Re: on Sustainable Meat Production (long)

Pat Elazar (Pat_Elazar@cwb.ca)
Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:34:45 -0500

E. Ann Clark said:
<Now, against this background, consider the evolution of confinement-feeding
<systems. Feeding grain to livestock (and esp. to classes of livestock that can
do
<very nicely, thank you very much, without grain entirely) has always been a way
of
<buffering against either the weather or the market. Rain-damaged grain could
still
<be fed to stock - not a complete loss. If the market favors fat cattle, then
keep
<the grain and feed them out. Fair enough. But now, confinement feeding has
become
<the tail that is wagging the dog. Some 70-90% of all grain produced in North
<America is grown specifically for livestock feeding. Imagine it!>

I would only add that livestock as a diversification to a grain operation has
traditionally been a reasonable risk management strategy for farmers as poulrty,
beef & pork are on different business cycles from corn/soy & wheat- so thats
quite rational. The time demands for managing traditionally sized livestock
enterprises (100 sows not 10,000) were complementary enough not to cause a
conflict with the grain operation. The problem is, we have- at the same time-
urban consumers who expect their dirt-cheap food to come from "Old Mcdonald had
a Farm" & well capitalised conglomerates controling genetics, inputs &
ultimately prices who expect to have the same (low) level of regulation for
10,000 sow industrial production units as Old Mcdonald had for 10 sows.

< Indeed, it
<could be argued that confinement feeding systems were, at least at one time, a
<logical solution to the problem of overproduction. The only problem is that
now our
<capacity to absorb livestock products is saturated, and grain overproduction
has
<even overshot this solution, yet we continue to produce still more that we
still
<can't sell.>

I wont argue with the point, but I personally think that confinement systems &
factory hens are the product of externality. That is, society (or future
generations) & not the operator absorbs the costs of pollution and nuisance from
the feedlots & stink factories. If the price of factory pork included the
actuarial costs for liability for all future environmentally based lawsuits,
they would not be competitive with free-range pork.

<It is important to look closely at causality in these kinds of disputes, to
avoid
<the pitfalls of false assumptions - intentional (a la Avery) or otherwise.
Ann>

Bang on Ann!

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail