.

that's obviously not a situation most of us are in.  personally, eating a lot of animal protein makes me feel sluggish and bloated.  most relatively un-refined carbohydrates treat me pretty well, though that is far from the majority of my diet.

Warren David wrote:
If somebody thinks they are doing the planet a big favour by eating a certain way then I'm  happy to let them carry on but as far as I'm concerned my main priority is my health.
The planet can supply many of us with healthy food and I think it can be done without damaging the planet.

right on.  apart from a diet of industrially produced food or over-harvested wild food, I think there are responsible ways to produce just about any food a person chooses.  that discounts the ethical concerns a lot of people have, but I don't think that issue is ever going to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

tel jetson wrote:
my former roommate is kind of a special case.  he definitely eased into it and gave it a good couple of months trial after the transition.  he's a professional endurance athlete, though, and needs an awful lot of quickly available calories.  the paleo diet was terrible for his athletic performance

Yet more proof that we all need to find what works for us personally. I hang about on a couple of fitness message boards. Some endurance athletes do well on paleo but there are many just like your friend that do well with higher carbs. I'm not an endurance athlete but I work in construction doing very physical work that often requires endurance. My endurance is much better on paleo.

I got a note from somebody that thinks that the vegetarians are getting picked on a bit.  I think there is a bit of truth in this concern, although I think people are doing a pretty good job of qualifying their stuff.  For the most part, I think the omnis here just outnumber the vegetarians. 

So, I would like to ask folks to word their omni posts with respect to a few things:

A)  vegetarians are attempting to live a more evolved life - respectful of other living things and and the planet in general.  Most of the omnis they know shop at safeway and dine out a macdonalds.  I think everybody here could admit that nearly all vegetarian diets are better than that type of omni diet.  It is possible that a permie-omni diet is more evolved than a typical vegetarian diet - but it is not utter fact - and it might end up being utterly false.  I think there is lot of excellent info the vegetarians can bring to the table here.

B)  Some people have tried the vegetarian path and later changed their mind.  Often, those folks want to "save" other vegetarians from their mistakes.  I think voicing concern for others along this line is valid, but let's also keep in mind that there millions of people that have thrived on a vegetarian diet for decades or even their entire life.  Therefore, while some people thrive on omni, that doesn't mean that everybody will. 

Sorry for this interruption.  I'm gonna post this in a few threads in the hopes that certain threads will be more about building collective wisdom and less about trying to convert folks.

I visit with Helen Atthowe, goddess of the soil and longtime Missoula County Horticultural Extension Agent.  We start off talking about compost.  She is the most advanced composter I know.  And we talk about how composting doesn't have to be as difficult as people make it out.

We also talk about compost tea.  Especially when it is of value and when it is not.

Helen talks about her horticultural philosophy which she calls veganic permaculture.

Helen and I then explore the space of veganism in general.

We also talk about how some native plants people stand against permaculture.

podcast 015

That was fun and informative interview with Helen. Thanks. I hated making compost tea anyway

One question I had about the dilemma of killing lots of bugs and gophers etc while farming conventionally vs killing cows for meat was the assumption that the life a cow was obviously more valuable than of the smaller critters. I was wondering how this made sense ethically? By extension the blue whale is the most valuable life form on the planet, which seems hard to justify to me...

on the "fruitarian" bit: I believe the thinking behind that lifestyle is that many fruits are adapted specifically to be eaten as part of the plant's reproductive strategy.  the fruit is consumed and the seeds pass through the animal and are deposited in a fertile medium.  a carrot is a storage organ that allows the plant to flower and produce seed in the second year, and so eating it interrupts the life of the plant.

seems to me to be the logical end of the thought process that leads many folks to a vegetarian or vegan diet.  probably not an easy adjustment, but fruits are delicious.

I also know several vegans who gladly eat roadkill and meat from dumpsters.  along similar lines, I know folks who will only eat animals that are considered problem species.  around here, that's mostly nutria.

paul wheaton wrote:

A)  vegetarians are attempting to live a more evolved life

I love you Paul but I realy wish you would stop using the word evolved that way.

It suggests that evolution is a process leading to some endpoint rather than descent with modification which takes us back 1500 years in understanding to Aristotle's ladder of life and perfect forms for each animal type.

This wikipedia article sums up the difference well, and how we got to the modern sysnthesis that is the current scientific model for species change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

My whole point being that evolved suggest a messy process of trying various things and sticking with what works best out of whats been tried, not a progress towards some kind of perfection.

I humbly suggest that you meant to say they are trying to live a more ethical life.

I just finished reading this entire thread and was struck by Paul's "vegetarians are attempting to live a more evolved life" bullet, as it reflects upon my own current dilemma. I've been a vegetarian for 6 years and I am a very healthy and very active person. Though with my work load lately (building an earth dome, several gardens, a recycled materials house, and a reclaimed materials restoration, plus other builds and more all at once) I've noticed my dexterity is slowly declining as the weeks and projects progress. So I am now in the thought process of possibly thinning out my flocks of ducks and chickens slightly to gain some well needed b vitamins, animal fats, protein and amino's. Which brings me to the point that being ethical and healthy at the same time is quite a chore, but eating animals that are raised, in the fashion that i raise them, like little feathered gods/goddesses is a lot more ethical than allowing myself to slowly wither away because I don't want to support some corporation that raises meat inhumanely (I could be an activist  ). So I am on the verge of evolution from vegetarian into permie-omni! But before I do make that claim I need to actually experiment with one duck for a few days to see if reintroducing meat into my body is truly beneficial for me or not.

By the way, I love this site and the great topics and discussions within it!

I can relate, somewhat.

I went vegetarian for a while fifteen years ago, and was vegan for about 18 months.  I loved it!  I was tubby and wheezing at the time, and sick of being that way.  I decided to give up meat, did so, and felt better than I ever had.  Of course, I was biking and walking (no car), working at a natural grocery, etc., so I can't say that only vegetarianism got me healthy.  It sure helped.

Anyway, about the time I was giving serious thought to fruitarianism, I got a dream-type job in a live stunt show at a local amusement park.  The first year doing so much physical activity was great, and I had no lack of energy or stamina.  By the third year, though, I was needing more than a decent vegetarian regime could provide.  I could either push the limits of veganism, or chow down at the cafeteria on cheapo burgers and fries.

The benefits of returning to meat, for me, were more balanced energy and stamina.  I worked that job for two more years.  To have continued as a vegan would have been challenging and expensive.  I still eat meat, and some dairy, far too much I know.  I want to return to a more vegetarian diet, as the paunch has returned, and the wheezing, too.

As to the ethical considerations, although I care for animals, and believe they should be treated well, humans are omnivores.  It seems to me that we create more work for ourselves when we try to circumvent our omnivorousness .  No matter what we eat, something must die for us to feed.  Whether animal, vegetable, fungal, bacterial, what have you, some form of life must die for us to live.  Where is the line to be drawn?

Mushrooms are alive.  Are mushrooms less worthy of life than cows and chickens?  Or deer?  I used to eat a lot of nutritional yeast flakes in my tofu.  Many fungi died to bring me my fake eggs.  And soy beans.  Many soy beans that never sprouted new soy plants fell to my fork.

If the goal of diet is to avoid ending other life to save our own, I think we need to increase funding for energy-to-matter-conversion.  Until we all have replicators, things must die for us to eat.

The "ethical" argument kind of leaves me hanging.  If we all became vegetarians, my grandchildren would need to go to a zoo to see a caged steer, as they would be on the endangered species list by then.

John Polk wrote:
The "ethical" argument kind of leaves me hanging.  If we all became vegetarians, my grandchildren would need to go to a zoo to see a caged steer, as they would be on the endangered species list by then.

I agree with that, I just feel that mistreating an animal just because it's food is wrong. I know several ranchers out here that make their living from beef or poultry production and they do very well at handling their livestock with the respect any animal deserves. But these larger corporations (I am not saying ALL of them) seem to have no concern about the well being of animals at all. If an animal were treated in such a manner at a zoo or in the wild it wouldn't be accepted. Don't get me wrong here, I don't stand in front of ranches and picket for animal rights nor am I suggesting that a complete shut down of the meat production industry would be the proper moral choice or ethical thing to do for the world . We as animals were meant to eat other animals. I just  think there are better ways of raising them.

My take on this is that humans are omnivores.
thousands of years ago humans foraged and ate a very wide range of foods.
The more diverse our diet the better and the less processed the better.
The hunter gatherer collected what ever was in season or available
and did not concentrate on gathering a vegetarian diet only.
I understand some peoples "moral" views when it comes to eating other life forms.
The Tibetans eat Yak. One Yak can feed a lot of people.
One Shrimp does not go a long way. Thus, a single life is sacrificed and feeds many.

paul wheaton wrote:
One thing that has been mentioned in other threads, but I think has not seen the light of day in this thread yet:  If you practice rotational grazing, you get five times more growies in that area. 

I agree wholeheartedly.

If we begin with the premise that the most efficient, low input agriculture/horticulture is that which mimics natural ecosystems, then we have to confront the fact that with few if any exceptions, healthy productive ecosystems are not strictly vegetative, they have animals present as well, herbivorous and carnivorous, performing important functions. 

Good permaculture design arguably incorporates animal elements as well.

Farmers and gardeners who don't factor this into the equation often end up at war with the animals, and spend a fair amount of time and resources figuring out how to repel the rabbits, how to keep the deer and elk away.

I live in the city so my options are limited, but if I were living rural, the bunnies in my garden would be a welcome source of protein. Ditto for the occasional deer or elk.

I also think of many livestock operations occurring on lands that are unsuitable for crop growing.  Much of the western cattle lands are scrubby, semi arid sections that would not be cost effective for fruits, cereals, or vegetables.

I knew a man who ran about 20 sheep on a rocky hillside.  With tedious labor, that same hill side might produce 1 bushel of carrots or tomatoes.  Goats would have done well there as well.

The Mojave Desert will support rabbits, but not crops.

John Polk wrote:
I knew a man who ran about 20 sheep on a rocky hillside.  With tedious labor, that same hill side might produce 1 bushel of carrots or tomatoes.  Goats would have done well there as well.

carrots and tomatoes aren't adapted to grow on rocky hillsides.  plenty of other plants are.  familiar annual crops are certainly not the only alternative to livestock.

tel jetson wrote:
carrots and tomatoes aren't adapted to grow on rocky hillsides.  plenty of other plants are. 

But would people want to eat them?

Sotol grows well on rocky semi-arid hillsides in my region, but I don't know anyone who eats it these days. 

H Ludi Tyler wrote:
But would people want to eat them?

I would.  almonds, olives, grapes, sea buckthorn, prickly pear.  just a few relatively common plants that came to mind immediately and do well in rocky conditions.

are there places where these things won't grow but livestock would thrive?  almost certainly.  I just wanted to point out that a little more imagination might be in order.  framing the situation as sheep v. tomatoes is far too limiting.

Sea buckthorn died for me.    Also olives.  But I can kill anything, apparently.  Almonds seem to need irrigation, as do grapes.   

Sorry, just super discouraged by the drought.  Everything is dying. 

Everyone else here on permies seems to be able to just slap things in the ground and they grow.  I have killed most things people suggest to plant. 

H Ludi Tyler wrote:Everyone else here on permies seems to be able to just slap things in the ground and they grow. 

Not everyone, Ludi...

Even almond trees like a bit of water, especially for the first few years.  The things we've planted that survive best are almonds, apricots, madronho/strawberry tree, quince and plums.  We've lost every single chestnut and walnut, but had moderate success with grapes, peaches, apples, pears and cherries.  This year we've *only* planted apricots and almonds as we know it's going to be hard to get all the young trees watered so we thought we'd just replace the trees that didn't make it through last summer with things that stand a better chance.

One day, I'm going to get an elder tree that survives more than six weeks when I stick it in the ground!   

Thank you Burra for listing out the things that have done well for you and those that haven't.

I have to replace a lot of fruit trees which got killed by sheep and drought. 

If anyone wants an amazon link to the book, it is: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0143038583/rs12-20

A thought:

It would be great to have an image that shows:  the number of animals killed with an organic vegan diet;  and the number of animals killed with a salatin style omni diet;  then the number of animals killed with a conventional omni diet; then the number of animals killed with a vegan diet with 80% of the food coming from a garden;  then the number of animals killed with a salatin style omni diet with 80% of the food coming from your own land.

I think this would encourage a lot of vegans to grow their own gardens.

It would certainly cause many people to quit using their roto-tillers.  While steel itself is not the death of soil, when it is spinning at 600 rpm, it certainly causes havoc to billions of living creatures.  The better your tilth is, the less the damage, but in good tilth, there is no need for tilling.  Building good tilth should be every farmer's/gardener's number one priority.
A good soil will work hard for you.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2393

That cartoon made me think of guinea pigs and rabbits!

Hey!  Some people think Minke Whales are cute (so do I), but, in the hands of a good chef/cook, they make a wickedly good sausage!

Somebody has to draw the line, and only YOU can draw your own line, but your line might be invisible to me since I didn't draw it.

Joe O' wrote:
I agree. That's why I'd say -

Skip the palm oil entirely and find some good local butter or lard.

Know your egg farmer.

That last one's tricky. Forest covered much more of the land in the past.

I know my organic palm oil comes from Africa and is essentially wild crafted.  It is the best source of the best vitamin E and beta-carotene.  Not all palm oil comes from Southeast Asia.  I buy my cocnut oil from the same company.  I already know my egg farmer, my dairy farmer, and in season where my veggies are grown. 
I have found this discussion particularly interesting because I did my forays into vegetarianism and veganism back in the early 70's.  What I discovered is that the human metabolic system functions most efficiently with an omnivorous diet.  After a couple of years as a ovo-lacto-vegetarian and then a year or so as a vegan, I returned to my omnivorous diet and have been much healthier for it. 

The discussion regarding chickens was interesting particularly that some breeds have been developed to thrive on grains which is anathema to their wild diet which is also omnivorous. 
I agree with Paul regarding polyculture farming not being available as a source in grocery stores.  I have been growing much of my own vegetable foods for over 30 years but if it is for sale in a grocery store and not grown locally even certified organic produce comes from monoculture farms.
As far as the B12 concerns....... all B12 comes from bacteria and not the meat where it is found.  The animal ate the plant that was "contaminated" with the B12.  It just easier to get B12 from red meat.

Listening to the interview is very interesting too.  I agree with Michael Pollan overall and like Paul I have some issues with a few of his comments.

The Brew Pub that is a part of the Craft Brewery where I work part time buy a majority of their food from local farmers when it is possible.

I must admit that the "argument" for veganism as something to do with higher intellectual function could be equated with "religion."  The suggestion that the pollution from meat production can be lessened is valid in my opinion however that doesn't mean that humans should become vegans.  As Paul suggested a rotational grass fed system can be a much more efficient and ecologically healthy method of production. 

I am off to repair the walk in cooler at the brewery so the beer won't spoil.  Only 2 of our beers are filtered to the point of completely removing the yeast and of course it is not pasteurized so without refrigeration it will spoil.