Coda — November 24, 2016, 1:51 pm

Squashing the Beef

“There is trauma in a slaughterhouse and some seeped into me.”

I have always enjoyed eating meat. In the house where I grew up, dinner wasn’t considered complete without it. You had to eat pork chop/pot roast/chicken to be eligible for dessert.

But, as I wrote in “The Way of All Flesh,” my cover story for the May 2013 issue of Harper’s Magazine, after my first few days of work as a federal meat inspector in the Cargill Meat Solutions plant in Schuyler, Nebraska, I wasn’t so sure. Restaurants in town offered mainly Mexican fare or American. The slabs of steak, so similar in appearance to the freshly-slaughtered flesh I palpated and cut into each day, looked a little less tasty; but ground beef, often hidden inside the bun of a hamburger or tortilla of a taco, still seemed okay.

That changed a couple of weeks in. I think it was after spending some time around the corrals outdoors where cattle were gathered, awaiting their final walk into the plant, that I thought about the living cows when I thought about beef. At the plant, they were located just a few yards apart from each other. A cow took its final steps up a curvy ramp, designed by the animal scientist Temple Grandin to ease their stress by allowing them to see a couple of body-lengths ahead but restricting their view of distractions. About ten feet after the ramp ended, inside the factory’s walls, chains were wrapped around its rear legs, a bolt was driven into its brain, and it was hoisted aloft for prompt disassembly. A worker with a knife severed the carotid artery, and its blood was pumped out by its still-beating heart.

Cargill was proud of that ramp and upset when I reported what I saw with my own eyes: workers using electric prods to urge the cattle on their way. That was against policy, they said, so obviously I was mistaken.

I guess the ramps are a good thing; I’m in favor of humane treatment of animals. But as an observer I couldn’t help but wonder why exactly so much energy was expended to comfort the animals in the minute or two before their death. Doesn’t killing an animal nullify any such good deed? In the larger scheme of things, Is the three-year life experience of a cow that much changed if it’s a bit more nervous at the end, a bit less comforted? Might the ramps’ real purpose be to serve as a kind of fig leaf for the taking of a life, to comfort consumers who are starting to consider the stories behind the food they eat?

The problem with cows as a food source, perceivable to anyone who has stood near one, is that, like horses, they look at you with those big brown eyes. Seeing and smelling them reminded me of a description in E.B. White’s Charlotte’s Web, which we played for our kids as an audiobook on long drives:

The barn was very large. It was very old. It smelled of hay and it smelled of manure. It smelled of the perspiration of tired horses and the wonderful sweet breath of patient cows. It often had a sort of peaceful smell, as if nothing bad could ever happen in the world again.

E.B. White had stood near cows for sure.

Anyway, 5,100 of them a day were “processed” at that Cargill Meat Solutions plant. The more I thought about that, witnessed it, the more offensive it seemed, the less necessary. I knew on the one hand that the demand was driven by people like me who ate beef. But on the other, I couldn’t deny that now and then I really did enjoy a hamburger, couldn’t pretend I didn’t have that appetite. This cognitive dissonance reared its head whenever the thought of dinner came up, often when I was looking at a menu. I resolved it by choosing something other than beef for what remained of my two months in Schuyler.

Until my very last evening there. My meat inspector friend Stan, in whose garage I’d drunk many a beer and on whose pool team I had played in the local barroom league, had been talking about taking me to dinner at his favorite restaurant ever since we became acquainted. With me about to leave town, it was now or never. Unfortunately, the specialty of this restaurant was T-bone steak.

As Stan and I and his wife, Josephine, ordered our dinners that night, I thought, What the hell. I’ll either gag or I won’t. They, of course, had no inkling of the turmoil in my mind. The steaks arrived. I lifted my knife. To my surprise, the steak tasted really good. I savored every last bite while at the same time wondering how that was possible, and what to do about this appetite of mine. I resolved to eat less beef, more thoughtfully. And that’s how my article for Harper’s ended.

My old life resumed. At home, my wife cooked the family favorite beef stir-fry dish that, just a couple months before, she’d told our kids to enjoy because, with me heading to work in a slaughterhouse, it would likely be the last time we had it. I’d told her then that I thought she was wrong, and reminded her of this as we ate it again.

But that was the last time.

As the weeks and months unspooled upon my return, as the pain in my wrist and arms from the repetitive motion slowly ebbed, so did my appetite for that beef dish. And most other kinds of beef. I didn’t lose my appetite for chicken (which I should have, if my principles were better aligned with my appetite). Even more to my regret, I didn’t lose my appetite for pork sausage or, particularly, bacon. Ah, bacon! But with beef it was easier, and just seemed better, not to go there. I didn’t want to picture the big slabs of raw meat I had worked with in the factory, didn’t want to look at steaks in the supermarket, didn’t want to partake of a cooked filet. And my interest in hamburger ebbed to the point where it was easier simply to declare to friends and family that I didn’t eat it anymore … though in truth a flicker of interest in it may live on in my brain stem. But I don’t go there; I don’t eat beef anymore.

What makes an appetite? Habits learned when young, I’m sure, at least in part. But habits are also subject to intellectual oversight and can be altered by social pressure and, possibly too strong a word, trauma. There is trauma in a slaughterhouse and some seeped into me. I was slow to declare I would no longer eat beef because I am wary of declaring dominion over a part of me that I do not completely rule. But after monitoring my post-slaughterhouse appetite for many months now, I think this election can be called. I do wish it had happened sooner, in time to include in the article and win friends among animal welfare activists, whom I admire. But just as Diana Ross sang “you can’t hurry love,” I’m not sure how much you can hurry a change in what tastes good to you.

Share
Single Page

More from Ted Conover:

From the October 2015 issue

Cattle Calls

The vanishing breed of the country vet

From the May 2013 issue

The Way of All Flesh

Undercover in an industrial slaughterhouse

Perspective April 16, 2013, 3:23 pm

On Meeting Our Meat

Going undercover at a slaughterhouse in an age of agribusiness gag laws

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

December 2017

Document of Barbarism

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Destroyer of Worlds

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Crossing Guards

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“I am Here Only for Working”

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Dear Rose

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Year of The Frog

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Destroyer of Worlds·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In February 1947, Harper’s Magazine published Henry L. Stimson’s “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.” As secretary of war, Stimson had served as the chief military adviser to President Truman, and recommended the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The terms of his unrepentant apologia, an excerpt of which appears on page 35, are now familiar to us: the risk of a dud made a demonstration too risky; the human cost of a land invasion would be too high; nothing short of the bomb’s awesome lethality would compel Japan to surrender. The bomb was the only option. Seventy years later, we find his reasoning unconvincing. Entirely aside from the destruction of the blasts themselves, the decision thrust the world irrevocably into a high-stakes arms race — in which, as Stimson took care to warn, the technology would proliferate, evolve, and quite possibly lead to the end of modern civilization. The first half of that forecast has long since come to pass, and the second feels as plausible as ever. Increasingly, the atmosphere seems to reflect the anxious days of the Cold War, albeit with more juvenile insults and more colorful threats. Terms once consigned to the history books — “madman theory,” “brinkmanship” — have returned to the news cycle with frightening regularity. In the pages that follow, seven writers and experts survey the current nuclear landscape. Our hope is to call attention to the bomb’s ever-present menace and point our way toward a world in which it finally ceases to exist.

Illustration by Darrel Rees. Source photographs: Kim Jong-un © ITAR-TASS Photo Agency/Alamy Stock Photo; Donald Trump © Yuri Gripas/Reuters/Newscom
Article
Crossing Guards·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Ambassador Bridge arcs over the Detroit River, connecting Detroit to Windsor, Ontario, the southernmost city in Canada. Driving in from the Canadian side, where I grew up, is like viewing a panorama of the Motor City’s rise and fall, visible on either side of the bridge’s turquoise steel stanchions. On the right are the tubular glass towers of the Renaissance Center, headquarters of General Motors, and Michigan Central Station, the rail terminal that closed in 1988. On the left is a rusted industrial corridor — fuel tanks, docks, abandoned warehouses. I have taken this route all my life, but one morning this spring, I crossed for the first time in a truck.

Illustration by Richard Mia
Article
“I am Here Only for Working”·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

But the exercise of labor is the worker’s own life-activity, the manifestation of his own life. . . . He works in order to live. He does not even reckon labor as part of his life, it is rather a sacrifice of his life.

— Karl Marx

Photograph from the United Arab Emirates by the author. This page: Ruwais Mall
Article
The Year of The Frog·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

To look at him, Sweet Macho was a beautiful horse, lean and strong with muscles that twitched beneath his shining black coat. A former racehorse, he carried himself with ceremony, prancing the field behind our house as though it were the winner’s circle. When he approached us that day at the edge of the yard, his eyes shone with what might’ve looked like intelligence but was actually a form of insanity. Not that there was any telling our mother’s boyfriend this — he fancied himself a cowboy.

“Horse 1,” by Nine Francois. Courtesy the artist and AgavePrint, Austin, Texas
Article
Dead Ball Situation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

What We Think About When We Think About Soccer, by Simon Critchley. Penguin Books. 224 pages. $20.

Begin, as Wallace Stevens didn’t quite say, with the idea of it. I so like the idea of Simon Critchley, whose books offer philosophical takes on a variety of subjects: Stevens, David Bowie, suicide, humor, and now football — or soccer, as the US edition has it. (As a matter of principle I shall refer to this sport throughout as football.) “All of us are mysteriously affected by our names,” decides one of Milan Kundera’s characters in Immortality, and I like Critchley because his name would seem to have put him at a vocational disadvantage compared with Martin Heidegger, Søren Kierkegaard, or even, in the Anglophone world, A. J. Ayer or Richard Rorty. (How different philosophy might look today if someone called Nobby Stiles had been appointed as the Wykeham Professor of Logic.)

Tostão, No. 9, and Pelé, No. 10, celebrate Carlos Alberto’s final goal for Brazil in the World Cup final against Italy on June 21, 1970, Mexico City © Heidtmann/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

Factor by which single Americans who use emoji are more likely than other single Americans to be sexually active:

1.85

Brontosaurus was restored as a genus, and cannibalism was reported in tyrannosaurine dinosaurs.

Moore said he did not “generally” date teenage girls, and it was reported that in the 1970s Moore had been banned from his local mall and YMCA for bothering teenage girls.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today