A woman's trip back to her family farm, for cousins, cookies and steaming carcasses
For years, my friend Kristen has been telling me about her family’s tradition of butchering in the winter. Since I moved away from her, she’s finally even invited me to come — for a day. I still haven’t had a chance to visit, and this is what I’m missing.
— Francis Lam
My sister, a vegetarian of 13 years, walked into the garage. She held a knife; we’re adults now, and they need us to do this. The pig was on its back in a trough, its legs tucked up high, pink and rounded. We butcher in the winter to preserve the meat, but that means the animals, dead all of five minutes, steam copiously into the December air. “My dog lays like that sometimes,” she muttered to me, readjusting her grip on the knife. Deep breath.
Christmas is important, but Butchering, that four-day event directly after, is sacred. This is not an unusual thing where I’m from in rural Pennsylvania, although it seems families scale back more and more over the years. We definitely have: We no longer make lard; we don’t save and scrape out the intestines for sausage, buying premade casings instead; we don’t boil down the bones to make scrapple, that delightfully Dutchy, suspicious meat by-product. Family tradition is important, but it only goes so far when dealing with us practical Pennsylvania Germans. We buy our chicken at the store now, like most other Americans.
But the cow and the three pigs, whichever makes it out of the stall first, these are the constant, even more essential than the overabundance of dessert and the annual scuffle over how much coriander to put in the sausage. Five days straight of family members coming and going from my grandparents’ crooked log-cabin farmhouse, of endless piles of dishes to be washed, of grabbing handfuls of cookies with hands only perfunctorily wiped on greasy, hand-stitched aprons. It’s the time to spend time with cousins, aunts and uncles seen too rarely; a special holiday disguised as everyday life. The point is that we get a yearful of meat out of it, even as it is beside the point.
I’ve never made it out to the barnyard early on Killing Day: I’ve tried twice now, and each time get out there to meet my uncle and a cousin-in-law or two. They pick up their guns, and I say, “Um … I’ll just meet you in the garage for the skinning.” Maybe next year.
I haven’t quite figured out why I want be in that barnyard, rather than contenting myself with the meat wrapping like the other girls. Partially it’s because my uncle, the last farmer in the family, is getting older and no one in my generation is stepping up to the plate; partially it’s because I feel this is a rare opportunity to really see where my food comes from, from start to finish. Part of it is the individualism that’s been bred into me, a stubborn Pennsylvania Dutch self-reliance as ingrained as my polite-yet-distant approach to strangers, my repressed Protestantism. There’s a certain allure in saying, with certainty, “Yes, in case of the apocalypse, I can feed myself.”
It’s more than that, too. I take joy in pulling a white lumpy package of family-farm meat out of the freezer, the same way I take joy in the scarf my sister knit me, the journal I hand-bound. It’s about creating something I can use, with my own hands, and finding meaning in the process. In this way, butchering is another form of craftsmanship, just … bloody.
Back in the garage, we start at the hooves, slicing a shallow ring around the first knuckle and then drawing a line down the back of the leg toward the rump. The first time I skinned a cow, slicing and peeling, I overcame my kneejerk revulsion to delight in thinking, so this is why leather feels the way it does. There are five of us, one on each limb, with my uncle tending to the head. We haul the animal up by its back legs with a winch, finish skinning, and then stand around and munch freshly baked cookies while my uncle eviscerates it. It’s family bonding time.
- – - – - – - – - – - -
I went through a period where I was embarrassed to mention that my family butchers its own meat, knowing it marked me as the country girl I am, thinking civilized society would be shocked at an educated girl being part of so base a process. But in the past few years, after moving out and discovering what I’d left behind, I decided that the people who are shocked don’t have any business picking up those Saran-wrapped Styrofoam trays of beef at the grocery store. This is the reality of eating meat: The animal has to be killed and butchered. If we can do it ourselves, have control over the process, all the better — especially if we can make some traditions along the way.
The traditions pile up alongside the freezer packs. As steak-cutting and hamburger-grinding happens in the basement, there is an equal contingent of wrappers directly upstairs in the kitchen. We divvy up the pans of pork chops and hamburger into three- or four-person servings, passing them around to be swaddled in white freezer paper. The younger kids rip masking tape, and the youngest draw and learn to write on the packages. We mark the year, the family it’s for, and what’s inside. Often, someone gets forgetful while wrapping, so it’s not unusual to find later that year a lumpy package in the freezer that just says, “BEEF SURPRISE.”
The first of my generation to get married, my cousin Amanda, got a special treat her first Butchering as a newlywed. My aunts wrote recipes in Sharpie on the backs of the wrapping paper. On a package of round steak came a list of vegetables for beef stew; on a pack of hamburger, the recipe for stroganoff. We write notes to each other, to be found months from now: “Hi Aunt Linda!” or “LARGE T-bone, for when Susan and Ben are visiting!” Every time I pull a pack of sausage out of my freezer and recognize my aunt Debbie’s handwriting, it’s a reminder of who we are for each other.
- – - – - – - – - – - -
“Well … what do you think?” Uncle Dennis asked, rotating a large hunk of cow and squinting in concentration.
“Um,” I said.
Last year, Dennis, my godfather, lent me his copy of “Basic Butchering of Livestock and Game,” because I was so interested the year before. I called myself his apprentice, helped him haul sides of pork and decide where to cut the T-bones. I had no idea what I was doing, and Dennis, for all the times he’d done this, was not an expert. Once a year is not often enough to learn as involved a trade as butchering, and he has his crops and his livestock always on his mind. Aunt Debbie, Dennis’ wife, confided that the night before Killing Day, Dennis stayed up late at the kitchen table, poring over the diagrams, trying to memorize where to slip the knife, reminding himself how to avoid nicking the intestines.
We wound up with odd-looking hunks and tried to come up with purposes for them. My mother, checking in on us, said laughing, “Cows don’t actually have those dotted lines, do they?” When in doubt, we passed bits onward to the small army of aunts, uncles and cousins cutting these parts into chunks for grinding. What we could, we ran through a bandsaw, flecks of pink tallow spitting out. It is all unglamorous, perplexing, and makes me love my uncle even more than I already do. He steps up to do this vague thing because we need him to.
The book made even gutting seem dull, full of phrases like, “Carefully tie off the bung.” More interesting to me were the notes my uncle scrawled, trying to refresh his knowledge from 360 days ago and the varying sausage-recipe cards that fell out as I flipped through. This year we tried maple sausage in addition to the standard batch; one year we tried filling the rusty metal smokehouse with hickory wood. We fry up a few test patties when we think we have the sausage mixed properly, pass around bites, and uncles chew thoughtfully before commenting, “Could use more black pepper.” That first bite of sausage, hardly three days out of the animal, is my favorite bite of meat the whole year through, astoundingly fresh and flavorful, familiar spices tasting like childhood Sunday mornings. I am not much of a meat connoisseur, but that bit of fresh sausage alone is enough to keep me from vegetarianism.
I carefully replaced the recipe cards and returned the book, completely overwhelmed at how much knowledge goes into a hamburger. Knowing I will ask to borrow the book again in another 11 months, just as Dennis will pull it back out.
- – - – - – - – - – - -
I don’t know who will take over butchering in my own generation. That it might die off is unthinkable, which is why I keep thinking I need to step up. Without a real farmer, though, we would have to buy the animals from someone else, and small family-owned farms are increasingly rare.
I keep toying with the idea of apprenticing on the farm with my uncle, because while I know how difficult living off the land is, I know I don’t truly understand it. But I’m conflicted about being the one to actually make that life choice. My family and the farm are precious to me, even as I live 1,200 miles away from them, and Butchering is the most productive of family reunions. But there are so many things I want to do in my life, and even if learning how to butcher is one of them, I don’t think I’m ready to give up the rest. I juggle what I have made for myself, my work and my education, with my birthright. I am caught between the progression of time and the static halt to it that tradition brings, and I don’t know how to see my way out.
I am rarely on the family farm, growing in the larger world outside our valley, but when I am home, I am ruled by tradition. I submit joyfully. I want to grow older with my cousins always gathering the way we have, with their children learning to write on the stacks of white-wrapped meat, with cows always in the barn and snow on the sledding hill, with always more dessert than we can possibly eat. I go away for the rest of the year, but I want to always come back this one week, for this one sacred act, to replenish our freezers and bond over the dishwashing. And I want always to come across a happy note from a cousin jotted on a steak in the back of my freezer and laugh delightedly in the heat of July, reminded of the tether that holds me to that valley, oddly thankful it takes the form of meat.
Continue ReadingToday’s must-see viral videos
Watch: The contested winners of annual hot dog eating contest, robots as second-class citizens, and more
I am robot, hear me roar.
1. 365 days of makeup
”Natural Beauty” answers that burning question once and for all, “What would you look like if you put on a year’s worth of makeup all at once?”
2. “District 9″ … with robots
Kibwe Tavares’ short film “Robots of Brixton” imagines a world where sentient machines are given inhuman treatment by humans. An interesting memorial to the 1981 Brixton riots.
3. Joey Chestnuts, official winner of Nathan’s Famous hot dog eating contest
For the fifth year in a row, Joey “Jaws” Chestnuts won Nathan’s annual hot dog-scarfing contest in Coney Island.
4. Actual winner of hot dog eating contest
Professional eater Takeru Kobayashi technically ate more ‘dogs on the Fourth than Joey (setting a world record with 69 buns and beef) , but was considered ineligible for the Coney Island event since he won’t sign an exclusive contract with Major League Eating.
5. Twin infants sync laughter
Well, this is almost as creepy/adorable as those talking babies.
Our government’s terrifying food ads
New exhibit reveals the twisted logic of the Department of Agriculture's marketing department through the years
Government's attempts to explain healthy pig diet through motivational poster goes awry.
There’s nothing more appetizing than giving human characteristics to the food you’re about to eat. That’s why we always see pictures of pigs with bibs on at rib houses; because for some horrible reason we feel better about eating Porky if we convince ourselves he’s a cannibal.
I always wondered where that strange impulse came from, and now thanks to a new exhibit, “What’s Cooking, Uncle Sam?” at the National Archives, I think I know. The New York Times ran a piece yesterday about the show, which focuses on posters, videos and other media from the Department of Agricultural, spanning all the way back to the revolutionary war.
The most fascinating of these photos is called “Pig Cafeteria”:
The caption reads:
“The Pig Cafeteria” was an exhibit produced by the Department of Agriculture to educate farmers about new methods of farming and raising livestock — specifically, what to feed pigs so that they would be healthy and profitable.
So maybe it’s just poor word choice, because when I see Wilbur here licking his lips and holding out his plate at a Pig Cafeteria, I assume that he will be in for a sad and delicious shock, smothered in barbeque sauce. But maybe Pig Cafeterias are just cafeterias for pigs, not serving them — the way we call where kids eat lunch “Human Cafeterias.”
Definitely check out the rest of the exhibit up in the Times, especially the poster demanding “Eat The Carp”:
Or the kind nurses that come to your home and tell you about the benefits of this “dairy product”:
Man, the past looks totally terrifying and not at all tasty. I’ll take Reagan’s “Catsup is a vegetable” decision* over carp demands or pushy milk women any day.
*Yes, I know it didn’t actually go down quite like that.
The five most ridiculous defenses of Ronald McDonald
A watchdog group is calling for the clown mascot's retirement, but is being creepy grounds for firing?
Who wouldn't accept food from this guy?
McDonald’s is under attack again for force-feeding our nation’s children greasy, delicious fries. A group called Corporate Accountability International took out full-page ads today in several prominent newspapers, titled “Doctor’s Orders: Stop Marketing Junk Food to Children.“
And while this grievance might not seem new, exactly, CAI is launching another campaign on Thursday against Ronald McDonald himself, whom the watchdog group called a “Deep Fried Joe Camel.” They claim Ronald’s the equivalent of a drug pusher for MSG-addicted kids.
But how “friendly” is Ronald? A new study done by outside marketing group Ace Metric found that in a survey group of 500, an overwhelming amount found a guy with big red lips and white greasepaint more creepy than cute.
McDonald’s refuses to give up on Ronald, though, and its defense on why it needs to keep a terrifying clown as its mascot would be charming if it weren’t so ridiculous and backward. Below, five of the responses McDonald’s has given for keeping Ronald on the payroll.
1. Complaint: “It’s really remarkable how often I saw the word ‘creepy’ [in regards to Ronald],” says the V.P. of a company that conducted the survey.
McDonald’s response: “For everyone who may feel that way, there are more who feel the opposite.”
2. Complaint: Ronald McDonald is an evil clown.
McDonald’s response: “He is a force for good,” says McD’s CEO, Jim Skinner.
3. Complaint: Too many damn clowns running around.
McDonald’s response: “There’s only one Ronald,” McDonald’s chief creative officer Marlena Peleo-Lazar said in response to several questions about how many actors portray the smiling clown.
4. Complaint: He is hurting a brand image that is trying to be more adult … like Starbucks.
McDonald’s response: He is the brand image. “It would be almost as if the Geico gecko disappeared, or the Aflac duck,” says one marketing strategist. God forbid.
5. Complaint: Ronald encourages childhood obesity.
McDonald’s response: Around 2004, McDonald’s christened Ronald as a “balanced, active lifestyles ambassador,” and stuck him in commercials where he trained for the Olympics. He got workout clothes. He got a tuxedo. He moved from McDonaldLand into the real world.
You know who can also move into the real world after being trapped in a fantasy land? Freddy Krueger.
It’s actually in CAI’s favor to have a scary mascot act as a deterrent for children trying to buy fries. It should be thanking McDonald’s for keeping such a creepy figure right in front of the golden arches.
Is it racist to ban shark’s fin soup?
All three West Coast states may eliminate the Chinese delicacy, but is it pro-environment, or anti-Asian?
Sandbar shark, one of the preferred species for fins
My Chinese grandfather was well into the latter part of his life when he made some money. He’d brought his children up on bowls of white rice with soy sauce and maybe a little pat of lard if he was feeling flush. And so, when it was time to feed his grandchildren, he loved that he could feed them the good stuff, the expensive stuff. I remember him being happy to see my grade school straight-A report cards, but the grins he showed me then were dwarfed by the supernova smiles he’d flash when I ate with him, precociously enjoying shark’s fin soup and other delicacies cousins my age were studiously avoiding at the kids’ table. And so I wonder what he’d think of the movement to ban shark’s fin.
Following in Hawaii’s footsteps, Washington, Oregon and, most significantly, California have introduced statewide legislation that would make it illegal — and highly fineable — to serve or even possess shark’s fin. (Hawaii’s law calls for fines of $5,000 to $15,000 for even first-time offenders.)
Ban supporters talk about the trade’s inhumane treatment of sharks and an outsize environmental impact. The “Ew-ick-how-can-you-do-that” argument is that fins are largely harvested by cutting them off of live sharks, then dumping the shark back in in the water to die. But the more big-picture concern is about the scale of finning: researchers estimate that 73 million sharks are killed every year to feed an exploding demand in fins by a huge, growing middle class in China. Some scientists estimate that ocean shark populations are just 10 percent of what they used to be, and there’s no telling what kind of impact that can have. As Dan Cartamil, a researcher at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said on the KPBS radio show “These Days,” “You take away the sharks, and, for example, many coral reef ecosystems become degraded. There are suddenly lots of stingrays, because now they have no natural predators, and then they may eat all the oysters, which is a commercial fishery.” And on and on. So the current scale of shark finning is a real problem.
But then I think, again, of my grandfather, and the night he took a teenage me to a nondescript, fluorescent-lit noodle shop in an undistinguished, vaguely smelly part of Macau. Walking past folding tables with diners on stools, going through an unmarked door behind a curtain, we found ourselves suddenly in a plush, one-table dining room, with relatively regal carpeting and a tablecloth of bright red, the color of celebration. I remember the dinner being wonderful, and that the strands of shark’s fin in the soup were thicker than spaghetti, a sign of quality … and extravagant expense. And it became clear that the room, the table, the whole dinner — so strange and luxurious amid such undistinguished circumstances — was built around the event of that soup; the metaphor of that soup was undeniable. It wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to say that much of my grandfather’s life was built around that soup, built around the idea that he could show the world and himself that he’d finally made it, that he could literally feed his family his success. For him, and tens of millions like him, that feeling of satisfaction must be unparalleled.
And so foes of the ban, including Chinese American California state Sen. Leland Yee, are tempted to say things like, “This is an attack on Asian culture.” And Jon Kauffman of SF Weekly sharply noted that it’s not hard to see “an anti-Chinese subtext in the ban,” with the language of the debate rife with “echoes of Americans’ fear of the rising Chinese middle class, and the persistent suspicion and disgust many Americans feel toward other cultures’ foods.”
But, Kauffman continues:
“Globally, we’ve reached the point at which the collapse of an ecosystem has to take precedence over one culture’s culinary heritage. No matter who the primary ‘market’ is, overconsumption is taking sharks — and bluefin tuna, and Atlantic cod, and hundreds of other species — away from all of us, and we all have a right to demand action. The situation is becoming drastic, and drastic, across-the-board bans are warranted.”
If the science is correct, I’d have to agree. (Sorry, grandpa. Really. I’m sorry.) I mean, the cultural import of the dish is, to be frank, as much about the demonstration of status as anything else, and there is no limit to the creativity of aspirational culture to come up with the next big status symbol. I mean, go ahead and buy another pair of Prada shoes instead of taking me out for shark’s fin. It’s fine. I don’t mind, and after a while, you’re not going to mind either. After all, the nature of status symbols is that the more they’re attained, the shallower their actual meaning, and the more attractive the next, other thing eventually becomes.
And cultures evolve. As Judy Ki, of a pro-ban group called Asian Pacific Americans Ocean Harmony Alliance, said, “I personally don’t think our culture is that fragile that it would fall apart without one little delicacy. My grandmother’s feet were bound. That was part of ‘our culture,’ and I’m very glad we’ve said that’s wrong.” (It’s worth noting that several California Chinese American legislators support the ban — and the bill was originally co-sponsored by a Chinese American assemblyman.)
But there is something disconcerting about this ban. A Chinese American chef, Jonathan Wu, noted, “It’s a tough call, but I support the ban. While we are at it, I’d also ban Caspian caviar and bluefin tuna [Caspian sturgeon and bluefin tuna are both considered endangered by many scientists] until their fisheries recover — no doubt, that would raise an uproar in certain other cultural communities.”
And that’s the thing: It’s not that this ban is “racist” as some have put it, it’s that it’s the kind of thing that smells a bit of cynical political posturing, scoring cheap environmental points because no politician is going to lose any votes that matter. Get rid of a grody-sounding food that only the Chinese are stupid enough to save up their money for? Easy! Try to take away the endangered tuna from voters’ Friday night sushi date, though, and there’ll be hell to pay. And don’t even think about doing anything about factory farming, the cheap-meat industry that is unequivocally ruining huge swaths of our ecology and our health. It’s not a good state of affairs when we can easily get up a head of steam behind laws that take away others’ pleasures, but refuse to even take a hard look at our own.
Toys that really cooked
Turns out you can create a whole dinner menu based on foods made by toys. So we did. Bon appetit!
With the sad-making news last week that the Easy-Bake Oven as we know it will be going to the Great Incinerator in the Sky, we here at Salon Food started reminiscing over our own toy food memories. There were the Easy-Bake knockoff Chuck E. Cheese pizza ovens, there were the heartbreakingly dear Snoopy Sno Cones, there were the furiously lame Queasy-Bake Cookerator Dip n’ Drool Dog Bones.
It wasn’t long, then, before Aviva Shen, editorial fellow extraordinaire, realized that you could put together a whole menu of toy-made foods: “Basically,” she said, looking at dozens of Easy-Bake bootlegs, including one that grilled hamburgers, “if a child had to survive on toy oven food alone, they could do it … though they would quickly develop diabetes.”
Bah! A small price to pay for self-reliance! And probably no more dangerous than giving hormone-charged 17-year-olds keys to thousands of pounds of rocketing steel. (Probably.) So we scoured history to find the finest play-date victuals. Please, sit back and enjoy our menu of toy-made foods.
Page 1 of 10 in Food traditions

Interview With My Bully: When I confronted my bully about racism
Iran’s Greens aim to rise again
The prettiest boy in the world
Should I donate a kidney to my friend?
America’s billionaire-run democracy
The bishops go off the deep end
No, Newt, don’t quit to make room for Santorum
Whose Wisconsin recall is it?
Can Greece thwart a complete meltdown?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s alternative abortion history 

