[goldins]

I don't get it.

I assume he still had to pay for what he took home, so how is him going to a farm and killing a chicken, pig and goat any better than someone else doing it and selling it to him? Hell, the people at the farm would probably have done it more humanely anyways.

Yes, he wants to be more thankful by providing himself with a concrete connection between the animal and his food, but what does that really change?

And I think a lot of the pig and goat will go to waste.

[turtle4]

It is a different thing to personally perform an act than to simply know, logically, that it is being performed on your behalf. It makes act more real, more personal, more identifiable. Knowing that someone killed a goat at some point is not the same as having to perform the act itself. I have never done something like this, but I can understand how it would make you appreciate your food more, and really understand what you are doing when you are eating.

The article indicates the animal is still taken to a butcher, so one would believe that there is no more waste than any other time.

As to what it changes, I think you are looking at the system and saying one dead goat, one fed human, what's the difference. But it isn't the result that he is trying to change; he is trying to change himself. I can't believe you could do what he is doing and not come away from it with a different outlook.

I don't see anything wrong with the practice, and if it makes him feel a little more grounded, more power to him.