 I had seen a very provocative statement you made that you thought to be a vegetarian in New England might be an unethical choice. Yeah, you know how many letters we got from that? We're still getting letters. You're going to get even more when you defend it here. We're still getting letters. Yeah, nope. You know what? I got the worst letter from my dad. My dad loves vegetables and he's not a vegetarian, but he said, you said it like you were antagonizing the vegetarians, don't antagonize. Because I said something like, if you're a vegetarian, you still have blood on your hands. That's what I said. You can either make peace with the vegetarians now or you can antagonize them further, but explain why vegetarians have blood on their hands. Well, if you just look at the landscape we have behind us, what you're looking at is an open space ecology that was built on pasture. New England, iconic New England landscape, though what we consider beautiful farmland was built by the dairy industry and by taking advantage of our greatest advantage, which is fantastic grass. Our greatest advantage is not growing vegetables out this window, though we do it here and we make money doing it. It's not the most productive use of the ecological resources and the ecological resources are pointing towards eating meat. I'm not suggesting that you're eating meat for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and I'm not suggesting that you're eating an eight-ounce steak when you sit down for your dinner. I'm suggesting that you include meat in a very diverse and complex diet that includes grains and vegetables and, to a certain extent, fruits when you support a local ecology in our area. Pure vegetarian diet, you are ultimately leading yourself to support a monoculture diet of fruits and vegetables that are coming from someplace else and probably Mexico and probably the Midwest and increasingly beyond. With a lot of food miles, too. With a lot of food miles, I mean, that doesn't support anything in the long run. I mean, the real true sustainability is we're talking long run. I think you have to look at the life cycle of an ecology and say, what is the best thing that the land is telling me to grow? If you're in New England, it's not vegetables. All the great cuisines of the world, Chinese, Indian, French, Italian, and I'm not talking about Hote French and Hote Italian, I'm talking about the true peasant cuisine from which Hote came out of. Meat was in those rotations because they needed fertility in the soil. That's from the beginning of agriculture. All the farmers knew that. What we've replaced is chemical agriculture, NPK, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium. Those go back into the soil in lieu of manure. Okay. But, you know, you can't eat organically and eat sustainably for the foreseeable future. And I mean foreseeable future, like our grandchildren are going to eat. If you're suggesting that vegetables are the only way to go, I don't believe that's the right way. Well, I thought Michael Pollan made a great point in the omnivores dilemma, too, which is that if you really converted everybody to a vegetarian lifestyle, we wouldn't have these farm animals. They're raised for our benefit. And it's not that they would be extinct, but you would have a tiny population of pigs and cows and chickens. Right. And by the way, I think what I am pointing to without meaning to, I think, is that this farm is a great representation of a possibility for the future where animals and vegetables are raised together. Very few farms, even the ones that are organic, local, and sustainable, raise both meat and vegetables anymore, because the inefficiencies of doing that are great. When we pay the real cost of food, which I think this place that we're sitting in represents, we will see more and more animals and vegetables coexisting. And that's when I think we can cut down on the amount of meat we eat, but use the resources of animals on a farm in an intelligent way.