I love it when this .happens.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15609
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I love it when this .happens.

 Now while I hate the price of living in general not meeting up with the cost of living, I still am not going to be a dick to a business, at least not the workers they do not set the prices.

Today I lucked out with a misslabled pack of pork chops. A properly labed pack next to it same relitive size was almost 12 bucks, most likely about 3lbs. I looked at the price on the one I bought and did a double take $2.59 YEP YOU READ IT RIGHT. The. lable was for chicken drumsticks and 1.6 lbs.

I still will point the mistake out to the store and give them the oportunity to say yes or no. I pointed it out to the meat packer guy. He said "Go for it". I think he also knew the regular prices were absurd. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Do you know WHY meat is so

Do you know WHY meat is so expensive? (Hint: it isn't because the meat industry is raking in tons of profit- the amount of money you had discounted is about the profit a pig farmer makes off of an entire hog.)

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
 I won't say any thing to

 I won't say any thing to the store unless it is overpriced. Our store down here has the markers below the canned and boxed goods. It shows unit prices, so X cents per pound or such. I've sat and did the calculations myself on my phone and occassionally I find an error.

I've never had an issue with the register girls, but on occassion a smart one will catch it and say "these are marked wrong, I need to tell the manager". When they come over they say, "ok, our mistake, your gain" and make the changes so they don't get their profit killed. They never try to make me take a different price because it is "as advertised".

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15609
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Do you

Beyond Saving wrote:

Do you know WHY meat is so expensive? (Hint: it isn't because the meat industry is raking in tons of profit- the amount of money you had discounted is about the profit a pig farmer makes off of an entire hog.)

 

Do you know why any product you buy is so expensive? Because the uber rich compete with each other for bigger profits,which drags even mom and pop shops into that stupid mentality. It never occurs to big business that if workers made more and they kept prices low, that what they lost in lower prices would be made up by the higher volume of the more workers ability to buy.

The "competition" of supply and demand, is not on the buyers level. The competition is a dick mesuring contest between who can make bigger profits.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Do you know why any

Quote:
Do you know why any product you buy is so expensive? Because the uber rich compete with each other for bigger profits,which drags even mom and pop shops into that stupid mentality.

I was under the impression that competition drove the price down.  That explains why Wal-Marts tend to drive mom-and-pops into the ground, since they can sell at a lower price. 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Quote:Do

zarathustra wrote:

Quote:
Do you know why any product you buy is so expensive? Because the uber rich compete with each other for bigger profits,which drags even mom and pop shops into that stupid mentality.

I was under the impression that competition drove the price down.  That explains why Wal-Marts tend to drive mom-and-pops into the ground, since they can sell at a lower price. 




you obviously understand basic economics.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Do you know WHY meat is so expensive? (Hint: it isn't because the meat industry is raking in tons of profit- the amount of money you had discounted is about the profit a pig farmer makes off of an entire hog.)

 

Do you know why any product you buy is so expensive?

Why yes, I do. I also know how much profit a large corporation makes per hog. Do you? (Hint: Two years ago the number was a $30 LOSS per hog, guess what it is now.)

 

Quote:

Because the uber rich compete with each other for bigger profits,which drags even mom and pop shops into that stupid mentality. It never occurs to big business that if workers made more and they kept prices low, that what they lost in lower prices would be made up by the higher volume of the more workers ability to buy.

The "competition" of supply and demand, is not on the buyers level. The competition is a dick mesuring contest between who can make bigger profits.

Evil fuckers giving Americans the cheapest food prices in the world, causing us all to overeat and become obese. All in the name of PROFIT. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
The funny thing is that

The funny thing is that Brian is completely disconnected that inventory loss rates, whether due to spoilage, mislabling or outright theft is a factor that is calculated into the price. The average profit margin for a large supermarket chain is under 1.5% (Kroger for example did 1.3% in 2013) While Brian's individual actions are negligible compared to the business the supermarket does and wouldn't make a difference to the inventory loss rate, if everyone who does what Brian did insisted on paying full price, the price of meat in that supermarket would be lower. When it benefits him, he loves screwing other people. So much for the morality he preeches.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
yeah, he seems to think that

yeah, he seems to think that taking advantage of a pricing error only hurts the "corporate" profits. he's as short-sighted as he is stupid. who knows? it's a long shot, but it's possible that if "corporate" spots the error, the poor worker who was putting on price stickers that night, or the low-level manager who was in charge of seeing it get done, might have his or her pay docked, which could have been prevented by brian showing some worker solidarity and insisting on a price check. instead, he justfies it by colludng with an irresponsible employee who was just as short-sighted as he.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15609
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 The cost of living with

 The cost of living with what the lowest paid are making is not helping. The argument that more dergulation will work is utter bullshit, we had 30 years of that and what we are getting is a drop in wages, tax shelters for companies that dont need it and dont deserve it at the cost of the rest of us having to compensate for what they do not pay.

I hate the term "minimum wag e" it should be "livable wage".

 

If big business wants government off it's back and wants more people off the government dime, then they have the power to make life more affordable for everyone. There is a huge difference between "cant" and "don't want to. They can, they simply don't want to.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: The cost of

Brian37 wrote:

 The cost of living with what the lowest paid are making is not helping.

Then why do you continue voting for politicians whose STATED GOAL is inflation? Our government is aggressively pursuing inflationist policy. The rising cost of living isn't happenstance, it is the predictable result and stated goal of our federal reserve.

 

Brian37 wrote:

The argument that more dergulation will work is utter bullshit, we had 30 years of that and what we are getting is a drop in wages, tax shelters for companies that dont need it and dont deserve it at the cost of the rest of us having to compensate for what they do not pay.

When exactly did we have that?!?!? Name some years, or better yet some specific laws.

And no, the rest of "us" don't compensate for tax shelters, "I" and other "evil rich people" (who don't make millions) compensate for them. YOU don't pay a penny in taxes, yet continue to vote for politicians that make all sorts of tax favors for their butt buddies. I have repeatedly advocated for a flat tax, which means EVERYONE pays the same rate- zero deductions, zero exceptions- me, YOU, Bill Gates and everyone inbetween all pay the same rate. You have criticized that approach and have offered no alternative ideas.

 

Brian37 wrote:

I hate the term "minimum wag e" it should be "livable wage".

Use whatever term you want. What wage is livable depends on the individual. Care to take a stab at defining "livable wage"? I still don't know if I pay my employees one because you never told me how much it was. I hope it is livable, because dead employees are almost as worthless as minimum wage employees. I have asked you to explain how to determine if I am "fairly" compensating my employees. You ignored my question, like you ignore anything that requires intellectual depth. Who knows, if you told me some great formula, maybe I would have been paying my employees more all these years. But since you are too cowardly to address it, I just use my current methodology.

 

Brian37 wrote:

If big business wants government off it's back and wants more people off the government dime, then they have the power to make life more affordable for everyone. There is a huge difference between "cant" and "don't want to. They can, they simply don't want to.

Big business doesn't want government off their back. Why would they? Big business controls government and idiots like you keep voting for their candidates. Regulations give large businesses a competitive advantage over small businesses and virtually every regulation that passes is being pushed by big businesses.

 

But what does any of this have to do with your OP, let alone my response? I asked you specific questions.

HOW MUCH PROFIT DO YOU BELIEVE IS MADE ON A HOG? And who is getting all those profits? IOW, who do you believe is so evil and overcharging that you feel justified stealing from them? Or do you just prefer not to put a face to the person you take from?

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:
HOW MUCH PROFIT DO YOU BELIEVE IS MADE ON A HOG? And who is getting all those profits? IOW, who do you believe is so evil and overcharging that you feel justified stealing from them? Or do you just prefer not to put a face to the person you take from?

 




don't waste your time. he's like any aspiring demagogue: holding him to specifics ruins the illusion that he knows anything about the topic under discussion (and in brian's case, it's a poor illusion to begin with). people like him abhor getting into verifiable details because they're too lazy to do the research and too dumb to analyze it--not to mention the fact that the details contradict their cherished sacred cows.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13073
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I hope

Beyond Saving wrote:
I hope it is livable, because dead employees are almost as worthless as minimum wage employees.

I spit coffee everywhere rofl.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Beyond Saving

iwbiek wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
HOW MUCH PROFIT DO YOU BELIEVE IS MADE ON A HOG? And who is getting all those profits? IOW, who do you believe is so evil and overcharging that you feel justified stealing from them? Or do you just prefer not to put a face to the person you take from?

 

 


don't waste your time. he's like any aspiring demagogue: holding him to specifics ruins the illusion that he knows anything about the topic under discussion (and in brian's case, it's a poor illusion to begin with). people like him abhor getting into verifiable details because they're too lazy to do the research and too dumb to analyze it--not to mention the fact that the details contradict their cherished sacred cows.

 

I know, just pisses me off the sactomonius fuck comes on here and brags about virtual theft, then turns around and bitches about pay being low and wants a higher minimum wage in the same thread, when most hog farmers don't make minimum wage doing work a fuck of a lot harder than anything he has ever done in his life. Then he has the audacity to accuse me of being part of the problem. I'm paying above market price for my hog at $130 a hundred weight which means I'm paying about $40 a hundredweight more than a butcher would. Even so, the farmer is only making maybe $100 profit- for 7 months of 7 days a week work- which imo is still too low, I wouldn't do that kind of work for that kind of money. 

I overpay $80, while Brian bitches about how "outrageous" the price is when the farmer makes a whole $20 profit and I am the fucking problem?!?!? Paying employees more starts with the consumer not stealing the fucking dipshit. I bet he is one of those assholes who goes out to eat and doesn't leave a tip too, because the "employers" should pay more. Everyone needs to pay more money, except for St. Brian. Special pleading 101.

Makes me want to haul his ass down to the closest hog house, toss him in and lock the door. Let him see what it is like to raise the few thousand hogs necessary to make a decent income. Make a reality game show out of it, is that a new piglet squealing or Brian.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
you're right about the work.

you're right about the work. raising and butchering hogs is still a common family activity over here.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Let him

Beyond Saving wrote:

Let him see what it is like to raise the few thousand hogs necessary to make a decent income.   

If you haven't watched it already, I highly recommend watching Food, INC.

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Beyond

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Let him see what it is like to raise the few thousand hogs necessary to make a decent income.   

If you haven't watched it already, I highly recommend watching Food, INC.

 




if that's another exposee documentary, nothing in it could possibly surprise me. we in the west want to have the best of both worlds: cheap, plentiful meat with no work, but we want it to be clean and "humane." never mind the fact that our idea of clean, edible food is ridiculously culturally biased and just plain picky. my family raised free range beef, but i've been on killing floors. they're not pleasant, but anyone who's genuinely shocked by them is a moron. i was in college when the movie "fast food nation" came out and i was yawning while everyone else was wide-eyed with horror. i told some of my impressionable friends, "even if you've never been to a processing plant, did you really expect it to be different? did you think cows died peacefully in their sleep and just turned into piles of big macs? do you know what goes into raising a beef cow?" my grandparents ate steak like once a year growing up. now our generation eats an obscene amount of it. how do we expect to manage that with nothing but happy cows, each with its own acre of pasture?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:if that's

iwbiek wrote:

if that's another exposee documentary, nothing in it could possibly surprise me. we in the west want to have the best of both worlds: cheap, plentiful meat with no work, but we want it to be clean and "humane." never mind the fact that our idea of clean, edible food is ridiculously culturally biased and just plain picky. my family raised free range beef, but i've been on killing floors. they're not pleasant, but anyone who's genuinely shocked by them is a moron. i was in college when the movie "fast food nation" came out and i was yawning while everyone else was wide-eyed with horror. i told some of my impressionable friends, "even if you've never been to a processing plant, did you really expect it to be different? did you think cows died peacefully in their sleep and just turned into piles of big macs? do you know what goes into raising a beef cow?" my grandparents ate steak like once a year growing up. now our generation eats an obscene amount of it. how do we expect to manage that with nothing but happy cows, each with its own acre of pasture?

Actually it covers very little about the shock and awe value. The main focus on it is that large corporations look at the bottom cent, ignoring the farmer, the workhand and the animals.

Farmers who buy in to the gimmick end up owing to the company store so to speak. They are forced to purchase their feed and antibiotics from the company and raise them in buildings built by the company. The farmer then pays the company back each batch only getting ahead a little bit. Eventually they are forced to upgrade their facilities and the cycle starts all over again.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13073
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Meat wouldn't be half as bad

Meat wouldn't be half as bad for the environment if not for the green revolution. Growing crops to feed animals that did just fine with local grasses for millions of years is absolutely stupid. Farmers could make more $ by letting their cows free range in locations that are poor for crops but great for grasses. I don't know as much about pigs and chickens and turkeys etc., but beef could be a LOT more efficient than it is. Unfortunately a big group of idiots decided it was a good idea to use a strategy invented for Africa to reduce famine in North America where it has less than no value and actually increased costs and environmental damage.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:iwbiek

digitalbeachbum wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

if that's another exposee documentary, nothing in it could possibly surprise me. we in the west want to have the best of both worlds: cheap, plentiful meat with no work, but we want it to be clean and "humane." never mind the fact that our idea of clean, edible food is ridiculously culturally biased and just plain picky. my family raised free range beef, but i've been on killing floors. they're not pleasant, but anyone who's genuinely shocked by them is a moron. i was in college when the movie "fast food nation" came out and i was yawning while everyone else was wide-eyed with horror. i told some of my impressionable friends, "even if you've never been to a processing plant, did you really expect it to be different? did you think cows died peacefully in their sleep and just turned into piles of big macs? do you know what goes into raising a beef cow?" my grandparents ate steak like once a year growing up. now our generation eats an obscene amount of it. how do we expect to manage that with nothing but happy cows, each with its own acre of pasture?

Actually it covers very little about the shock and awe value. The main focus on it is that large corporations look at the bottom cent, ignoring the farmer, the workhand and the animals.

Farmers who buy in to the gimmick end up owing to the company store so to speak. They are forced to purchase their feed and antibiotics from the company and raise them in buildings built by the company. The farmer then pays the company back each batch only getting ahead a little bit. Eventually they are forced to upgrade their facilities and the cycle starts all over again.

It was another of the great line of politically motivated "docudramas" that is completely laughed at by anyone who has a fucking clue about farming, but alarmingly is taken serious by those who don't. You have liberal elitist luddites who have never stepped foot out of the city thinking they have a clue about the economics of farm management. It is full have half truths, a few outright lies and dreams of going back to a utopia that never existed. It is about as accurate as that documentary on Nostradamus ran by the History channel.
 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Meat wouldn't

Vastet wrote:
Meat wouldn't be half as bad for the environment if not for the green revolution. Growing crops to feed animals that did just fine with local grasses for millions of years is absolutely stupid.

For millions of years we had much smaller populations and a much smaller percentage of the population could ever afford to eat beef, let alone eat the amount of beef a typical first worlder enjoys today. Many people lived and died never knowing what beef tasted like because they could never hope to afford it. 

 

Vastet wrote:

Farmers could make more $ by letting their cows free range in locations that are poor for crops but great for grasses. I don't know as much about pigs and chickens and turkeys etc., but beef could be a LOT more efficient than it is.

Oh really? What kind of soil is great for grasses, but terrible for soy, corn, wheat, barley and all other crops you could grow? You obviously don't know that much about beef either. Grass fed beef produces far less meat, requires an enourmously larger amount of land, and the grass is not "free". Ranchers who do grass feed their cattle have to plant the grass, just like they have to plant corn, soy, wheat etc. Allowing cattle to just eat whatever occurs naturally leads to skinny cows with small meat yields and poor flavor and texture- plus requires even larger grazing areas yet. That is why out West even wealthy ranchers are forced to rent grazing rights to graze their herds on public land, because no one is rich enough to own enough land to sustain their own herd but overgrazing completely destroys the environment and has to be limited.

Grain fed beef, on the other hand, will consume the amount of grain that can be grown on 1/3rd of 1 acre their entire lifespan (approximately 50 bushels, less if you are using GMO corn and protein supplements). Also, the corn and soy that the cattle eat is the waste leftover from what goes for other purposes. Cows don't eat the same parts of the plant we do. 

For grass fed, you will need about 2 acres of high quality pasture (say a mix of bermuda, rye and some legumes like alfalfa, clover and soybeans) per cow. Plus, you will need additional acreage to grow hay for the winter months- you can't graze year round. Grass fed cattle require 18-24 months to be heavy enough to slaughter and are still often lighter than grain fed cattle slaughtered at 12-14 months. There is no question that grassfed is FAR less efficient. That is part of why it sells for nearly twice the price as conventional beef (which imo isn't worth it because grain fed is far better tasting. Beef fat is delicious and a well marbled steak is superior to a lean steak any day of the week.) 

The idea that farmers are incompetent businessmen is a myth. The margins in farming are incredibly narrow and farmers know their business down to the penny- to be successful they have to. The farming practices that have become conventional are conventional because they are the most efficient and cost effective. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Allowing cattle to just eat whatever occurs naturally leads to skinny cows with small meat yields and poor flavor and texture



that's true. every now and then my stepdad would get it into his head to have the farmhands kill and butcher one of the cows for us. mom would get so pissed off because the meat was always like shoe leather.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Allowing cattle to just eat whatever occurs naturally leads to skinny cows with small meat yields and poor flavor and texture



that's true. every now and then my stepdad would get it into his head to have the farmhands kill and butcher one of the cows for us. mom would get so pissed off because the meat was always like shoe leather.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: It was

Beyond Saving wrote:

It was another of the great line of politically motivated "docudramas" that is completely laughed at by anyone who has a fucking clue about farming, but alarmingly is taken serious by those who don't. You have liberal elitist luddites who have never stepped foot out of the city thinking they have a clue about the economics of farm management. It is full have half truths, a few outright lies and dreams of going back to a utopia that never existed. It is about as accurate as that documentary on Nostradamus ran by the History channel.

Food Inc is not a docudrama, it's a documentary.

I worked on a dairy farm, we had them all over down here in Orlando, now they are down just north of lake Okeechobee because the land was sold off for malls and subdivisions.

I found Food INC to have mostly good stuff. If you haven't watched it I am not sure your critique of the movie is valid.

 

 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Beyond

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

It was another of the great line of politically motivated "docudramas" that is completely laughed at by anyone who has a fucking clue about farming, but alarmingly is taken serious by those who don't. You have liberal elitist luddites who have never stepped foot out of the city thinking they have a clue about the economics of farm management. It is full have half truths, a few outright lies and dreams of going back to a utopia that never existed. It is about as accurate as that documentary on Nostradamus ran by the History channel.

Food Inc is not a docudrama, it's a documentary.

I worked on a dairy farm, we had them all over down here in Orlando, now they are down just north of lake Okeechobee because the land was sold off for malls and subdivisions.

I found Food INC to have mostly good stuff. If you haven't watched it I am not sure your critique of the movie is valid.

I did watch it because of all the hype it got. And sure enough, it was about as high quality as all the other tripe that Pollan has written. I also know more than a little about the farming industry since I own a company which appraises property in an area that is 80% agricultural. Knowing what is happening economically in the farming industry is essential for me to me to make educated decisions about my own company. I subscribe to all of the farm trade magazines and routinely have long in depth conversations with farmers in my county about the topic. The movie is full of falsehoods and bears little to no relation to the actual economics of farming. You never see these kind of criticisms towards corporations made by people actually involved in the industry, who actually make a living farming. You see it from people who live in large cities on postage stamp sized lots who have never made a penny in the agriculture industry in their lives. 

 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:The

Beyond Saving wrote:

The movie is full of falsehoods and bears little to no relation to the actual economics of farming. You never see these kind of criticisms towards corporations made by people actually involved in the industry, who actually make a living farming. You see it from people who live in large cities on postage stamp sized lots who have never made a penny in the agriculture industry in their lives.  

I agree, because the economics of the farming today bears little resemblence to the way farming could or should function. My criticisms is towards the way mega farms function, while profitable they are unbalanced. The bottom line is always about how much profit can we make; rather than how can we be productive for our stockholders and not be a burden to the public or the environment.

In my opinion the mega farms are a burden on society as well the environment; and I don't need "Food, INC" to try to convince me.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Beyond

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

The movie is full of falsehoods and bears little to no relation to the actual economics of farming. You never see these kind of criticisms towards corporations made by people actually involved in the industry, who actually make a living farming. You see it from people who live in large cities on postage stamp sized lots who have never made a penny in the agriculture industry in their lives.  

I agree, because the economics of the farming today bears little resemblence to the way farming could or should function.

How should they function?

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13073
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:For

Beyond Saving wrote:
For millions of years we had much smaller populations and a much smaller percentage of the population could ever afford to eat beef, let alone eat the amount of beef a typical first worlder enjoys today. Many people lived and died never knowing what beef tasted like because they could never hope to afford it. 

Pfft the green revolution started in the 60's. Plenty of people could and did eat beef before then. And they would continue to.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Oh really? What kind of soil is great for grasses, but terrible for soy, corn, wheat, barley and all other crops you could grow?

Rocky land, swampy land, flood plains, foothills, there's plenty of available land which is not well suited to crops.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Grass fed beef produces far less meat, requires an enourmously larger amount of land, and the grass is not "free".

The grass is largely free. Native plants growing naturally. It certainly isn't more expensive to grow grasses than it is to grow other crops. Even if a farmer does have to plant anything, he only has to do it once (unless he doesn't pay attention to the field and lets it get completely overgrazed).

There's plenty of undeveloped land. And while it may be less meat per cow, the meat is much healthier and the cows are much healthier too. And it's better for the environment, reducing the carbon footprint per cow significantly.

Grass fed cows are more expensive because of government intervention. Farmers who went along with the green revolution got extra subsidies. Farmers who didn't, didn't. Farmers aren't incompetent at all, but they'll go along with dumb ideas if they get paid to.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

The movie is full of falsehoods and bears little to no relation to the actual economics of farming. You never see these kind of criticisms towards corporations made by people actually involved in the industry, who actually make a living farming. You see it from people who live in large cities on postage stamp sized lots who have never made a penny in the agriculture industry in their lives.  

I agree, because the economics of the farming today bears little resemblence to the way farming could or should function.

How should they function?

 

From a meat pov I'd say less antibiotics, no corn, free range for starters

From a veggie pov I'd say no gmo, less herb/pesticide, more organic, no seeds from Monsanto

For farm hands I'd give immunity to workers who come from central and south america so they don't have to be worrying about being deported.

For farmers I'd say more local farming rather than large mega farms. More local meats, fruits and veggies.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Pfft the green

Vastet wrote:
Pfft the green revolution started in the 60's. Plenty of people could and did eat beef before then. And they would continue to.

The green revolution started in the late '40s, it was pretty much over by the 60's. And before that, people didn't eat beef like we do today. They couldn't afford to. Beef was reserved for special occasions and the wealthy.

 

 

We produce approximately 6 times more beef today than we did in the '30s. Which means if we go back to '30s production methods like you are advocating, we would need 6 times the land. 

 

Vastet wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Oh really? What kind of soil is great for grasses, but terrible for soy, corn, wheat, barley and all other crops you could grow?
Rocky land, swampy land, flood plains, foothills, there's plenty of available land which is not well suited to crops.

Nor is it well suited for grasses, which is why it isn't planted in grasses. Rocky and swampy land is not desirable for pasture. When it is used as pasture, it is used for animals that are not intended for human consumption like breeder cattle or often sheep. Foothills are often planted if the soil is good. Where they are not planted with crops are areas where the soil quality is poor, which again, makes them poor for high caloric grasses. Those areas are where you see a lot of breeder ranches, sheep ranches and goats. If the soil is high quality, it is great for crops, if it is low quality, then it is only useful for pasture with animals that are consuming natural vegetation. In the old days, it wasn't uncommon for a cow to take 3-4 years to reach market weight. That isn't practical in today's world, if you are going to grass finish your cattle, you need high caloric grasses.

 

Vastet wrote:

The grass is largely free. Native plants growing naturally. It certainly isn't more expensive to grow grasses than it is to grow other crops. Even if a farmer does have to plant anything, he only has to do it once (unless he doesn't pay attention to the field and lets it get completely overgrazed).

No it isn't. Every grassfed operation that exists pays for their grass. It has to be reseeded every year, otherwise you end up with natural vegetation taking over. Which again, leads to skinny cows that are tough as shoe leather. Just fine for breeders or species that we don't eat like sheep and goats, but no okay for feeders.

 

Vastet wrote:
 

There's plenty of undeveloped land.

Where? You are talking about some 250,000 extra square miles just to match US production. That is an area about the size of Alberta. Where is there that much land that isn't being used for something else? 

 

Vastet wrote:

And while it may be less meat per cow, the meat is much healthier and the cows are much healthier too. And it's better for the environment, reducing the carbon footprint per cow significantly.

I could shred this argument, but I'm not going to bother since I am arguing your main point that grassfed is more efficient than grainfed. If you want to make it a moral crusade, that is a seperate topic. It might be better for the environment if poor people couldn't afford beef. In which case, making the system inefficient and thereby raising prices and reducing production might achieve your goals. 

 

Vastet wrote:

Grass fed cows are more expensive because of government intervention. Farmers who went along with the green revolution got extra subsidies. Farmers who didn't, didn't. Farmers aren't incompetent at all, but they'll go along with dumb ideas if they get paid to.

Oh please. I'm on the anti-subsidy bandwagon more militantly than most, but farm subsidies are completely insignificant compared to revenue and profits. All cattle subsidies are on a per head basis and pay no attention to what the cattle are eating. Grain subsidies (which I assume you intend to imply lead to lower feed prices and therefore encourage use as feed) are nowhere near large enough to affect what crops get planted. In fact, the largest subsidies by far goes towards rice, a relatively small crop in the US. The largest recipient of corn and soy subsidies over the last 17 years is Harvest States Cooperatives (now CHS), they average about $4 million a year in subsidies- their revenue is $40 BILLION. $4 million is less than they make in interest and nowhere near large enough to affect their decisions of which crop to plant. Plus, you can get subsidies no matter what you farm.

The largest subsidy by far is the property tax discount, and exactly what you farm doesn't matter at all, you get the same discount. It is calculated by the type of soil and higher quality soils get taxed more, so if anything it is biased against grain farmers.

Other government involvement is the ethanol industry, which consumes 30-40% of corn that could otherwise be used as livestock feed. Which has an upward pressure on feed prices. Despite that, corn remains the cheapest method of feeding cattle.

http://farm.ewg.org/index.php

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:From a

digitalbeachbum wrote:

From a meat pov I'd say less antibiotics, no corn, free range for starters

From a veggie pov I'd say no gmo, less herb/pesticide, more organic, no seeds from Monsanto

So you are a luddite. You are free to purchase those products already. They are twice the price because such farming methods are far less productive than current conventional practices. Why should the rest of us conform to your luddite views? (You aren't even consistent, gmo LEADS to less herbicides and pesticides, that is why farmers choose to use gmo crops. Not clear what your problem is with gmo other than sheer ignorance.)

 

Quote:

For farm hands I'd give immunity to workers who come from central and south america so they don't have to be worrying about being deported.

I go a step further and think we should have completely open borders.

 

Quote:

For farmers I'd say more local farming rather than large mega farms. More local meats, fruits and veggies.

All farming is local in whatever locality it happens. Nothing is stopping you from moving to an area that has a lot of farming. You think it should occur in your backyard? Do you have good soil? Go plant it yourself, or rent your backyard like I rent mine. If you are going straight locavore, that limits your choices of what you can eat because no locality has the ideal climate for every crop. My area is one of the highest concentrations of farms in the country, but the types of crops are much more limited than my diet choices. Again, this is completely in your power to choose.

My meat is almost all local. I have a pig that I have already agreed to purchase that I can walk over and pat on the head anytime I have the urge to, I slaughtered a lamb raised by the same farmer last month and most of the rest of the meat I eat this year is what I hunt and fish myself. Nothing stops you from doing the same if you want, although there is no real difference in meat that is local and meat that is shipped from somewhere else.

What is your definition of a "mega farm"? Small scale farming is a thing of the past because most people don't want to be farmers. 2% of our population farms, down from some 90% in the 1800's. If everyone ate the way you advocate, 90% of us would have to be farmers again. I don't want to farm, do you?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:So you

Beyond Saving wrote:

So you are a luddite. You are free to purchase those products already. They are twice the price because such farming methods are far less productive than current conventional practices. Why should the rest of us conform to your luddite views? (You aren't even consistent, gmo LEADS to less herbicides and pesticides, that is why farmers choose to use gmo crops. Not clear what your problem is with gmo other than sheer ignorance.)

I go a step further and think we should have completely open borders.

All farming is local in whatever locality it happens. Nothing is stopping you from moving to an area that has a lot of farming. You think it should occur in your backyard? Do you have good soil? Go plant it yourself, or rent your backyard like I rent mine. If you are going straight locavore, that limits your choices of what you can eat because no locality has the ideal climate for every crop. My area is one of the highest concentrations of farms in the country, but the types of crops are much more limited than my diet choices. Again, this is completely in your power to choose.

My meat is almost all local. I have a pig that I have already agreed to purchase that I can walk over and pat on the head anytime I have the urge to, I slaughtered a lamb raised by the same farmer last month and most of the rest of the meat I eat this year is what I hunt and fish myself. Nothing stops you from doing the same if you want, although there is no real difference in meat that is local and meat that is shipped from somewhere else.

What is your definition of a "mega farm"? Small scale farming is a thing of the past because most people don't want to be farmers. 2% of our population farms, down from some 90% in the 1800's. If everyone ate the way you advocate, 90% of us would have to be farmers again. I don't want to farm, do you?

I'm not a luddite nor do I support their philosphy.

I am free to purchase those items and they aren't as expensive as you think. I can go south of Orlando and purchase an entire pig or cow, slaughtered from my hand picking for less than the meat I purchase at the market.

What long term effects does the current market have on the health of the public? I find the process less healthy and I believe causes more problems than it fixes. 

While a local farmer is local, not all products are local.

I have a garden in my backyard.

I don't purchase items out of season. As I mentioned previously, asparagus from Peru is less attractive to me even if it was cheaper. There are very few items I will purchase that are not local. Apples for example won't grow down here and I prefer a specific apple type which only comes to me when they are in season.

I used to hunt but neither have the time or the desire to do it any more. I rely on friends to share with me their bounty, venison mostly.

Mega farms are massive houses of livestock which do not allow for free range. Animals are pumped with antibiotics to prevent them from getting sick when they eat their own poop; or are so crammed together that they can't move.

Small scale farming still works. The only reason you don't see smaller farmers is because they couldn't compete with large scale farms.

It is my belief that the quality of the meat has gone down.

I don't need to farm and neither do you. Small scale farming works it was destroyed because people figured out how to grow 5 million chickens with out spending as much money. They found ways to make them bigger while ignoring the side effects of their processes. 90% of what I purchase is from local farmers. They still exist you just need to understand that when strawberries run out around April or May that you don't go getting strawberries in October from Peru or Costa Rica.

I also pick my own strawberries, plums, peaches, bannanas, avacados, papaya, oranges, etc. I also only get them when they are in season and never purchase out of season.

The only time I purchase items not local is usually dairy, meat or frozen items.

 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I am

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I am free to purchase those items and they aren't as expensive as you think. I can go south of Orlando and purchase an entire pig or cow, slaughtered from my hand picking for less than the meat I purchase at the market.

Well yeah, because you are doing a lot more of the labor that is otherwise built into the price. Most people don't want to go through that much effort, or even have the skills or time to do so. Even so, a pig or cow that is pasture raised is going to cost you more than one that is raised on a feedlot because it costs the farmer more to raise it. If you think that is worth the money, knock yourself out. Most of us don't think it is worth the extra money.  

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

What long term effects does the current market have on the health of the public? I find the process less healthy and I believe causes more problems than it fixes. 

What business is my health to you?  

 

Quote:

I don't purchase items out of season. As I mentioned previously, asparagus from Peru is less attractive to me even if it was cheaper. There are very few items I will purchase that are not local. Apples for example won't grow down here and I prefer a specific apple type which only comes to me when they are in season.

Purchase whatever you want for whatever reasons you want. Our current system allows that. So what is the problem with it?

 

Quote:

Mega farms are massive houses of livestock which do not allow for free range. Animals are pumped with antibiotics to prevent them from getting sick when they eat their own poop; or are so crammed together that they can't move.

So what is the problem with that? We have a lot of people to feed. Animals that don't move are much tastier than animals that exercise a lot. Many of us choose to pay extra money for fattier steaks. But again, our current system allows you to purchase lower quality meat at higher prices if you have some moral problem or phobia about antibiotics. So why should everyone else who doesn't have such issues eat the same way you choose to?

 

Quote:

Small scale farming still works. The only reason you don't see smaller farmers is because they couldn't compete with large scale farms.

80% of farms are small scale, and are not profitable. 20% of farms produce the vast majority of our food using mass production techniques. Small farms can't compete because economies of scale play a huge role in farming. There is no reason to have a dozen small hog houses when you can just have one big one. And again, either you have a dozen different farmers, which means you need A LOT more people to take up farming and therefore not doing whatever they do now, or you create a lot of unnecessary work for the one farmer to travel hog house to hog house that could all be done in one. 

 

Quote:

It is my belief that the quality of the meat has gone down.

Ridiculous. In any major city today you can go to a specialty butcher and get whatever quality of meat you are willing to pay for, with the exception of real Kobe since Japan bans the export of it. Although you can get some pretty good imitation kobe. You have access to higher quality beef than has ever been available to mankind if you are willing to pay for it. 

 

Quote:
 

I don't need to farm and neither do you.

If you have a few million small farms taking over for the large farms that exist now, SOMEONE has to do it. 

 

Quote:

Small scale farming works it was destroyed because people figured out how to grow 5 million chickens with out spending as much money. They found ways to make them bigger while ignoring the side effects of their processes.

Yes, they found ways that 2% of the population can manage to produce enough for the other 98%. Without those processes, more people would need to farm. 

 

Quote:

90% of what I purchase is from local farmers. They still exist you just need to understand that when strawberries run out around April or May that you don't go getting strawberries in October from Peru or Costa Rica.

What is your problem with Peru or Costa Rica? But again, our current system allows you to make your purchasing decisions however you want. So what is the problem with it?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:What

Beyond Saving wrote:
What business is my health to you?



fuckin' A. that's my response to everybody who wants to further restrict or ban tobacco products. stay the fuck out of my business, especially in america where taxpayers foot one of the smallest healthcare bills in the world. smoking has been banned in hospitals, public buildings, and offices for a long time now, and rightfully so, but this shit is getting ridiculous.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Slaughtering your own meat

Slaughtering your own meat is a better deal. I don't think it is worth my time or money to go sit out in a blind and wait for hours, hoping I might get something.

Your health is my business because it has an effect on the system. Why does society care about other people and their health problems? Because having a bunch of sick people drains the system.

Mega farms like the one in the Chesapeake bay is killing the bay and created dead zones. Why? Because mega farms have lobbyists who get laws modified or ignored in their favor. Who suffers? 

They are barely profitable because 80% of small farms can't compete with 20% of large farms.

Flavor is one thing but what you can't see is what bothers me. I'll conceed. The system in place is pretty good at protecting people. Today you get meat which  is not infected, usually, compared to the wooden butcher stands on the street corner where butchers cut meat in the heat and with bugs.

 

I have a problem with the items coming in from out of the country because they pick every thing earlier so they can ship it. By the time it comes here it is either rock hard or rotting.

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Your

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Your health is my business because it has an effect on the system.



what "system"? this is all getting very metaphysical.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Your

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Your health is my business because it has an effect on the system. Why does society care about other people and their health problems? Because having a bunch of sick people drains the system.

Really? Drains it of what exactly? What vital resource are we going to run out of? (You are aware that foodborne illnesses are far more prevalent in organic than conventional foods right?)

 

Quote:

Mega farms like the one in the Chesapeake bay is killing the bay and created dead zones. Why? Because mega farms have lobbyists who get laws modified or ignored in their favor. Who suffers? 

The problems with Chesapeake Bay are not caused by one farm, or even just farms. According to the EPA, about 34% of nitrogen comes from farms, the rest from other sources.  http://www.farmland.org/programs/environment/solutions/chesapeake-bay.asp

Most of the ag problem is from manure, and the farming practices you are advocating are far more damaging in this respect. That is why the government has started targeting the Amish community on this issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/science/earth/09amish.html?_r=0

Meanwhile, you OPPOSE the most obvious technological solution: GMO crops. Precisely the purpose of GMO crops is to increase yield while decreasing the amount of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides required. It is FAR more environmentally friendly than using manure. They are even conducting experiments to make crops that get all of their nitrogen out of the air so you don't need to use any fertilizer at all- evil fucking Monsanto.  

It is the large corporate farms that you malign which have been at the forefront of changing farming practices to be more environmentally friendly. Many new feedlots, for example, are being built with bioelectric generators which process the manure into electricity. The evil Smithfield Farms and Roeslein Energy have started a $100 million project in Missouri in an attempt to completely revolutionize this technology. If it works, it means another revenue source for them and removes a huge environmental problem of how to dispose of tons of manure. Small farms could never afford such an experiment.

The method you advocate, letting cows walk wherever the fuck they want (which means they shit wherever the fuck they want) makes it impossible to contain manure. It sits on the ground, and is eventually washed into water sources when it rains.  

 

Quote:

They are barely profitable because 80% of small farms can't compete with 20% of large farms.

Exactly. And why can't they compete? Because they are less efficient. What sense is it to make the 20% that are efficient, less efficient? 

 

Quote:

Flavor is one thing but what you can't see is what bothers me. 

Ignorance is never a good reason to be fearful. There is plenty of research, experimentation and knowledge on the subject that is available. Conventional farming works better, that is why it has become conventional. 

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/15/organics-versus-gmo-why-the-debate/

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4109
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I go a

Beyond Saving wrote:

I go a step further and think we should have completely open borders.

 

 

                          I support most of the Libertarian national platform ( I used to be literal card carrying member ) but I could never get on board with open borders...

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:
Meanwhile, you OPPOSE the most obvious technological solution: GMO crops. Precisely the purpose of GMO crops is to increase yield while decreasing the amount of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides required. It is FAR more environmentally friendly than using manure.



i'm a farm boy, born and raised. granted, that doesn't automatically make me an expert in agriculture (i'm not), but, fwiw, my opinion is that organic methods, as they are presently defined (which of course is purely arbitrary), cannot possibly feed the world's population on its own, nor does it have any compelling benefits over state of the art farming methods (quite the opposite, as Beyond has already pointed out). so, we can be like EXC and say a lot of people are just going to have to fucking die, or we can use our brains and find a solution. that solution is GMO products.


imo, anti-GMO activists, especially those crunchy granola fuckers who go to third-world countries racked by famine and convince their governments NOT to accept shipments of GMO foods, are like anti-vaccination activists, i.e. criminally dishonest.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:digitalbeachbum

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Your health is my business because it has an effect on the system.

what "system"? this is all getting very metaphysical.

LOL


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I

Beyond Saving wrote:

I thought about gathering up all the info I had to show a different side of the coin but you and I have our minds already made up. You accept every thing as happening as part of the reality of advancement of society. If we want to have X billion of people on this planet and don't want to have them starve then the only way to do it is make massive farms which corn feed cows (just an example) then send them off to slaughter. Sure it works but don't try to feed me with the solution you have accepted. I am looking at a different end result. I know that in order to feed the X billion of people we need to produce X billion pounds of meat, fruit and veggies to keep them alive. Sure the system you support works. I don't deny that it is highly profitable and efficent, but it isn't the only way to do things. There is always another way which is less intrusive.

 

 

 

 

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Beyond Saving

iwbiek wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
Meanwhile, you OPPOSE the most obvious technological solution: GMO crops. Precisely the purpose of GMO crops is to increase yield while decreasing the amount of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides required. It is FAR more environmentally friendly than using manure.

i'm a farm boy, born and raised. granted, that doesn't automatically make me an expert in agriculture (i'm not), but, fwiw, my opinion is that organic methods, as they are presently defined (which of course is purely arbitrary), cannot possibly feed the world's population on its own, nor does it have any compelling benefits over state of the art farming methods (quite the opposite, as Beyond has already pointed out). so, we can be like EXC and say a lot of people are just going to have to fucking die, or we can use our brains and find a solution. that solution is GMO products.
imo, anti-GMO activists, especially those crunchy granola fuckers who go to third-world countries racked by famine and convince their governments NOT to accept shipments of GMO foods, are like anti-vaccination activists, i.e. criminally dishonest.

The thing I hate about GMO is how shit like in Canada where the one farmer got sued because bees pollenated his crops, but they also pollenated the crop next door. They made him destroy his crop and he went out of business trying to fight the fuckers who held the patent on the GMO.

How is a farmer going to stop bees from pollenating his crops? I still can't believe the courts ruled against him. I would have been like, "really? your bringing this shit before me? Get the fuck out of my court before I castrate you"

 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Beyond

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I thought about gathering up all the info I had to show a different side of the coin but you and I have our minds already made up. You accept every thing as happening as part of the reality of advancement of society. If we want to have X billion of people on this planet and don't want to have them starve then the only way to do it is make massive farms which corn feed cows (just an example) then send them off to slaughter. Sure it works but don't try to feed me with the solution you have accepted. I am looking at a different end result. I know that in order to feed the X billion of people we need to produce X billion pounds of meat, fruit and veggies to keep them alive. Sure the system you support works. I don't deny that it is highly profitable and efficent, but it isn't the only way to do things. There is always another way which is less intrusive.

 

I'm open to considering any new way of doing things. What you have suggested thus far simply isn't possible unless sustaining our current population is not a goal and you don't mind killing off a few billion people.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:iwbiek

digitalbeachbum wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
Meanwhile, you OPPOSE the most obvious technological solution: GMO crops. Precisely the purpose of GMO crops is to increase yield while decreasing the amount of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides required. It is FAR more environmentally friendly than using manure.

i'm a farm boy, born and raised. granted, that doesn't automatically make me an expert in agriculture (i'm not), but, fwiw, my opinion is that organic methods, as they are presently defined (which of course is purely arbitrary), cannot possibly feed the world's population on its own, nor does it have any compelling benefits over state of the art farming methods (quite the opposite, as Beyond has already pointed out). so, we can be like EXC and say a lot of people are just going to have to fucking die, or we can use our brains and find a solution. that solution is GMO products.
imo, anti-GMO activists, especially those crunchy granola fuckers who go to third-world countries racked by famine and convince their governments NOT to accept shipments of GMO foods, are like anti-vaccination activists, i.e. criminally dishonest.

The thing I hate about GMO is how shit like in Canada where the one farmer got sued because bees pollenated his crops, but they also pollenated the crop next door. They made him destroy his crop and he went out of business trying to fight the fuckers who held the patent on the GMO.

How is a farmer going to stop bees from pollenating his crops? I still can't believe the courts ruled against him. I would have been like, "really? your bringing this shit before me? Get the fuck out of my court before I castrate you"

 

 

I assume you are talking about the Schmeiser case? That isn't exactly what the case was about. Monsanto wasn't suing over the contamination that allegedly occurred. They were accusing the farmer of then taking the contaminated seed and intentionally concentrating it to get ONLY Roundup Ready Canola, which was then used the next year to get a field that was 98%. The issue at court was whether the he did so intentionally, on which every court that ever ruled on it agreed that he did.

The issue of contamination between gmo and organic remains a contentious one (you get 0.5%-2% cross pollitation in neighboring fields). But Monsanto isn't really involved in those cases. The point is about to become irrelevant anyway because Monsanto's patents for most of their products expire this year and next year.    

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I'm

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'm open to considering any new way of doing things. What you have suggested thus far simply isn't possible unless sustaining our current population is not a goal and you don't mind killing off a few billion people.  

I am of the belief that the current system is flawed. Yes, it feeds billions but it functions unbalanced.

I believe that changes start small and then grow and the public accepts them. Farmer Markets do very well down here and they have them in almost ever city. We also have services which deliver fruit and veggies to your door step. You only get what is in season but it is 100% local and it is roughly 10% cheaper than going to the store (considering gas and time it takes).

----------------------------------------

I'd like to point out one small example of what I speak of when it comes to small changes.

Down here bee farming is huge. Buying local honey functions as a better product because studies have shown local honey will help with allergies/asthma. The honey contain, well read it here...

http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/allergies/allergy-treatments/local-honey-for-allergies2.htm

Many of the non-local honey sources (such as SueBee honey) is not even honey. Much of it comes from China and it has been filtered of the pollen then had corn syrup added. America is not importing Chinese honey because they subsidize their honey which was hurting our honey farmers. They also were using unregulated antibiotics to solve a problem with an infection with their honeybees.

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/11/tests-show-most-store-honey-isnt-honey/

The USDA used to track the honey based on the pollen spores found in the honey but China filters it so well that there is no more pollen. They then ship it to other countries where it is mixed with their honey then sold to America. With out the pollen you are basically eating sugar with zero medicinal benefits.

Local honey is better. It is healthier. It is more beneficial for the end user and the local environment.

It might be more expensive but you get what you pay for.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Local

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Local honey is better. It is healthier. It is more beneficial for the end user and the local environment.

It might be more expensive but you get what you pay for.

What difference is it to you if people choose to purchase honey that isn't real honey? Some people like corn syrup, and it is certainly a lot cheaper. For some people, having fancy honey isn't a priority. Personally, I use straight corn syrup in cooking a lot more than I use honey, because usually I don't want the extra flowery flavors that come with honey. In general, I don't like the flavor of honey and will take the neutral flavor of fake honey any day of the week. 

From a health perspective, both are nearly identical sugar wise and both have the potential negative side effects that go along with consuming too much sugar. The theory that local honey helps with local allergies might have some plausibility. I have seen studies which seem to indicate it is true and others that indicate it is only a placebo effect at most. The difficulty is that the severity of allergies is impossible to measure objectively. But hey, if allergies are a problem for you, and local honey seems to help, by all means eat it.  

But again, you can choose to go to the farmers market, and others can choose to get corn syrup in bottle labeled honey from Walmart. So what is wrong with the system that needs to be changed? Should everyone be forced or at least somehow formally encouraged to make the same dietary choices you make? Should we subsidize those who can't afford local honey if they choose to buy it? 

At least with bees you don't run into impossibility problems. I suppose it would be possible to have large scale production of real honey that is large enough to replace fake honey. I don't know enough about it to calculate how much area it would take, but my impression is that bees can be raised almost anywhere. It would require a lot more people to become beekeepers, or beekeepers to develop methods to handle much larger numbers of bees. But since there isn't an apparent market demand for that much production, why should we force it? Every grocery store in the country has at least a few jars of pure honey and their customers continue reaching for the stupid bear filled with corn syrup.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I am also really confused

 I am also really confused by your use of the term "unbalanced". You have repeatedly referred to the current system as unbalanced as if that is a bad thing. Unbalanced with what? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
There's a big difference

There's a big difference between being anti-Monsanto and anti-GMO. Monsanto is a business, and some of their business practices are...a little questionable. Being anti-GMO is, in my experience, generally born from ignorance, where people want everything to be "natural" and don't understand science, so they fear it.

Edit: Yes, similar to the anti-vaccine people, in a way. Unlike anti-vaccine though, anti-GMO is definitely trending right now. They were able to get big crowds for protests when I was in San Diego.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
for the record, i've been

for the record, i've been buying honey from local beekeepers here in slovakia for years. it has its culinary benefits, but, for the record, i still like "the stupid bear" too. it has a different flavor, it's a different product altogether, and personally i prefer it on a nice hot drop biscuit.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:What

Beyond Saving wrote:

What difference is it to you if people choose to purchase honey that isn't real honey? Some people like corn syrup, and it is certainly a lot cheaper. For some people, having fancy honey isn't a priority. Personally, I use straight corn syrup in cooking a lot more than I use honey, because usually I don't want the extra flowery flavors that come with honey. In general, I don't like the flavor of honey and will take the neutral flavor of fake honey any day of the week. 

From a health perspective, both are nearly identical sugar wise and both have the potential negative side effects that go along with consuming too much sugar. The theory that local honey helps with local allergies might have some plausibility. I have seen studies which seem to indicate it is true and others that indicate it is only a placebo effect at most. The difficulty is that the severity of allergies is impossible to measure objectively. But hey, if allergies are a problem for you, and local honey seems to help, by all means eat it.  

But again, you can choose to go to the farmers market, and others can choose to get corn syrup in bottle labeled honey from Walmart. So what is wrong with the system that needs to be changed? Should everyone be forced or at least somehow formally encouraged to make the same dietary choices you make? Should we subsidize those who can't afford local honey if they choose to buy it? 

At least with bees you don't run into impossibility problems. I suppose it would be possible to have large scale production of real honey that is large enough to replace fake honey. I don't know enough about it to calculate how much area it would take, but my impression is that bees can be raised almost anywhere. It would require a lot more people to become beekeepers, or beekeepers to develop methods to handle much larger numbers of bees. But since there isn't an apparent market demand for that much production, why should we force it? Every grocery store in the country has at least a few jars of pure honey and their customers continue reaching for the stupid bear filled with corn syrup.

I think you completely missed out on what I was trying to show. You were saying that small farms don't work and I agree to a certain extent. I believe that they survive but if a different strategy was in place maybe they could do better.

I showed you one item which does work on the small market. From what I can see online they seem to be doing well in other states too. Farmers use their bees to pollenate crops for other farmers and there is a demand for the product. In fact I'm starting to see the local super markets carry more local honey rather than the cheaper brands.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I am

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I am also really confused by your use of the term "unbalanced". You have repeatedly referred to the current system as unbalanced as if that is a bad thing. Unbalanced with what? 

I use the term to cover a wide spectrum of issues such as pollution, pesticides and corruption.