Though I think Kessler tries far too hard to make us see the romanticism in the goat (I thought the Biblical imagery was so ridiculous that it removed itself from consideration, come on, he’s apotheosizing goat cheese. To me it was such a stretch that it made the rest of the reading feel disingenuous), I was very impressed by the veterinary knowledge displayed in this book. What really got me was the treatment regimen the veterinarian had planned out to combat this disease at a moment’s notice, as though they’d dealt with it hundreds of times. The mechanics of that parasite are also very cool, if brutal. I’ve never been interested in biology before, so this is new for me. I am so curious about how the same parasite can coexist with one creature (And be basically undetectable) and absolutely destroy the nervous system of another. What’s special here? Is it the parasite or the host? I have to assume it’s a combination of both. Can any biology background people provide specifics on that for me?

Anyways, I think what I’m trying to say is that I normally think of animals being so much more fragile than we are—most of them can’t even deal with chocolate (I, on the other hand, couldn’t live without it). In my experience animals get sick, they rarely get better. Hearing how Lizzie the goat lived through that awful (and still cool) parasite has changed my opinion on this. Other mammals aren’t any less durable than we are, they just have different tolerances. It’s a truly complex dynamic. But it’s more than that. We’re never as different or as unique as we’d like to believe—reading the description of the goat kid separated from its group of friends reminded me why I don’t like parties. We’re all social animals. The similarities were so pronounced that I found myself applying personality traits to the different goats. I think Kessler intends for us to do this because he always refers to them by name rather than as goats. He also describes their actions using words that could also apply to people—try reading a lot of these sentences as though they were people, it still makes sense.

I guess I can’t really talk about this reading without mentioning the milk—and by extension, the cheese. I guess it’s not surprising that people can rely so much on their animals—the Eveny showed us that. In fact, it’s easier to get behind goats than reindeer because it’s more familiar. It’s cool that these people actually make money, however much or little, off of it (I assume, it is still the US and we have property taxes unless you’re on a reservation) whereas the Eveny were more nomadic. It gives the lifestyle of the shepherd a 21^st century facelift. That said, for however much Kessler tries to romanticize the practice of cheese making, I’m simply not sold on it as a religious/sacred experience. I get that he’s exaggerating for literary effect, but it comes off as a little CHEESY to me. Ha! I’ve been waiting this entire post to say that. It feels good. It feels so good.

The answers to the following questions might be scary. How much do we know about where our food comes from today? How do we determine if we will eat something?

Goat Song is the present-day first-person account by a man who moved from NYC with wife to herd goats in the Vermont countryside. Among many things, I began to understand what can be gained: having true understanding of life achieved by herding animals as informed by history. (Perhaps, there IS great significance in understanding historical evolutionary human – animal relationships.)

This post will hopefully make logical seance as salient points throughout the book’s four sections naturally including my own thoughts, questions for discussion, and material quoted that made an impression on me.

Speaking of Thoreau, “I admired how he wove literary culture and agriculture into one fabric – pen in one hand, hoe in the other-and how he understood that alongside civil disobedience, the most active thing one could do on earth was produce one’s own food. 

The process of rediscovering animal husbandry begins with animal familiarity. Kessler’s writings present the case that keeping domestic animals begins with familiarly and hard work,  which is the foundation for a deep understanding of animals and our latter awareness of the world. Using EO Wilson as a reference Kessler explains that to understand life, one must understand by following living beings and observing their life. How much is our human world understanding altered by seeing animal husbandry as keeping livestock on an industrial scale produced for identical product distribution in an effort to maximize economic gain? Is it possible for true wisdom and knowledge be achieved though other means than hard work? 

Part of the rediscovery process is learning to identify signs in animals and although foreign at first, this skill has the capacity to quickly become second nature. Like detecting heat in does, for example, was learned though experience and collaboration with those who have done it before. “Mary Beth had a grace around animals that came from many years of goat wrangling.” I’m familiar with this characteristic of not being flustered as it reminds me of my grandma who lived her whole life on a farm. Once I saw her kill a hurt crow on the ground without hesitation with a golf club. It’s common sense that can only be gained by experiences in doing.

What influences (and/or should be the influences to) the sharing of animal husbandry information and resources? Consider the selling of Buck sperm for reproduction and the giving of a French cheese recipe. How are the factors of market competition, good will, private gain for providing information, subsistence of culture and tradition, among many rated to influence what and how information is shared between keepers of domestic goats and other animals? It seams to be that the subjective and earthly-connection quality to fresh milk (its essence purely an artistic expression for eating) encourages producers to more freely share information as it is a celebration of discovered joy to share with more people. It is not motivated by profit achievable. Can profit driven livestock food products be such that they spread joy?

“Or perhaps the mark of the artisan is that he or she gives away their craft, that culture is passed in this way, without trademarks or copyrights – but as a simple gift.”

There were many examples of goat behavior throughout the book which can be partially or fully attributed to one or more factors in genetics, individual behavior differences based on experience  and our cultural evolution. What were some examples you found?

There is relevant discussion that should take place surrounding the perception of goats throughout cultures (the Greek god Pan, for example) and how those perceptions influence our behavior and attitudes today. Does viewing the “mating” of goats as “Kind of Romantic” or as a business deal make a difference?

The way animals behave inform our decisions of how we treat them. Should humans rid their herd of a stubborn goat? Put down an animal that is very sick? There might be much meaning to aid our decision making in the words, “You need humility…to live with goats-and you need a good sense of humor.” How could humility help us determine how we treat our animals and are their other frameworks the book presented that would be useful? 

The behavior of goats interestingly offers evidence to environmental sustainability. Goats “waste” a lot of hay, 1/4 falls to the ground and is not eaten. However this hay serves as a thermal mass, effectively retaining heat to keep the barn interior warmer in the winter months. An understanding of natural application of environmental regulating techniques, like using hay to store heat or understanding the entire life-cycle impacts of something like recognizing manure as a part of the process, could aid society in their social acceptance in their inclusion in future development.

Do you agree or disagree with “The Question: How does a human and not the intended offspring obtain milk from a lactating animal?” and “The Answer: By Cohesion and Deceit” offered by Kessler? Is their substantial evidence to disagree?

The milk of domestic animals I found to be exceptionally interesting. Why is it not currently socially believable that commercial milk cows fed corn are sick animals and produce sick milk that is cooked to eliminate dirtiness. There are many properties of raw milk (amino acids, good bacteria, ect) that apparently make it much better than pasteurized. Even so, would you drink raw milk and how risky do you think it would be? Is producing your own raw milk different than buying it from a farmers market directly from the farmer or buying it from a market shelf who bought it from a farmer? Does the increased distance between the milked animal and the drinker of milk increases, perhaps, the distrust of milk?

It was surprising to read about the many bits that make up our daily life have roots in pastoralism. It created evidence to validate that domesticated animals are truly a part of who and why we are.

It was once the bull was used for trade that the inequality between in rich and poor began to grow across the planet. “Before money talked, it walked.” In short, the big picture is that “the mother of our culture is agriculture; all other arts sprang from it.” Is to forget this art of our food to lose part of our culture and possibly our happiness?

The making of cheese, when the author achieved a “clean break”, was described as “somewhat erotic.” Why was this (cheese making) so appealing? I think it has something to do with the amount of work, skill and dedication (that we have lost collective value for, culturally) that manifests the rare, raw, variable, trusting and art form that is cheese.

Even getting in hay for the winter, the hard work that it is, showed the strengthening of family bonds though their mutual work with real purpose.

I love these photos from a smart local business in the Blue Ridge Mountains.

Bailing hay must be done with proper processing to ensure the nutritional content for the animal, and importantly, for us. As Kessler explains his experience  “I’d been a part of that time and place, in concert with season and earth, a participant in one on the oldest piscatorial events… A reminder that a leaf of grass is no less than the journey-work of the stars.” Would a common person, uneducated in the deep history of culture reach this same feeling or does a full understanding mean one must be educated to allow experiences to have such significance?

When Kessler traveled to France he described the cheese making process, “Everything on the farm had to be immaculate; inspections are rigorous for organic and unpasteurized dairies.” Can this, as opposed to farms who simply “cook the uncleanliness away,” be considered to produce food with more value, more freshness, and more nutrition? Do these factors make one food more “real” than another?

The biggest point of personal consideration is determining the value of good nutrition (in very real physical effects) and thus deciding from what kind of farm should I purchase from and support. The collective social answer to this question will determine the future of food to be created.

Socrates once said in a bold statement, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

As a newbie to the goat milking scene, I didn’t realize how much of an art it is to have and own goats. But we’ll get into that later. Brad Kessler’s book The Goat Song is quite touching, and he really makes you feel his emotions as you read through it, as well as gaining some very interesting knowledge on goat etiquette. Digging deep into the roots of goat domestication, as well as giving background knowledge on things related to goats (such as “scapegoats”), and how goats tie into religion and spiritual values is just the start of it. But wow, does he go in depth on the goat owning process.

To start, just choosing which goats to have is a process itself. You need to decide what color, attitudes, age, gender, size, etc. that’ll fit your needs. Not to mention if you do decide to milk it, you don’t know how its going to react (talking about that b**** Hannah who was a tussle to milk). Once you’ve made your selection, you also have to prepare an area for them, with pastures, a barn, stalls, the whole 9 yards. Finally, the part that would get me everytime, taking the chosen goats away from their friends and family (goats).

Do you think goats have emotional feelings about being separated from their mothers, fathers, goatly friends, and so on? Or for any animal of that nature, just talking about goats here because of he relevancy. But seriously, is there torment to a goat’s psyche when taking it away from the goats they have been with all their (short) lives? Kessler kind of made it seem so, talking about how the goats and kids shrieked and screamed when leaving, as well as when the sisters were separated while the one was dealing with the serious infection. Food for thought.

Kessler’s description of the inseminating of the goats was, well, remarkable. Not in a “woah dude, that’s weird” way, but a “wow, that’s interesting” way. Female goats, while in heat, put off an odor strong enough that made any male goat, well, stiffen up at  the slightest scent of it. And again, humans have a big decision as to what goat they want to impregnate their females, based on similar traits as listed off previously. Finally, once the choice is made, it doesn’t take hardly a push at all for the two to mate whatsoever.

But the real art to this masterpiece, is the milk. Oh what time and precision is put into the milking of the goat. After the birthing of the babies, the goats are almost immediately ready to go. Although I do kind of have a problem with the separation of the kid from its mother’s milk. I know, I know, I’m a hypocrite because I drink dairy milk, and that’s the same thing, But as Bulliet would say, I am a post-domestic thinker, whose been carefully separated from this part of the milk process, and I prefer to buy the gallons of milk from the store, versus watching the babies fight to gain access to their mother’s udders, and being denied every time at the hands of a human.

Gosh, all this reading is starting to mix with one another.

1) How do you think paleofantasies stem from a general nostalgia for the past, and how are they their own specific phenomena?

2) Bulliet spends a great deal of time talking about the rise of vegetarianism due to a post-domestic society. Why hasn’t a paleo lifestyle, almost acting as the antithesis of vegetarianism, arisen as well?

3) Does a malleable rate of change in evolution alter how we view Diamond’s geography theory? Could the rate of how animals were domesticated determine which societies achieved technological dominance first?

4) Do reindeer possibly demonstrate a ‘slower’ domestication process, explaining the various potential stages of domestication found within their species, or is such domestic potential static?

5) Can we envision a future where paleofantasies are more prevalent, especially in media, food culture, etc.?

6) Robb Wolf, a proponent of the paleo diet, suggests that early hominid activity does not dictate a healthy lifestyle. He says that ‘normal is rarely healthy,’ and that humans are evolved to operate in a constant state of disease. Does this inherently invalidate the arguments of any paleofantasy?

7) Has our process of artificial selection on domesticates sped up the rate of evolution within those species? Can we or have we ‘domesticated’ them quicker? Have we sped up the rate of evolution on ourselves through this relationship?

8) Proponents of the paleo diet specifically point to the dawn of the agriculture revolution as the decline of human nutrition. However, the ability for societies to achieve western ‘progress’ was originally built entirely upon the adoption of agriculture. Does this suggest a definite clash between how we live and how evolution intended us to live? Is the agricultural revolution the point where we ‘broke’ from other species and evolution (suggesting evolution had an intent)? Note: this is the thesis presented in the novel Ishmael by Dan Quinn):
“There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with people. Given a story to enact that puts them in accord with the world, they will live in accord with the world. But given a story to enact that puts them at odds with the world, as yours does, they will live at odds with the world. Given a story to enact in which they are the lords of the world, they will act as the lords of the world. And, given a story to enact in which the world is a foe to be conquered, they will conquer it like a foe, and one day, inevitably, their foe will lie bleeding to death at their feet, as the world is now.”

1.  How was the domestication of the dog similar and different than that of the reindeer?

2.  Do you agree that our ancestors would not have interacted with a scavenging wolf because of disgust?

3.  When would you consider the dog to be the dog, by genotype or by phenotype and do you believe that genotype superseded phenotype?

4.   If the dog and wolf are genetically closer than some races of humans, why do we consider them different species?

5.  Do you believe humans were eager to join forces with animals even though they were our competitors?

6.  Dog origins at 40,000 – 50,000 years ago or 12,000 – 16,000 years ago?

7.  Do you believe the domestication of wolves was as consensual as the reading suggest (no cages or will forced upon them)

8.  Are floppy ears an inevitable result of domestication or merely a result of the of mutations being breed within a certain group?  Can a domesticated animal not exhibit the traits commonly associated with it (smaller brain, size, shorter snout) and still be domesticated?

9.  Why are dogs so quick to be feral?  Does this mean they are not completely domesticated?

10.  Why for the first time in history will children not out live their parents and could this have been avoided?

11.  Where we never in sync with our environment?  Since we are changing as well as the environment is it impossible for these to be in sync?

12.  Do you believe that different groups of people could evolve at different rates, if so why?

I’ll start with my disclaimer: I am a half-hearted supporter and former follower of the paleo diet. Even so, I found myself agreeing with a good bit of what Marlene Zuk has to say regarding the rise of ‘paleofantasies,’ a term she seems to define as the

“idea that our modern lives are out of touch with the way human beings evolved and that we need to redress the imbalance…it would be more natural, and healthier, to live more like our ancestors. A corollary to this notion is that we are good at things we had to do back in the Pleistocene, like keeping an eye out for cheaters in our small groups, and bad at things we didn’t, like negotiating with people we can’t see and have never met.”

For some insight on just how far the paleo lifestyle can go, check out:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/welcome-to-marks-daily-apple/#axzz2Lr9hADqb

Now back to our article. My first contention goes against Zuk’s general definition of what the paleo movement is really focused on. I was introduced to the paleo diet through a general interest in fitness (every single CrossFit gym advocates paleo). The general argument isn’t that we should radically alter our lives to better replicate a romanticized notion of early hominid life, it’s rather the idea that we are healthier when engaging in certain activities that elicit better gene expression. For example, unless you belong to the very small section of the population adapted to grains or dairy, it’s best to avoid those foods and eat plants and animals instead (although we evolved to handle a broad diet, so you can still eat them if you desire). Paleo lifestyles also advocate exercise in the form of ‘functional movement,’ which can be considered walking, sprinting, gymnastics, sport, and basic weight lifting. We essentially don’t want to see someone going to the gym to burn 300 calories on the treadmill, then hopping on the bicep curl machine, and calling that fitness.

That’s how my paleofantasy goes, and it has decent support from prominent strength and conditioning coaches such as Charles Poliquin, Mark Rippetoe, and Greg Glassman. However, there are plenty of points Zuk makes that should be considered, particularly with an eye for the vapid money-whoring buzzwords that the monstrosity of modern marketing will soon be touting out to millions of gullible shoppers. Zuk only briefly touches on this, “Newspaper articles, morning TV, dozens of books, and self-help advocates promoting slow-food or no-cook diets, barefoot running, sleeping with our infants, and other measures large and small claim that it would be more natural, and healthier, to live more like our ancestors.” But I think it’s a trend worth examining further. Can’t we all imagine a not-so-distant future where grocery foods contain labels such as ‘paleo’ and ‘primal’ are touted alongside the vegan, vegetarian, and ten different variations of ‘organic’ labels? Where Dr. Oz (who, by the way, is a huge promoter of pseudoscience and general idiocy) supports the latest paleo-endorsing author whose core message (like every other diet writer) is ‘it’s not your fault for being fat,’ in front of hordes of unhealthy housewives? Where the ideas of avoiding processed grains and sticking to basic exercise are co-opted by some ridiculous hippie-colon-cleansing-in-tune-with-your-inner-energy movement and companies start selling a bunch of silly weight loss supplements incorrectly branded as paleo. The whole thing terrifies me. The hipster in me doesn’t want to see something that holds a soft spot in my heart get bastardized by this country’s health trend sensationalism.

And for the most part, Zuk’s main thesis isn’t anything I’ve written about so far. The idea of evolution having different rates of effect brings a new level of examination to this subject (and for a math major, makes evolution much more interesting). So if evolution does happen faster than we thought, what does that mean for our adaption and our domesticates? Can animals be domesticated faster than we previously believed? Does this add another factor to consider when examining and comparing the quality of various domesticates? Would such a factor be enough to either support or dent Diamond’s theory of domesticate geography influencing societal dominance?

And how quickly and to what degree can humans as a species change? Maintaining a tolerance to dairy (especially cow milk) throughout adulthood is one thing, but I seriously doubt we will ever evolve a metabolic system that can utilize refined carbohydrates well.Tolerate seems like a possibility, but beneficial use? Here’s the thing, man-made refined carbs are terrible for you. They’re garbage. Milk is natural, with growth hormone and a decent macro nutrient ratio. Fun fact – cow’s milk contains the same kind of growth hormone as human milk, essentially putting it just a step below anabolic steroids for facilitating muscle growth.

Zuk makes a convincing argument against our growing paleofantasies, particularly with the research she references throughout her piece. The discovery that evolution has it’s own rate seems completely obvious and intuitive, yet so many public authorities regard it as an ancient and minor force in today’s world. Despite Zuk’s argument, I still contend there are some very good aspects of examining the science behind ‘paleo’ habits for a healthier life. If you’d like to learn more about the fitness side of the paleo movement, I’d recommend you check out Robb Wolf, a former competitive weightlifter, gym owner, evolutionary biologist, and author of The Paleo Solution. Beyond that, the early articles found in the CrossFit Journal are useful as well. I still fall slightly on the paleo side, because I’ve seen the science used by those who argue against Zuk, but paleofantasies certainly seem to be a very real phenomena.