A new book does a good gjob of investigating and getting the facts of why Concentrated Animal Feeding Lots cost more and are much more ineffcient.
"
Perverse government subsidies–both in the United States and Europe–provide billions of tax dollars to support industrial animal agriculture. Tufts University researchers estimate that in the United States alone, between 1997 and 2005 the industrial animal sector saved over $35 billion as a result of federal farm subsidies that lowered the price of the feed they purchased.
Similar savings were not available to many small and midsize farmers who were growing their own feed and raising livestock in diversified pasture-based systems. Throughout the 2002 U.S. farm bill, individual CAFO investors were also eligible to receive up to $450,000 for a five-year EQIP contract from the U.S. government to deal with animal wastes–allowing large operations with many investors to rake in a much greater sum. European Union agricultural subsidies also bolster industrial animal producers, providing $2.25 per dairy cow per day–25 cents more than what half the world’s human population survives on."
"To gain a pound of body weight, a broiler chicken must eat an average of 2.3 pounds of feed. Hogs convert 5.9 pounds of feed into a pound of pork. Cattle require 13 pounds of feed per pound of beef, though some estimates range much higher. To supplement that feed, one-third of the world’s ocean fish catch is ground up and added to rations for hogs, broiler chickens, and farmed fish. The 2006 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report Livestock’s Long Shadow summed it up this way: “In simple numeric terms, livestock (from these lots) actually detract more from total food supply than they provide.”
And of crouse, there is the massive amount of waste:
"The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that factory animal farms generate more than 500 million tons of waste per year–more than three times the amount produced by the country’s human population.
On a small, diversified farm, much of this manure could be efficiently used for fertilizer. "
Well, just another example of how wasteful government is. We should make cases like these public or help that they gain publicity, since there is a strong animal-rights-movement. We could use that.
I have just one question. The article states that animals consume more than they produce. Is that true for any kind of farm or only for concentrated farms?
For example, on a traditional farm, cows, bison, and other grass eating animals turn something which we can’t digest - grass - into something which we can - meat.
“Do you think there would be fewer livestock animals if there were less factory farming? Why or why not?”
Yes. Because without government subsidies, it would be more expensive to feed them…
but then again…no good restaurant or meat market is selling beef that is gmo corn fed…
so, yes, we would probably have less livestock…but that would translate to less crappy unhealthy beef…so less McDonalds and fast food cheap GMO, antibiotic pumped, growth hormone pumped beef…
The article states that animals consume more than they produce.
Consume more what? Sure, the amount of feed a cow consumes in its lifetime is a greater quantity of food than the amount of beef it will produce. The beef is more valuable on the market, however, or else the farmers would just grow and sell the feed and not expend the labor to raise cattle. So while it’s true that the animal consumes more food than it produces, it also produces more value than it consumes.
Well, if there were less factory farming, it seems pretty reasonable to assume that there would be less livestock animals, considering that factory farming allows you to have a much higher concentration of animals on your “farm”. But, then again, people might start building pastures in skyscapers. (Not that I would think that building pastures in skyscapers would be likely or anything.)
“Do you think there would be fewer livestock animals if there were less factory farming? Why or why not?”
The better answer to that question is actually, who knows.
Because famers and the farming/livestock industry surely will never look into to ways to feed the livestock efficiently and cheaply as long as government subsidized livestock feed is available.
Of course necessarlily, or at least in this situation. Take away government subsidies and an entirely new ralationship may develop. However, under current circumstances, the beef produced by a cow is more valuable on the market than the sum of the feed that cow consumed throughout its life.
it seems like a leap to say that the rise of cafos can be blamed solely on govt subsidies. as the op’s link notes, there are other factors that make “industrial food appear cheap”. for example, unaccounted for costs to the environment.
i am not an ag economist, but i can think of a few other factors that might also contribute to emergence of cafos. rising land costs? the introduction of new technologies that have extended economies of scale?
not that i like cafos. like the article i think they do extend a harmful influence on the environment (nutrient loading into estuaries is a big problem where i live). but i don’t think we can fully address the problems they create unless we recognize the underlying cause. and i don’t think eliminating ag subsidies will eliminate cafos and the problems they create.
“However, under current circumstances, the beef produced by a cow is more valuable on the market than the sum of the feed that cow consumed throughout its life.”
Now that I’ve been thinking about it, that is probably not true at all.
1 lb of gmo cron fed beef is pretty damn cheap. Its the stuff McDonalds sells for really cheap.
Now the amount of gmo subsidized corn that cow had to eat to make that? Probably quite a bit, and the cost to produce all that government corn? Probably pretty damn hefty.
The government gmo corn probably cost alot more to taxpayers than 1 lb of gmo corn fed beef…which is the cheapest crapiest beef you can get,.
"but i don’t think we can fully address the problems they create unless we recognize the underlying cause. and i don’t think eliminating ag subsidies will eliminate cafos and the problems they create. "
I think it will and here’s why.
You elimate the subsidized gmo feed these cafos use and really do not think they can sell their beef for lower than organic and cleaner beef.
If you’re at the market and the cheap antobiotic, growth hormone beef is the same price as the organic clean beef…which one are you buying?
Problem solved…they either clean up their act and feed the cows something that doesn’t cause tons of bacteria to accumulate in their gut or they go out of business.
I agree that the subsidies distort the market price of corn, but the market price is all the beef producers who sell beef to McDonalds have to work with. and currently beef is worth more on the market than corn, possibly/probably due to those subsidies. If the market value (not what the market value would be sans subsidies, but the actual market value, distortions and all) of the total amount of feed a cow consumes in its life exceeds the value of the beef carved off of that cow, no one would produce beef. It simply wouldn’t be profitable.
Like I said, take away those subsidies and an entirely new relationship may develop. It may be that the beef industry would go away, or beef would become more of a luxury food, like caviar or truffles, or some technological advancement in farming may come along. My point was, as it is today, with the subsidy-lowered market value of feed, the beef produced by a cow is more valuable on the market than the sum of the feed that cow consumed throughout its life.
That shows that you don’t disagree with what I was saying.
I don’t disagree with you at all. My post to which you replied, though, was in response to the claim that cows eat more than they produce, or some such. My point was, while it’s true that beef producers take grain/corn/feed that could feed millions and turn it into beef that feeds thousands, it is also true that doing so increases the overall market value of the product, under current market conditions.
“beef would become more of a luxury food, like caviar or truffles”
the reason this is not true, is because there is plenty of beef out there that does not use susidized gmo corn feed…organic and non growth hormone, no antobiotic beef does not use subsidized gmo corn, and it is not expensive…at least not terribly expensive.
I see what you’re saying…
the point I should have made was,
the cost of the gmo corn used to produce 1 lb of gmo growth hormone, antibiotic beef is probably alot more than the market value of the 1lb of gmo beef.