We vaccinated the ewes with 2 ml of CD/T (Clostridium perfringins types C and D) vaccine SQ (subcutaneously). We vaccinate all sheep annually with CD/T. Most importantly we must vaccinate the bred ewes before lambing so they confer a passive immunity to the newborn lamb through its ingestion of colostrum, the first milk from the dam's udder, which conveys various antibodies along with those from the vaccination that will protect the lamb until its own immune system develops.
Death caused by Clostridium perfringins is rapid (within 24 hrs) but painful; when the symptoms are observable, treatments are usually in vain.
To vaccinate a sheep is to say, "Not yet Death, this sheep is not ready to die, we can live for a day, a month, a year, a lifetime even." We are Max von Sydow who plays a 15th century knight who plays chess with Death attempting to avoid life's inevitable and unavoidable checkmate, in Ingmar Bergman's film the Seventh Seal which was taken from the Book of Revelation.
And when the Lamb (having seven horns and seven eyes) had opened the Seventh Seal, there was silence in heaven for half an hour. Revelation 8:1
What differentiates farming from other occupations, is that farmers determine when a living thing dies, be it a lamb that I take to the slaughterhouse or a carrot that a vegetable farmer pulls from the ground. Vegetables die anonymously; they fit well into the industrialized food machinery that Mark Bittman describes in The Human Cost of Animal Suffering, New York Times March 13, 2012.
I like Mark Bittman for his column in the Times, The Minimalist which ran for 13 years; his recipe for a butterflied leg of lamb with pesto was memorable for the invention, the idea, the simplicity and of course the taste; he has given of us many good recipes including those which have meat as a component. Mark Bittman is a champion of animal welfare, a critic of the factory farm and of corporate agriculture in general that produces adulterated food as it generates cash flow. I applaud him for his work against industrial methods of food production; those applied to vegetables are bad and those applied to animals are worse.
But where I question him is his statement that killing animals is "maltreatment," I would agree with him when it comes to animals slaughtered in a conveyor belt factory of death for fast food chains and supermarkets which is the way most livestock meet their end, this is maltreatment. Here is what he says in the Times:
None of which justifies egregious maltreatment. (Yes, vegan friends, I get that killing animals, period, is maltreatment. This ambivalence, or hypocrisy if you prefer, is for every ambivalent or hypocritical omnivore or flexitarian a puzzle, and scale is an issue.) That maltreatment must first be acknowledged in order for us to alleviate it.
He is absolute: "killing animals, period, is maltreatment." He goes on to describe a middle ground that permits the killing of animals "that allows our children to make more humane decisions." Does he mean that, if our children are to continue as carnivores (which he supposes), this middle ground will allow humane ways of maltreatment?
Is there a way to kill that is not maltreatment, how, how does one handle this killing, what does one do? It is this so called middle ground that has our answers. Mr. Bittman wrote another column on March 16th, No Surprise: Meat Is Bad for You.
Then on March 17th, Saint Patrick's Day, Mark Bittman published a recipe in the Times for beef stew and he did not specify how the cow was to be killed for it's meat. The recipe was delicious reading and I wonder how many of his readers, those who followed the recipe, bought beef from cows that had been killed in an industrial processing plant, one that, he abhors for the maltreatment inherent in the way they handle livestock and kill them. Perhaps it is the editorial policy that he couldn't specify in the recipe how the beef should be killed. It must be a difficult thing to believe one thing and to understand that you must hold your tongue and not voice your heartfelt opinions or be fired. What we must do for our paychecks!
I really wouldn't bring up my beliefs if it were not relevant to the topic at hand. I am a bad Buddhist for reasons different from the many good Buddhists who believe me a bad one.
Several years ago, Carol, a Tibetan Buddhist and a local sangha member, whom I'd invited over to the farm for two reasons (I was tempted to join a Buddhist sangha and I wanted her to let me touch her breasts), after smelling the complex living fragrances of a sheep barn, turned up her nose as if to say, it stinks of death here, and this fact of her being able to find unpleasant the odors that I find lovely, along with her telling me on the hillside above the sheep barn that the head monk of her sangha had told her I would not be a suitable member because I had sheep, I knew, looking down at the flock before the barn—a little intoxicated with their aroma—and smiling slightly but sadly, that not only had I been barred entrance to her sangha, I would never be able to touch her breasts.
The Japanese Zen master Eihei Dōgen 永平道元 (1200-1253) said that, "Zazen is enlightenment." What did Dogen mean? Zazen is one of the the first practices taught to those starting on a Zen path; beginners are told to focus their attention on the breath as it goes in and out of the body—when you notice that your mind has wandered, you return your attention to the breath. And like the breath, the question a Zen practitioner keeps coming back to is, "Enlightenment, what is it?" If the Dalai Lama were not enlightened, who could be; or is he just the simple monk he says he is?
What progress toward Enlightenment does is to make us into the recipients of a gift: happiness is very bright to an unhappy person; it is warm and flashing viewed from the depths of despair, but there are other gifts that might be unseen in the giddy glare of happiness; they are almost unnoticeable because they are common. These smaller and more day-to-day gifts are aspects of life itself, so often overlooked in our busy pursuits of occupation and wellbeing.
Some of these everyday gifts are thoughts about death. We live in a wake of death caused by simply going on from day to day, all of us: you, me, Mark Bittman, HHDL, Carol, members of her sangha, everybody. Life supports life; the taking of life perpetuates the living and the only way we can stay alive is by killing. And eating or, in reality, killing to stay alive requires an intention realized or not, but acted upon. Food died for you, you killed it as you bit into that apple; it gave you sustenance and the only things that can provide life to living things are other living things in and of themselves. All living things, in a broader sense, are cannibalistic devouring other living things to live.
Based on the common horror that we call eating you can see why people, when they even think of the food process at all, choose what they consider to be a lesser evil and eat only plants calling themselves vegetarians, why Mark Bittman calls the killing of animals, at the prompting of his vegan friends, "maltreatment," and you can see why Carol and her good fellow Buddhists frown upon keeping sheep. Abhorrence, denial, guilt and exclusion, or a modern day shunning, are several, and there are more, palliative, projecting or self blaming personal responses to the eating of meat.
Yet, there is a satisfactory response, a singular way of successfully addressing the bestialities of life, like the taking of life to live, or as we euphemistically call it, eating; but I am loathe to name this solution because I might be imposing here in the same way my mother imposed on a young and errant me, not by silence, although that was a part of her change of tone coupled with a matter-of-fact look that made me feel alone and cold such that I would do anything to have her warm love—anything at all—I would even be a good boy. Ha! We never grow out of the need be more virtuous than we are, do we.
In a previous draft I'd mentioned a contest in a column of the New York Times, The Ethicist, Tell Us Why It’s Ethical to Eat Meat. Having deleted the reference but now that the winner has been declared by the judges, one of them being Mark Bittman, I bring it up again because Jay Bost, writer of the winning essay, states what is paramount to sanely going about one's daily life and that is pertinent to this discussion; he, and only he, of the 6 published finalists from over 3000 entries submitted to the Times expressed a sentiment that should be common not only to the eating of meat but also to everything, and I do mean everything, that enters one's field of concern.
It's best to read Jay Bost, but let me quote part of the last paragraph where he says that eating meat is ethical if three reasons are met,
First, you accept the biological reality that death begets life on this planet...Second, you combine this realization with that cherished human trait of compassion and choose ethically raised food... And third, you give thanks.
Reason number one, I described in different, probably much colder, words; and reason number three was what I was approaching in this attempt (essay), what Mark Bittman and so many others ignore: thankfulness and of course we will return to it as gratitude is tantamount, not only to eating, but to living as well; and last but not least reason number two, Mark Bittman understands "ethically raised food" well (I have no critique of him here); food ethics are his food politics and it mostly fills his column. That's why I enjoy reading him; he informs me and, more often than not, we agree.
But it's difficult to keep those three reasons in mind when we're hungry: We grab something to eat and really don't give much thought to the fact that what we're eating is alive, or once was, and who knows how this food was raised and consequently killed, ethically or otherwise (there were no or inadequate labels on it to specify how it was raised); and of top of all that, why should we be grateful, as if paying for the food and service weren't enough, and expensive it was too. Besides I always tip well, no matter the quality of the service.
Being thankful, to say thank you, is to express a debt that can never be paid so unlike the transactions where with the exchange of money renders debts paid in full and duly forgotten. To say thank you, to express gratitude, is to say I will always be in your debt. This is the key to living, to eating, to killing in order to live.
In the trailer at the small, humane slaughterhouse while we're waiting for the door to open I look into the eyes of my sheep and silently say thank you. And, that as a debt never to be paid, I say it again and if I forget to say it, or am too busy to, or distracted by something or my mind wanders, I eventually come back to gratitude like the breath in zazen.
As an afterword: On May 15th Mark Bittman mentions in his column in the Times, We Could Be Heroes the contest for which he was a judge about the ethics of eating meat. Yesterday we vaccinated the lambs with CD/T; they'll get a booster in 3 weeks.
Fact: The less expensive meat sold in supermarkets is from animals raised in factory farms and routinely fed antibiotics.
The F.D.A. has no money to spare, but the corporations that control the food industry have all they need, along with the political power it buys. That’s why we can say this without equivocation: public health, the quality of our food, and animal welfare are all sacrificed to the profits that can be made by raising animals in factories. Plying “healthy” farm animals (with prophylactic antibiotics) ... is as much a part of the American food system as childhood obesity and commodity corn. Animals move from farm to refrigerator case in record time; banning prophylactic drugs would slow this process down, and with it the meat industry’s rate of profit. Lawmakers beholden to corporate money are not about to let that happen, at least not without a fight.
Bacteria 1, F.D.A. 0 Mark Bittman, New York Times 12/27/11
Name names. Which lawmakers are beholden to corporate money; which senators and congressman take money from the food industry?
If Mr. Bittman is right about the human sickness and death caused by feeding antibiotics to livestock then my question becomes why are these lawmakers not held accountable for the misery they have abetted by blocking prohibitive regulations that would ban the prophylactic feeding of antibiotics to farm animals. Am I being too civil or too critical to suggest that these elected officials should be given the opportunity or be subpoenaed to explain themselves in a court of law under oath? I think not.