One might ask what this has to do with conservative living, but it’s quite simple. Animals that do not mesh well with the heavily industrial food production system can support a more distributed, robust food supply that is not controlled by a small number of centralized superproducers and their revolving-door government attaches.
What animals are CAFO-resistant? Ducks, geese, goats and sheep breeds optimized for grass/hay feeding (so, not dairy sheep). There are other CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation) resistant animals, but those are easy to find and the learning curve on raising them is not too hard for someone with no background in rural living (which is nearly all of us these days).
CAFO-resistance simply means that when you try to crowd the animal in conditions similar to what is done with chickens or pigs by the ten thousand, you lose production rather than maximize it. Goats can’t really be feedlotted, and many breeds of sheep are unsuited for it as well. Ducks and geese can fatten without purchased feeds at all and also don’t thrive with the small amount of space that permits chickens to reach market weight or lay eggs.
Now there is a trade-off. There always are, though. These animals were dropped for cattle and chickens precisely because they don’t take well to overcrowding and high inputs from the farmer. They need more space, but they produce well and are reasonably scalable to small and medium farm sizes. One thing there’s no shortage of in America, though, is land to raise hardy breeds of livestock on.
Taking a step away from the cow/chicken/pig triptych when supporting or attempting homesteading and small farming is an essential component of having a functional alternative to the current food system.
H/T to Cane Caldo, who has been discussing this topic in a few of his most recent posts as of this writing.
Conservatives tend to be cowardly when it comes to helping each other out. They hear the sneers of “white men’s club” and “old boy’s club” and “glass ceiling” from more liberal-leaning media (and sometimes even friends and family) and allow themselves to be pressured out of helping and supporting each other in times of need.
This is not always true, just as it is not always so true that liberals protect their own (as post-1970s black radical liberals found out to their great and lasting bitterness), but in broad general terms, liberals are much more likely to provide couches for years if necessary, jobs if they have them and plenty of food to eat when one of their own falls upon hard times for saying something impolitic.
This is something that modern conservatives have forgotten in aggregate. Using fake names to post crimethinky things on the internet isn’t really the problem, it’s the idea that nobody has your back among real people you live and fellowship with, much less the affinity groups you stumble into online. It is not loving, it is strange.
Having said that, however, offering aid and shelter to each other should come in defense of those who speak of normal life as normal and of real things as Real, not liars, dissemblers and hustlers. This is actually less strict than the Danegeld liberals levy for succoring their wolves among their sheep. We can do better. We can offer aid and shelter to each other for speaking true things, real things, honest things, and cast out those who are just wearing the skin but have wolves’ claws.
There is a difference between discernment before bringing forth the casseroles and couch-surfing and straight out cowardice. I seem to recall a very Good Book that explains how we can tell the difference….