I love it when this .happens.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
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


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:There's a

butterbattle wrote:

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.

I am anti-Monsanto.

Most people don't know this but GMO has been around for a really, really long time. There are some GMO's I don't have an issue with and others which bother me/I avoid.

Anti-vaccine people bother me. I listen to them talk but the info they put out is misleading. My brother showed me that there is nothing wrong with the vaccines and he also pointed out that vaccines stopped polio and some other horrific health issues.

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote: My

digitalbeachbum wrote:
My brother showed me that there is nothing wrong with the vaccines and he also pointed out that vaccines stopped polio and some other horrific health issues.

 




anytime i've met one of these people, i've always told them that my grandmother never went to a public pool when she was a little girl because she was genuinely terrified of getting polio. i'm happy not to have to live with that fear.

"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: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

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.

Well sure, small farms can be successful in a niche, I never said they couldn't. There is a couple around here that makes pretty decent money selling duck eggs. But you have to consider why they are successful. They succeed because they can charge substantially more for their product, because nobody is mass producing it and selling it for a much lower cost. Small local honey farmers can't produce enough to feed honey to all 300 million Americans. If they did, they would no longer be small, they would have to turn to mass production techniques. 

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: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Well

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well sure, small farms can be successful in a niche, I never said they couldn't. There is a couple around here that makes pretty decent money selling duck eggs. But you have to consider why they are successful. They succeed because they can charge substantially more for their product, because nobody is mass producing it and selling it for a much lower cost. Small local honey farmers can't produce enough to feed honey to all 300 million Americans. If they did, they would no longer be small, they would have to turn to mass production techniques. 

There are two honey farms here in Central Florida which sell more honey than the super markets. One of which has expanded in to multiple states. They employ over a hundred people and their goal is to expand in to every state selling raw, organic honey.

The only place you can get their honey is at the farmer's market or online. Of which, maybe they are more successful because they sell stuff like chocolate honey and soap, etc.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Beyond

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well sure, small farms can be successful in a niche, I never said they couldn't. There is a couple around here that makes pretty decent money selling duck eggs. But you have to consider why they are successful. They succeed because they can charge substantially more for their product, because nobody is mass producing it and selling it for a much lower cost. Small local honey farmers can't produce enough to feed honey to all 300 million Americans. If they did, they would no longer be small, they would have to turn to mass production techniques. 

There are two honey farms here in Central Florida which sell more honey than the super markets. One of which has expanded in to multiple states. They employ over a hundred people and their goal is to expand in to every state selling raw, organic honey.

The only place you can get their honey is at the farmer's market or online. Of which, maybe they are more successful because they sell stuff like chocolate honey and soap, etc.

Apparently, the big money in honey bees is in pollinating crops. The honey itself is more of a byproduct that adds a little to the bottom line for most commercial honey bee populations in the US. I never knew that. I had heard of the practice, but didn't realize how integral it was with crops like almonds. Apparently, virtually every large scale commercial honey bee in the US moves to California during pollination of almond trees. As far as honey for human consumption, American honey only accounts for about 1/4 of the honey and about 40% of that comes from hobbyists. The rest is imported.

That means to go completely US honey, all current aviaries would have to all be 4 times larger. Space doesn't seem to be a problem, as a colony is pretty small. What does seem to be the problem with large operations is preventing mites and disease, which is apparently extremely difficult when you start talking 2000-3000 hive operations. The largest practical problem with such expansion seems to be the ability to actually grow the domestic bee population that large. Apparently, beekeepers have been struggling just to maintain current populations. But I'm just a few pages google deep here.

It seems that among the bee community, there is a lot of criticism of how the large commercial operations operate (at least on internet bee forums) that don't seem that much different from the criticism any large scale commercial ag operation receives. They are accused of using too many anti-biotics, some apparently maximize honey by draining it all and replacing it with corn syrup and criticized for filtering the honey too much. (Filtration seems to maximize profits by offering a clearer honey, which sells more, and the remnants can be processed into other products) I don't have enough knowledge to know if the critics have any legitimate complaints, but they don't sound that different from complaints leveled against large scale livestock or grain operations, which I do know quite a bit about. So I remain skeptical that the complaints are rooted in much beyond a general anti-corporate, anti-large scale mentality that is so prevalent.

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: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Apparently, the big money in honey bees is in pollinating crops. The honey itself is more of a byproduct that adds a little to the bottom line for most commercial honey bee populations in the US. I never knew that. I had heard of the practice, but didn't realize how integral it was with crops like almonds. Apparently, virtually every large scale commercial honey bee in the US moves to California during pollination of almond trees. As far as honey for human consumption, American honey only accounts for about 1/4 of the honey and about 40% of that comes from hobbyists. The rest is imported.

That means to go completely US honey, all current aviaries would have to all be 4 times larger. Space doesn't seem to be a problem, as a colony is pretty small. What does seem to be the problem with large operations is preventing mites and disease, which is apparently extremely difficult when you start talking 2000-3000 hive operations. The largest practical problem with such expansion seems to be the ability to actually grow the domestic bee population that large. Apparently, beekeepers have been struggling just to maintain current populations. But I'm just a few pages google deep here.

It seems that among the bee community, there is a lot of criticism of how the large commercial operations operate (at least on internet bee forums) that don't seem that much different from the criticism any large scale commercial ag operation receives. They are accused of using too many anti-biotics, some apparently maximize honey by draining it all and replacing it with corn syrup and criticized for filtering the honey too much. (Filtration seems to maximize profits by offering a clearer honey, which sells more, and the remnants can be processed into other products) I don't have enough knowledge to know if the critics have any legitimate complaints, but they don't sound that different from complaints leveled against large scale livestock or grain operations, which I do know quite a bit about. So I remain skeptical that the complaints are rooted in much beyond a general anti-corporate, anti-large scale mentality that is so prevalent.

Yes, pollinating crops is huge. Having grown up down here with the fruit industry I knew of the bees. During the early months of spring boxes would be put in the center of the grove. Depending on the size of the grove you would see three or maybe four stacks of boxes.

The way bee farmers handle their hives is to stay smaller. I have been thinking about getting a hive myself. I have a friend who produces his own honey and lives near a grove so his honey is almost all orange blossom.

I don't put much stock in mega corporations other than having the ability to churn out a lot of product, cheaply and efficently. I do not find the products to be superior but more often is a lesser quality.

Working in the field of real estate I can vouche for appliances not being as sturdy as they used to be; my parents have refrigerators which are over 35 years old, including a washer and dryer which are even older. In houses which are brand new appliances are made to last 5-6 years. Parts are made from plastic and are not made to be repaired. Most of my vendors give me a response of "it's cheaper to go buy a new one".

An example of this is a recent repair on a perfectly good refrigerator which had a tenant who broke the bars to hold your condiments on the door. The three bars were made from a cheap metal with plastic clips on each end. Total cost, with discount, was over $180.00. A new refrig from the same company was $325.00


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:he green

Beyond Saving wrote:
he green revolution started in the late '40s, it was pretty much over by the 60's.

Only in Mexico, Asia and Africa. In the rest of North America it didn't even start until the 50's, and wasn't widespread until almost the 70's.

Beyond Saving wrote:
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.

According to your own graph that claim is pure bullshit. That graph shows a less than 100% increase in meat consumption per person since the green revolution began, even assuming it was immediately implemented all across the US in the 40's (which didn't happen). Meat consumption didn't even double, which shows that people were eating quite a bit of meat already.

Beyond Saving wrote:
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. 

Not a problem.

Beyond Saving wrote:
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.

Having lived in both mountains and swamps surrounded by what you call poor land despite the local farmers saying it's just fine, I call bullshit again.

Beyond Saving wrote:
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.

Yes it is. No grass fed operation needs to reseed unless the animals were allowed to overgraze. You don't even need fertilisation because the animals did it for you.

Beyond Saving wrote:
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?

Where isn't it? I grant your country is a lot more crowded than mine, but that's not all that much. Even less if indoor or underground operations are considered.

Beyond Saving wrote:
I could shred this argument,

No, you couldn't. You can't shred any argument, because you're dead wrong on everything, including your own sources.

Beyond Saving wrote:
since I am arguing your main point that grassfed is more efficient than grainfed

Efficiency isn't my main argument, it's merely a argument. If I were to make any argument my main argument, it would be the overcrowding and excessive antibacterial/etc. products that are going to create superbugs in our livestock even faster than we create them in humans.

Beyond Saving wrote:
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

The subsidies aren't there anymore because the desired shift already happened. I learned this in school, and I can't find anything supporting or denying this when I look for it today. Maybe I just don't remember the specific terminology that would get me results. Maybe the US never did it at all, and the focus was specifically on Canada. I doubt it, however, as I specifically recall looking at the impact in a number of countries in the Western hemisphere.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I don't put much stock in mega corporations other than having the ability to churn out a lot of product, cheaply and efficently. I do not find the products to be superior but more often is a lesser quality.

I can agree with that. It is always difficult to maintain quality as you increase production for a variety of reasons. Part of the reason why high quality is always more expensive, and often prohibitively expensive to most of the market. What I disagree with is that quality is something we should be concerned about on a large scale. People will buy whatever quality they choose, and most choose (relatively) poorer quality. I don't see a problem with that. 

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: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Beyond Saving

Vastet wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
he green revolution started in the late '40s, it was pretty much over by the 60's.
Only in Mexico, Asia and Africa. In the rest of North America it didn't even start until the 50's, and wasn't widespread until almost the 70's.

No, it was pretty much over in the late '60s. Particularly in the area of feedlots. 

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/crops_08.html

Quote:

Others followed into the feedlot business. Between 1940 and 1969, the number of cattle on farms nearly doubled, from 60,818 to over 106,000 head. But the number of farms producing cattle dropped by around three-quarters, from 4.85 million farms with cattle in 1940 to 1.7 million farms in 1969.


 

By the 70's most cattle were already at feedlots and grainfed was the preferred feed. This is the period when companies started bragging about their meat being cornfed and cornfed was synonomous with high quality because of its superior marbling.  

 

Vastet wrote:

According to your own graph that claim is pure bullshit. That graph shows a less than 100% increase in meat consumption per person since the green revolution began, even assuming it was immediately implemented all across the US in the 40's (which didn't happen). Meat consumption didn't even double, which shows that people were eating quite a bit of meat already.

Almost doubling per capita is very significant. Especially when you consider that our population today is over 300 million and was only slightly over 100 million in the '40s. In the '40s we consumed maybe 9 billion pounds of beef, now we consume over 54 billion pounds. It doesn't take a genius to see that 54 billion pounds requires significantly more land if you are ranching the same way you were when you produced 9 billion pounds. So just because we had enough land to grassfeed most cattle when we produced 9 billion pounds is not evidence that we have enough land to produce 54 billion pounds using the same methods. Which is the point you made that I am refuting.  

 

Vastet wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
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. 
Not a problem.

You saying it isn't a problem doesn't make the problem disappear. Where exactly is all this unused land? The land available for farming has shrunk since the '30s, not increased, and in 1930 there wasn't much land that wasn't being used. We certainly used far more than 1/6th of what was available. 

 

Vastet wrote:

Having lived in both mountains and swamps surrounded by what you call poor land despite the local farmers saying it's just fine, I call bullshit again.

Those local farmers also weren't raising 30,000 head of cattle on that land. If you read my response, you will see that I outlined numerous uses for that land, but grassfed beef is not among them- and certainly not largescale production of grassfed beef. 

 

Vastet wrote:
Yes it is. No grass fed operation needs to reseed unless the animals were allowed to overgraze. You don't even need fertilisation because the animals did it for you.

Over time, pastures have to be managed. Cows don't conveniently chow down to exactly 2-3 inches. Sometimes the stupid fucks eat a patch bare. The also start to weigh a lot, and guess what happens when a few thousand cows all walk over the same piece of land? The soil gets compressed, divots get dug up, the ground becomes uneven which hinders regrowth as well as increases risks of things like broken legs. Depending on soil type, it is also likely that the ph levels are going to get out of whack requiring liming. All of this can be fixed, but it costs money. You need to run discs through the soil, level it out (usually by adding topsoil), overseeding and irrigating. With best practices, you can minimize overseeding, but best practices aren't exactly free either in materials or labor (labor which is much more expensive than grass seed) and given time, sooner or later you will need to renovate the whole pasture. With a few dozen cattle, you can probably go a long time, with tens of thousands, you are renovating pastures constantly.

   

Vastet wrote:

 Where isn't it? I grant your country is a lot more crowded than mine, but that's not all that much. Even less if indoor or underground operations are considered.

We have indoor operations right now and they work. Those are the ones you are criticizing...

 

Vastet wrote:
 

Efficiency isn't my main argument, it's merely a argument. If I were to make any argument my main argument, it would be the overcrowding and excessive antibacterial/etc. products that are going to create superbugs in our livestock even faster than we create them in humans.

Certainly. And I never said that feedlots are without problems and difficulties. Grassfed isn't a plausible answer, unless you are willing to say that people have to significantly reduce the amount of beef they eat or stop eating it altogether- which is the stand taken by many environmentalists. Personally, I'm a selfish SOB, and me enjoying a burger is more important than whatever problems people even 100 years from now are faced with.

 

Vastet wrote:

The subsidies aren't there anymore because the desired shift already happened. I learned this in school, and I can't find anything supporting or denying this when I look for it today. Maybe I just don't remember the specific terminology that would get me results. Maybe the US never did it at all, and the focus was specifically on Canada. I doubt it, however, as I specifically recall looking at the impact in a number of countries in the Western hemisphere.

I don't know anything about Canadian subsidy programs. In the US, subsidies to corn farmers were in the form of limiting production by paying them NOT to plant and by giving them subsidized loans during times when market prices were low. Direct crop subsidies didn't come into existence until the corn shortage of '72, which led to the "Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act of 1973" which was the first time that direct subsidies were given to farmers. It attempted to reduce the price of corn, which it may or may not have short term. The next year corn prices did fall, but the drought ended too and corn prices typically fall after a drought. How much is related to subsidies is a detail that could be argued.

Regardless, by 1973, feedlots with grainfed cattle were already the primary method of beef production. So saying subsidies encouraged the change to feedlots is putting the cart before the horse. Saying that feedlots are responsible for the creation of subsidies is probably accurate, because the beef industry strongly pushed for the corn subsidies to lower their feed costs. Without their money and clout, perhaps the bill never passes. 

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=3932

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: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I don't put much stock in mega corporations other than having the ability to churn out a lot of product, cheaply and efficently. I do not find the products to be superior but more often is a lesser quality.

I can agree with that. It is always difficult to maintain quality as you increase production for a variety of reasons. Part of the reason why high quality is always more expensive, and often prohibitively expensive to most of the market. What I disagree with is that quality is something we should be concerned about on a large scale. People will buy whatever quality they choose, and most choose (relatively) poorer quality. I don't see a problem with that. 

I always prefer higher quality and would prefer to pay more for it. It is part of the reason why I don't eat "junk food" any more.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I always prefer higher quality and would prefer to pay more for it. It is part of the reason why I don't eat "junk food" any more.




i don't think anyone has a problem with that. i think beyond is asking why should we legislate according to your tastes?

"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: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:digitalbeachbum

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

I always prefer higher quality and would prefer to pay more for it. It is part of the reason why I don't eat "junk food" any more.


i don't think anyone has a problem with that. i think beyond is asking why should we legislate according to your tastes?

I only wish to legislate to protect and not diminish others or mine. If they can produce cheap, bad tasting honey with out destroying my love for good honey then fanastic we all win. However, when mega corps do things which destroy or change the environment, laws or public health to increase their profits but hurt my personal life (which includes normal honey) then I draw a line.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:No, it

Beyond Saving wrote:
No, it was pretty much over in the late '60s. Particularly in the area of feedlots. 

I think I just said that. Lets look again:

Vastet wrote:
Only in Mexico, Asia and Africa. In the rest of North America it didn't even start until the 50's, and wasn't widespread until almost the 70's.

Yep. I literally just said that. Skipping forward...

Beyond Saving wrote:
Almost doubling per capita is very significant.

No, not really. Not compared to how you made it sound. It means that if I eat meat every single day today, I would have had to skip 3 days back in the 40's. I'm still eating meat more often than not. If I eat meat every single meal today, I'd still eat meat twice almost every single day back then. Very significant my ass. Very significant is applicable to the states the revolution was intended for, NOT the rest of the world who adopted it needlessly.

Beyond Saving wrote:
It doesn't take a genius to see that 54 billion pounds requires significantly more land if you are ranching the same way you were when you produced 9 billion pounds. So just because we had enough land to grassfeed most cattle when we produced 9 billion pounds is not evidence that we have enough land to produce 54 billion pounds using the same methods. Which is the point you made that I am refuting.

You aren't refuting anything. All you're doing is highlighting the problems that adopting the revolution created. The demand for meat today would only be 27 billion pounds, and there is plenty of land available.

Beyond Saving wrote:
You saying it isn't a problem doesn't make the problem disappear. Where exactly is all this unused land? The land available for farming has shrunk since the '30s, not increased, and in 1930 there wasn't much land that wasn't being used. We certainly used far more than 1/6th of what was available.

Your saying it is a problem doesn't make it a problem. Where are your statistics showing the US is out of land?

Beyond Saving wrote:
Those local farmers also weren't raising 30,000 head of cattle on that land. If you read my response, you will see that I outlined numerous uses for that land, but grassfed beef is not among them- and certainly not largescale production of grassfed beef. 

No they weren't. But neither do they need to. Concentrating all production into a few super farms is convenient, but also unsafe for the economy long term, our population, the cows population, and the environment. A thousand small farms for every super farm will make meat cost a bit more, but not so much more that people will stop buying it.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Over time, pastures have to be managed. Cows don't conveniently chow down to exactly 2-3 inches. Sometimes the stupid fucks eat a patch bare.

If the farmers let them. I've spoken to a number of farmers who say adequate supervision is quite sufficient to prevent it. If you just put the cows in pasture and ignore them then you're incompetent.

Beyond Saving wrote:
The also start to weigh a lot, and guess what happens when a few thousand cows all walk over the same piece of land? The soil gets compressed, divots get dug up, the ground becomes uneven which hinders regrowth as well as increases risks of things like broken legs.

Good argument for smaller farms. But not against my argument.

Beyond Saving wrote:
We have indoor operations right now and they work. Those are the ones you are criticizing...

No. We have thousands of animals crowded together indoors, not indoor pastures.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Certainly. And I never said that feedlots are without problems and difficulties. Grassfed isn't a plausible answer, unless you are willing to say that people have to significantly reduce the amount of beef they eat or stop eating it altogether- which is the stand taken by many environmentalists. Personally, I'm a selfish SOB, and me enjoying a burger is more important than whatever problems people even 100 years from now are faced with.

Well since you consider a reduction in meat consumption of less than 50% significant and I don't, we have an unsolvable dispute. I say that such a reduction wouldn't hurt at all.
I also love me a burger. And I'll be ahead of you in the line when we start killing people to prevent them from stealing our burgers away. But I won't mind eating burgers half as much as I do now. You aren't rich from what I understand, but neither are you living in poverty. You probably won't have to eat less, you'll pay more. Which is as unpleasant as eating less, but it won't bankrupt you.

Beyond Saving wrote:
I don't know anything about Canadian subsidy programs. In the US, subsidies to corn farmers were in the form of limiting production by paying them NOT to plant and by giving them subsidized loans during times when market prices were low. Direct crop subsidies didn't come into existence until the corn shortage of '72, which led to the "Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act of 1973" which was the first time that direct subsidies were given to farmers. It attempted to reduce the price of corn, which it may or may not have short term. The next year corn prices did fall, but the drought ended too and corn prices typically fall after a drought. How much is related to subsidies is a detail that could be argued.

Regardless, by 1973, feedlots with grainfed cattle were already the primary method of beef production. So saying subsidies encouraged the change to feedlots is putting the cart before the horse. Saying that feedlots are responsible for the creation of subsidies is probably accurate, because the beef industry strongly pushed for the corn subsidies to lower their feed costs. Without their money and clout, perhaps the bill never passes.

I'm not getting my order mixed up. As I recall, the subsidies I spoke of where in the 50's, and weren't limited to money either. Land and equipment were also part of the bureaucratic push. But maybe that wasn't in the US, so I'll let this go.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Re: the honey

Re: the honey discussion...

Honey is a lot more complicated than it seems. Did you know that honey which isn't gold coloured will not receive approval to be sold? It isn't all that uncommon either, as the colour is dependant on what the bees consume. I remember a year or two ago a farmer got red honey because of crops a neighbour was growing, and had to throw away the whole inventory. Not because red honey is bad, but because the colour didn't match what the bureaucrats define as honey. It's incredibly stupid.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Re: the honey

Vastet wrote:
Re: the honey discussion...

Honey is a lot more complicated than it seems. Did you know that honey which isn't gold coloured will not receive approval to be sold? It isn't all that uncommon either, as the colour is dependant on what the bees consume. I remember a year or two ago a farmer got red honey because of crops a neighbour was growing, and had to throw away the whole inventory. Not because red honey is bad, but because the colour didn't match what the bureaucrats define as honey. It's incredibly stupid.




best honey i ever had was from a beekeeper in the next village. it was white and had sugared almost immediately, but it wasn't grainy at all. it was like a fine, smooth spread. but yeah, his honey always looks different. one year, it's amber and thick, the next watery and almost clear, but it's always delicious.


if i can get it direct from a beekeeper, i prefer so-called "forest honey." that stuff is damn near black, and awesome.

"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
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sadly I've only tried the

Sadly I've only tried the gold stuff. I don't consume enough of it to justify seeking out a local beekeeper to see if other options are available. I'm not sure they would be anyway. I would hate to get someone in legal trouble just for buying something that doesn't correspond to a bureaucrats ideals.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Re: the honey

Vastet wrote:
Re: the honey discussion... Honey is a lot more complicated than it seems. Did you know that honey which isn't gold coloured will not receive approval to be sold? It isn't all that uncommon either, as the colour is dependant on what the bees consume. I remember a year or two ago a farmer got red honey because of crops a neighbour was growing, and had to throw away the whole inventory. Not because red honey is bad, but because the colour didn't match what the bureaucrats define as honey. It's incredibly stupid.

I know but there are farmer's markets down here that will use non-gold honey to make other products. I don't care if it is red or not, it is the flavor and the pollen I care about.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Vastet

iwbiek wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Re: the honey discussion... Honey is a lot more complicated than it seems. Did you know that honey which isn't gold coloured will not receive approval to be sold? It isn't all that uncommon either, as the colour is dependant on what the bees consume. I remember a year or two ago a farmer got red honey because of crops a neighbour was growing, and had to throw away the whole inventory. Not because red honey is bad, but because the colour didn't match what the bureaucrats define as honey. It's incredibly stupid.

best honey i ever had was from a beekeeper in the next village. it was white and had sugared almost immediately, but it wasn't grainy at all. it was like a fine, smooth spread. but yeah, his honey always looks different. one year, it's amber and thick, the next watery and almost clear, but it's always delicious.
if i can get it direct from a beekeeper, i prefer so-called "forest honey." that stuff is damn near black, and awesome.

No shit? Black? Why?


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Your saying it

Vastet wrote:
Your saying it is a problem doesn't make it a problem. Where are your statistics showing the US is out of land?

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib14.aspx#.U_UKEPlpQo0

Quote:

The United States has a total land area of nearly 2.3 billion acres. Major uses in 2002 were forest-use land, 651 million acres (28.8 percent); grassland pasture and range land, 587 million acres (25.9 percent); cropland, 442 million acres (19.5 percent); special uses (primarily parks and wildlife areas), 297 million acres (13.1 percent); miscellaneous other uses, 228 million acres (10.1 percent); and urban land, 60 million acres (2.6 percent).

So where exactly do we even get 3 times our current pasture? Deforestation?

 

Vastet wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Those local farmers also weren't raising 30,000 head of cattle on that land. If you read my response, you will see that I outlined numerous uses for that land, but grassfed beef is not among them- and certainly not largescale production of grassfed beef. 
No they weren't. But neither do they need to. Concentrating all production into a few super farms is convenient, but also unsafe for the economy long term, our population, the cows population, and the environment. A thousand small farms for every super farm will make meat cost a bit more, but not so much more that people will stop buying it.

The cost would have to be enough to stop people from buying it, because the supply would be much lower. If the price didn't rise you would have massive shortages. 

 

Vastet wrote:

No. We have thousands of animals crowded together indoors, not indoor pastures.

Indoor pastures? How the fuck would that work and why would you go through the effort, expense and massive energy consumption such an endeavor would require? 

 

Vastet wrote:

Well since you consider a reduction in meat consumption of less than 50% significant and I don't, we have an unsolvable dispute. I say that such a reduction wouldn't hurt at all. I also love me a burger. And I'll be ahead of you in the line when we start killing people to prevent them from stealing our burgers away. But I won't mind eating burgers half as much as I do now. You aren't rich from what I understand, but neither are you living in poverty. You probably won't have to eat less, you'll pay more. Which is as unpleasant as eating less, but it won't bankrupt you.

I fundamentally oppose any government attempt to legislate people into purchasing less of anything, but that is a whole seperate topic. The only point of yours I've been addressing the whole time is,

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.

Which farmers would not make more profit (because they couldn't produce nearly as much) and the production system would NOT be more efficient since by your own admission it would produce less at a more expensive price. Farmers produce like they do because it allows them to meet demand and make a profit.  

Personally, I rarely eat beef at all. Mostly, I eat venison, pork, lamb and an assortment of other game that I kill myself. 

 

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: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:iwbiek

digitalbeachbum wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

I always prefer higher quality and would prefer to pay more for it. It is part of the reason why I don't eat "junk food" any more.


i don't think anyone has a problem with that. i think beyond is asking why should we legislate according to your tastes?

I only wish to legislate to protect and not diminish others or mine. If they can produce cheap, bad tasting honey with out destroying my love for good honey then fanastic we all win. However, when mega corps do things which destroy or change the environment, laws or public health to increase their profits but hurt my personal life (which includes normal honey) then I draw a line.

How does "big honey" destroy your love for good honey or hurt your personal life in any way?  

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
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:So where

Beyond Saving wrote:
So where exactly do we even get 3 times our current pasture? Deforestation?

Shit dude I can't read pdf's on this. I can't make any arguments on info I can't read. I definitely appreciate the links regardless. Maybe some day I'll have an opportunity to peruse them.

Beyond Saving wrote:
The cost would have to be enough to stop people from buying it, because the supply would be much lower. If the price didn't rise you would have massive shortages. 

Which wouldn't last long as society adapted. For a few years (at most) prices would jump around as the economy balanced out. Inevitably we'd end up exactly where we are now, just with less meat on the dinner table every week.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Indoor pastures? How the fuck would that work and why would you go through the effort, expense and massive energy consumption such an endeavor would require?

It wouldn't actually require all that much considering it's going to have to happen eventually anyway. If you already don't have land enough to supply enough free range meat for the country it's only a matter of time before super farms won't cut it either.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Which farmers would not make more profit (because they couldn't produce nearly as much) and the production system would NOT be more efficient since by your own admission it would produce less at a more expensive price. Farmers produce like they do because it allows them to meet demand and make a profit.  

Personally, I rarely eat beef at all. Mostly, I eat venison, pork, lamb and an assortment of other game that I kill myself.

You and I are approaching the question of efficiency differently. You're looking at immediate impacts specifically based on meat & $ per cow, and I'm looking at long term impacts based on health and the environment. Both systems have their own measure of superior efficiency. I just prefer mine. What good is making extra $ today if it causes the extinction of the species? Extra $ over the next 1000 years trumps extra $ over the next few decades.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: You and I are

Vastet wrote:
You and I are approaching the question of efficiency differently. You're looking at immediate impacts specifically based on meat & $ per cow, and I'm looking at long term impacts based on health and the environment. Both systems have their own measure of superior efficiency. I just prefer mine. What good is making extra $ today if it causes the extinction of the species? Extra $ over the next 1000 years trumps extra $ over the next few decades.

Most likely humans will be bioprinting or some other technology we can't even conceive of today long before we are seriously threatened with extinction. 100 years ago, no person on the planet could have imagined the technology that is commonplace in feedlots today. If you went back in time and told them that a handful of people could handle tens of thousands of cattle on the same amount of land that was currently required for a few hundred, they would have told you that you were batshit crazy.

It is foolish to worry about a future that we can't possibly predict. The feedlot system meets current demand easily, and has a lot of room for expansion because it doesn't use a lot of land, energy or water. As far as the environmental factors, the conventional system is significantly more environmentally friendly than any other system we have devised thus far. The only way to effectively reduce pollution is to either innovate with new technology (which feedlots are constantly doing, since polluting less is often more profitable- pollution is almost always wasted energy and feedlots are aggressive at finding new ways to make a profit off of their waste), or to reduce consumption within the current system (perhaps with a beef tax or something).

Don't take my word for it, studies have been done. http://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/2/2/127/htm 

Just like with ethanol, the green idiots jump on the bandwagon uninformed and with their choices (and eventually laws) actually cause MORE long term pollution. They look at videos of feedlots and see the condensed pollution and think "OMG that is a lot of pollution" then look at a single cow in a field and think "little pollution". Just because the pollution is spread out over a larger area doesn't mean it disappears. In fact, pollution in a condensed local area like a feedlot, is much easier to contain, clean up and find other potential uses (like biopower).  

 

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: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:How does

Beyond Saving wrote:

How does "big honey" destroy your love for good honey or hurt your personal life in any way?  

I haven't really researched it yet, but I bet I can complain about it some way.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Most

Beyond Saving wrote:
Most likely humans will be bioprinting or some other technology we can't even conceive of today long before we are seriously threatened with extinction. 100 years ago, no person on the planet could have imagined the technology that is commonplace in feedlots today. If you went back in time and told them that a handful of people could handle tens of thousands of cattle on the same amount of land that was currently required for a few hundred, they would have told you that you were batshit crazy.
It is foolish to worry about a future that we can't possibly predict. The feedlot system meets current demand easily, and has a lot of room for expansion because it doesn't use a lot of land, energy or water.

I wasn't talking about our extinction. Cows could all disappear tomorrow and we'd be fine...mostly....kinda. I'm talking about the cows themselves.
Unless you're trying to say that we won't need them, and by the time they could die out we'll be capable of synthesising them. Which is certainly possible, but I don't like the idea of counting our chickens before they hatch. Nor willy nilly risking a viable future for a species based on convenience. Count on bad things, hope for good things, and you're more likely to be prepared when disaster strikes.

Now I can't say I'm not being at all alarmist myself, I obviously am. But there is a real risk of some pathogen evolving and wiping out huge swaths of livestock before anyone even knows what's happening. The risk may be low, but it is still there. Like a comet coming out of nowhere and wiping us out 2 weeks after we discover it. If something happened with any of the species we've used for millennia it would cause far more damage than any of the other discussions in the thread. We'd survive it well enough, but what if things get improbably bad, and chickens and cows both get wiped out? All livestock these days are mass farmed the same way. We have made nearly the entire meat industry extremely vulnerable, no matter what precautions are taken. And we've decreased the nutritional value of meat in the process, so even if it tastes better it isn't as good for us as it used to be.

We can count on stuff like 3D printing to eventually replace our need for farms at all, I believe. But we can't count on when. The dangers to our food supply are real and currently present. Any solutions to the danger remain hypothetical and untested.

I would argue that indoor pastures would be identical to the current system on the environment with even more controls and less opportunity for a breach. That such separation of livestock would significantly enhance the livestocks natural immune system and massively reduce any chance of any pathogen affecting any significant percentage of any livestock population. That meat would become healthier and more sustainable as a food product, at the cost of cost alone.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Just like with ethanol, the green idiots jump on the bandwagon uninformed and with their choices (and eventually laws) actually cause MORE long term pollution. They look at videos of feedlots and see the condensed pollution and think "OMG that is a lot of pollution" then look at a single cow in a field and think "little pollution". Just because the pollution is spread out over a larger area doesn't mean it disappears. In fact, pollution in a condensed local area like a feedlot, is much easier to contain, clean up and find other potential uses (like biopower).

lol. There have been incidents where super farms pollutants managed to escape the controls in place. The sheer number of animals were a direct cause of the breach and its toxicity. Here's just one notable example:
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/25/us/huge-spill-of-hog-waste-fuels-an-old-debate-in-north-carolina.html
Another, more recent:
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/02/schaendorf_farm_manure_spill.html

This never happened with small farms. I never heard about it if it did. I can't find anything like these incidents when free range livestock is used. The same pollution results whether the billion cows are in one building or spread throughout the country, sure. But the concentration is what actually causes damage to the environment, not the pollution itself.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
again,

I'd like a response...

zarathustra wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
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†††


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beelieve-it or not i'm walking on air

  Les  meilleures choses viennent dans des petits paquets!

  Les  meilleures choses viennent dans des petits paquets!

  > Beelieve-it or not i'm walking on air

 

   Misc. (Misc. Pic)  SEE : the-Uploaded Image --

 

 

 

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I can think of another type of "little honey".. Hurt is alive!

 

Hurt is alive!

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

How does "big honey" destroy your love for good honey or hurt your personal life in any way?  

I haven't really researched it yet, but I bet I can complain about it some way.

 

   I can think of another type of "little honey", that through fear . .  still hurts my life . . in exceptionally deep ways.

 

 

  YouTube video and song double meaning, & whatelse have you learned to expect . .  implied OUR fears rule us too often!!

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bld2gd0X78U {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bld2gd0X78U}