Psst... We're working on the next generation of Chowhound! View >
HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >
May 27, 2011 09:46 AM

"Mark Zuckerberg only eats what he kills"

I found this article to be very interesting. Not that I know the guy in any way, but I guess I was surprised to see his appreciation for food.

Edit - Speaking for myself, I know I could never kill an animal, so I give him credit..

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
    1. re: junescook

      On the other hand, I wonder how long he's going to be doing this before he gets bored and goes on to his next "challenge."

    2. I, too, am impressed. A lot harder than wearing a tie every day

      12 Replies
      1. re: Glencora

        Yes, but why leave the actual butchery to someone else? Slitting the throat is probably the hardest part for those of us not used to it, but I'd guess breaking down the whole animal is where you really learn the most, and his mission is supposedly to learn.

        1. re: babette feasts

          You pointed out the same thing that I noticed. While it sounds grusome, the actual kill is the easy part. What about gutting, skinning and butchering and breaking down the animal? Trimming the meat is time consuming.

          We used to bring our deer to the processor too. It was real easy. Drop off a carcass, wait for a call and pick up meat and sausage cut, wrapped and frozen. We stopped doing that over ten years ago. Now we do it all ourselves including making our own sausage.

          1. re: babette feasts

            I don't think his goal is to learn how to get food on the table, it's a "personal challenge is around being thankful for the food I have to eat. I think many people forget that a living being has to die for you to eat meat, so my goal revolves around not letting myself forget that and being thankful for what I have."

            If he kills the animal, he's realizing up close and personal about the death of the animal. It removes the emotional disconnect that most of us who've never done it have. I can dismember a chicken but I've never killed one--that takes a bigger emotional step.

            1. re: chowser

              OK. I just think that the complete experience of how to get pork chops out of a pig would lead to even greater appreciation, understanding, and thankfulness. But MZ can do what he wants. I've not killed anything besides insects (though not to eat) nor butchered anything larger than a duck, so this is just a theory.

              1. re: babette feasts

                Hopefully, one knows how the animal was raised too, before butchering, what it was fed, how it was confined or pastured, etc. That would be of more interest to me, than dressing out some poor animal that was confined to a 3X3 cage for its short life.
                According to the article it alludes to properly cared for food animals. Is MZ "Daring" because he ate the chicken liver and heart? He even made stock from the feet!!! Do not tell that to an Italian Nonna; she will think you are "pazzo", for even mentioning such an everyday occurance.

                1. re: babette feasts

                  Well, a complete experience would be birthing/raising the piglet and then killing and butchering and cooking and disposing of any waste. But, what he's experiencing is far more than I have so I won't criticize it. I think I could stomach most of that, except the killing.

                  1. re: chowser

                    Chowser... I have dressed out a lot of poultry, (Guinea Hens Squab and game birds like pheasants, quail, etc), as well as a number of rabbits; if you include a few deer that we reduced to sausage and steaks etc. that is about the extent of it. The killing is not a pleasant activity, but the butchering of a whole animal into usable cuts is kind of interesting. Think of cleaning a fish only larger!

                    1. re: ospreycove

                      I'm very impressed with anyone who's done any part of that. The only "butchering" I've really done is dissection, and the formaldehyde was the toughest part. I know a few hunters but none of them butcher anything larger than birds. Most take them to a butcher to have it done. It must take some strength to take apart a deer, though my friend who grew up in OR said she'd just take an ax and lop off a piece when her siblings hunted.

                      1. re: chowser

                        Chowser, One thing really gets to me, now that I fish more than hunt or raise food animals; when we go out for a day of charter fishing on the Gulf, the deal is, upon return, the mate filets the catch. Last week we landed a 35 lb. Cobia among other fish, after it was fileted the mate was ready to toss the carcass back into the water. I fooled around with the "frame" and got at least 2 lbs of really nice chunks of boneless meat off the fish. Most people want perfect filets and have no clue of what there is on any animal's or fish's carcass. I dislike waste of any kind, especially when fresh caught/killed fish or meat is involved. I do the same with Grouper and Snapper getting more cuts for "Fruta di Mare" type of pasta dishes, sauted preparations, etc.
                        Your friend, from OR, sounds like she would understand my techniques......LOL

                        1. re: ospreycove

                          This is great point about butchering your own food--you see the waste and find a way to use it. When you buy the pack of chicken breast in styrofoam and plastic, you don't know what's behind it. I loved that TC QF challenge when they had to make a meal w/ scraps.

                          1. re: ospreycove

                            I get that, but to be fair, tossing it back in the water isn't really waste, since other fish will eat it. Tossing it out with the trash is real waste.

                    2. re: babette feasts

                      I agree that it would be a more complete experience if he would also butcher the animals. Only doing the kill is like taking a flat tire/rim off your car and having someone else put the new one/spare on the car.

              2. I've never really bought in to the deal about being thankful for the food I ate ... I guess I'm thankful I have the funds to purchase it, but as far as food goes, the supermarket is chock full of food, it's not like there's a food shortage, if anything there is TOO MUCH food, makes it hard to stick to the things that I believe are healthy.

                I am more thankful for air conditioning than I am for food, it is getting pretty hot here in Florida and I remember living without it when I was a kid, not having air conditioning sucks.

                1 Reply
                1. re: redfish62

                  Redfish, Let's hear it for the "window exhaust fans" of our youth!!!!!!!
                  There is not a food shortage in the U.S, and it is cheap as a % of total disposable income; but I have been to some places where people "hunt" through piles of rotting garbage to "forage" for their next meal. We are truly very, very, fortunate......for now.........

                2. "... he slaughters, eating what many people would not dare consume. He recently ate a chicken, including the heart and liver, and used the feet to make stock...."

                  Oh, come on!

                  I guess people (actually CNN) are impressed that a billionaire would eat offal. There are poor people in the US and around the world that only eat what they kill and the offal is a standard part of their diet.

                  I guess prior to his "eats what he kills" year he never appreciated the animal or the people that do the dirty work to put meat and food on his buffet table?

                  I wonder how much food goes to waste when he has his parties?

                  What's the next article - "Zuckerberg eats leftovers."

                  2 Replies
                  1. re: dave_c

                    dave c .....To be followed by "The Zuck" goes dumpster diving at the Ritz Carlton!!!

                    1. re: dave_c

                      I wonder how many of them like patte? LOL

                    2. Here we go again: more macho-geek grandstanding covered as some ethical journey of discovery. Look, it's crucial to know from where and how we get the food we choose to eat, animal or vegetable or fruit. We are too disconnected, and everyone suffers. But what really does this involvement with slaughter do ecept make Zuckerberg and friends feel better? If Zuckerberg and the other hipster wranglers wanted to make a real difference, they'd put their influence into laws improving the humane treatment of all food animals. You don't need to have blood on your hands to fight this fight, just a head and a heart. And this "thankfulness" soap opera: the animal's dead and can't feel your gratitude--how about giving thanks to the farmers, ranchers, and farm workers whose lives are in this by supporting better protections and wages.
                      They'd appreciate the gesture.

                      17 Replies
                      1. re: bob96

                        bob96, In my constant pursuit of locally humanely raised meat animals; I totally agree with your position!!!!

                        1. re: ospreycove

                          I'd also like to see this drama of empathy extended to, say, the blazing hot tomato fields of Florida--why not spend a few back breaking days picking alongside Central American workers. Just to deepen the connection.

                          1. re: bob96

                            And after a few days in the fields, I'll bet Zuck would appreciate being inside, how about a chicken processing operation, there he can get his fill of slaughtering his own poultry thousands of times over.

                            1. re: bob96

                              Just because there are hundreds of ways for people to be more connected to their food/resources doesn't mean trying one is a bad thing, imo. It's along the lines of people criticizing others for donating or volunteering to a cause they find less worthy. No matter what/how much a person does, he can be criticized for not doing more. But, in that case, the lesson is not to bother at all.

                              Zuckerman said this has made him more aware and that, to me, is a good thing.

                              1. re: chowser

                                While I agree wuth you, he should dress out and butcher the animal at least once if going to claim to be closer to his food. Slicing the throat of a goat, while gruesome, is the easy part.

                                1. re: John E.

                                  But, he is closer now than before he killed his own food. Could he be more? Sure, we all could. This discussion reminds me of one about religion and who's most devout.

                                  1. re: chowser

                                    I agree with you. He doesn't need to do it all. Someone on computers all the time lives in his head and this is a very physical, tactile thing to choose to do. I find it interesting. (My husband, on the other hand, just thinks he's strange.)

                                    1. re: chowser

                                      My point was if he is going to the effort to make the kill, he should do the butchering at least one time. That argument is not the same as arguing who is more devout.

                                      1. re: John E.

                                        I'm saying that often people who are religious often criticize others for not doing enough and that if they do appreciate God, they'd do something more. This is the same. Why stop at butchering? Why not inseminate/breed, raise the animal? Why one animal and not a what a small farmer has to do? There's always more one can do, just as one can do more in the name of religion.

                                        1. re: chowser

                                          Sure there iszalways more that one can do. But just because you can kill an animal does not mean you have the means to inseminate/breed and raise an animal but after you make the kill, SOMEONE is going to eviscerate the animal and either skin it or pluck the feathers and then butcher the animal (or leave it whole if it's a bird). If someone makes the kill to get close to the food they might as well do the rest at least once, because, as I said, someone has to do it right then and there.

                                          (Why bring religion into a discussion about food?)

                                          1. re: John E.

                                            But, SOMEONE has to get the animal to you somehow to get a complete cycle,if that's your aim and SOMEONE has to cook it and then clean up. Zuckerman decided he wanted to kill what he ate to have a BETTER understanding. He never said it would give him a complete understanding of the food cycle.

                                            I brought in the religion aspect as an analogy to this--someone will go to church and another will tell him that if he wants to understand God, he needs to go more often, or whatever. This whole tangent about picking tomatoes under whatever conditions takes it to another level, just as religious fanatics might.

                                            1. re: chowser

                                              "Picking tomatoes"? How did the tomatoes get involved in this discussion? I bet the tomatoes are saying "leave us out of it".

                                              You seem to be taking this much more serious than I. I still believe that if this guy's goal is to get close to his food and he takes a knife and slits the throat of the animal and walks away, he has really done little to accomplish his goal. It would be like someone bringing their car to to an auto repair shop and after picking up the car and paying them for their services, to claim that they fixed their car. After all, they went to the effort to bring it in. In my view, killing the animal is about 3% of the effort of taking a live animal ready for market and turning it into a product fit for consumption.

                                              1. re: John E.

                                                The tomatoes are above in this tangent. I really don't care about what Zuckerman does or doesn't do. It's the judgemental posts that bother me (haha, I'm being judgemental about things that are judgemental) that he's not doing enough. Darn, I've never even killed a cow, let alone butchered one, and I still think I can appreciate steak and where it comes from. If you think butchering is important, then that's great for you. If Zuckerman thinks killing is important, that's good for him. But, it's the looking down on what others choose to do that I'm commenting about. His goal isn't to get as close to his food as possible--it's to get closer to his food than he was. Maybe that's not good enough for you but it is for him. I don't think anyone needs to praise him for what he does. I just wouldn't criticize it.

                                                1. re: chowser

                                                  I too don't care what he does either, but my OPINION is that if his goal is to get closer to his food so he takes a blade and slits the throat of the animal and walks away and thinks he is closer to what he eats, he is kidding himself. He isn't actually closer to his food, he's just too lazy to finish the job. You can look down on me all you wish, I don't care. I too have never butchered a cow. I've never butchered a goat either, but I've never claimed to be close to my food by saying I only eat what I kill.

                                                  1. re: chowser

                                                    He's a fabulously wealthy and very public figure who does not make private statements without an orchestra or stage--so when he and Dan Barber and others like that "make statements" \we have a right to criticize--logic, motive, consequence, whatever-because they're intended for a public: us. They're not making privatre confessions at all, but suggesting that their way (Barber sez that Zuckerberg is acting profoundly morally, etc) is one we need to consider, and is, probably, better.

                                                    1. re: bob96

                                                      I think what you have posted is part of wgat bugs me about the Zuckerberg proclamation that he will only eat meat that he kills for one year. To me that is a cop out because he can drive up to a place like Dan Barber's farm, slit a few throats and believe he gas accomplished something when in reality, I don't believe he has. He can do it, but I don't think he should try to pawn it off as 'getting close to food'. The only exposure I have gad to Dan Barber is his appearances on Top Chef and he's always come across as a good, decent, sincere guy and I'm sure he is. But sometimes the organic food people (Alice Waters comes to mind) rub me the wrong way with what I perceive as a 'holier than though attitude'.

                                    2. re: chowser

                                      But these stunts are always about the celebrities themselves and their poses: who cares that Zuckerberg has issues with meat? If he really cared, he'd work for (and throw some of his billions at) movements for broader changes for more humane treatment