I do have a question about the organic and non growth hormone, no antobiotic beef. I would guess that using these methods, it would be more difficult to mass produce beef on the same scale as the production of subsidized corn fed beef? Am I wrong? (I really have no idea; this is an honest question) If I’m right, we would see a reduction in the supply of beef, which would lead to increased prices on the market. In essense, since demand ultimately determines price, I’m wondering out loud if the subsidized corn fed beef industry is also keeping the price of organic and non growth hormone, no antobiotic beef low.
"I would guess that using these methods, it would be more difficult to mass produce beef on the same scale as the production of subsidized corn fed beef? Am I wrong? "
There are alot of factors to consider. Subsidizing gmo corn steals quite a bit of resources from people. Giving those resources back helps to decrease the price of non gmo beef.
Also, getting rid of cheap harmful beef could lead to changes in the way some people eat. More than likely positivie changes, because you’d be getting rid of some of the harmful sweetners and harmful beef and other products that use gmo corn.
Also, those subsidized CAFOS could be keeping other normal beef producers (producers who let their cows eat grass) from staying in business.
I’m not sure CAFOS are that efficient. The cows eat subsidized gmo corn feed, so they have tons of bacteria which leads to having to give them antobiotics and growth hormones. Their feces is full of bacteria and since they don’t eat grass and just poop in the fields and naturally fertilze the fields, they have to collect massive amounts of feces and dispose of it without toxifiying the environment (which in alot of cases they do toxify the surrounding areas anyway).
The cows stand in ankle deep feces all day and are very unhealthy. The final product is so inferior to a grass fed cow its ridicuolous, and CAFO cows probably cost a hell of alot more to maintain.
I could see where it would decrease the cost, but not necessarily the price. If everyone generally kept more of their money, it doesn’t necessarily follow that prices would drop, in fact, they would most likely increase, as people would be willing to spend more.
With the subsidies, they are obviously more efficient for the beef producers, or else this couldn’t possibly be true:
Just an aside, with the current subsidies, they are obviously cheaper to maintain.
This isn’t really addressing my question, though. Right now, beef’s price is heavily influenced by feed subsidies used by CAFOS, keeping the cost much lower than it would be without those subsidies. The lower costs, combined with competition between CAFOS keeps the market price lower than it would be without the subsisies.
Normal beef producers, on the other hand, by not using subsidised feed, incur heavier costs, The market price of “normal” beef, however, is influenced by competition from CAFO beef. It can command a premium, as it is generally considered higher quality, but there’s certainly a curve where people will prefer to buy the less expensive inferior beef rather than pay so high a premium. That is, it can’t be too much more expensive than CAFO beef or demand will lessen to a point where it is no longer profitable. In this way, the low price of CAFO beef also keeps the price of normal beef low.
Now remove the subsidies. The cost of maintaining a CAFO operation increases. The market price of CAFO beef will either climb, or the CAFOs will go out of business. Either way, “normal” beef price will most likely rise. If the former is true, “normal” beef would still command a premium over the now higher priced CAFO beef. If the latter is true, there would be less supply of beef in general, and therefore an increase in market price.