Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

High beef prices and the destruction of independent cattle ranching

mattstoller.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 259 posts

Re: High beef prices and the destruction of independent cattle ranching

#181

Post by sokoloff »

shawn-butler wrote: post #121
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I buy grass-fed beef from my neighbor. There's no difference as far as I can see. I like to support my neighbor, but there's no magic, no difference cooking, no startling color-change tricks as reported elsewhere in this thread.

Arguable. Non-feedlot raised animals do evidence some seasonality in the texture and flavor of the meat. The nutritional value of the meat produced / consumed may be chemically similar although there is some research to support the higher human health benefits (CLAs, Omega 3s,Omega 9s, etc.) of grass-fed beef, but it is the stewardship used to raise those animals has a vastly different impact on the environment. Can'…

> Really this is a failure of the educational system in the US. If people knew the facts, they would be supporting and buying from local producer-owned cooperatives.

Even people who know the difference might prefer to buy cheap factory farmed meat, might not have freezer space to hold 30 pounds of meat until they can use it, or $250 to tie up in what amounts to personal beef futures.

The coop meat you linked is pretty competitively priced and I’m sure it’s good. Even with that, it’s more expensive and for some people, price really matters.

Re: High beef prices and the destruction of independent cattle ranching

#182

Post by b112 »

shawn-butler wrote: post #121
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I buy grass-fed beef from my neighbor. There's no difference as far as I can see. I like to support my neighbor, but there's no magic, no difference cooking, no startling color-change tricks as reported elsewhere in this thread.

Arguable. Non-feedlot raised animals do evidence some seasonality in the texture and flavor of the meat. The nutritional value of the meat produced / consumed may be chemically similar although there is some research to support the higher human health benefits (CLAs, Omega 3s,Omega 9s, etc.) of grass-fed beef, but it is the stewardship used to raise those animals has a vastly different impact on the environment. Can'…

If they have the free cash. For some, every penny saved is vital. I think we often don't get this here.

Re: High beef prices and the destruction of independent cattle ranching

#183

Post by xbar »

kurthr wrote: post #127
voakbasda wrote: post #10

As a small farmer, I can tell you: independent small-scale farming is not profitable in any meaningful manner. Government is actively killing it, by giving away every possible concession to Big Ag. The food in stores is pretty much all garbage compared to food raised on small farms. It sickens me to see things go this way, but this is the reality that we have created.

I'm not sure the government is actively killing it... they just aren't doing anything about the oligopolies and collusion that have always developed in these sort of situations. That may seem subtle, but many argue that we want to make the government do less to "keep them off our backs". Well, guess what these are the consequences. These markets may be "free", but they are not efficient, in fact they are arguably cor…

I'm not exactly sure either. But my observations of politicians serving big business over small producers by dismantling anti-competitive regulations in several industries makes me think that it is almost a certainty.

Accidents of policy do happen, but would you agree that it is suspicious that 4 food packing companies are making massive profits on such a 40-year-old accident and no one has thought to just fix it yet?

Re: High beef prices and the destruction of independent cattle ranching

#184

Post by tbyehl »

inetknght wrote: post #72
xd wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took on some caged hens (about 6months back now) that were off for slaughter to be turned into dog food. Straight away they took to the patch of land in my garden I gave them and laid eggs .. the eggs they lay are on another level to anything store bought. I can put a pan of water on boil over a stove; crack an egg into it and have a perfect poached egg 2-3mins later. They are creamy and rich as if they have life c…

> That said I wouldn't recommend keeping hens unless you've had exposure to them on some level other than visiting a farm. I recently bought a few acres in SE Texas and several people have recommend I raise chickens both for the eggs and also to help with some of the insects around here. Why don't you recommend it?

> Why don't you recommend it?

Not GP. Can't imagine why they wouldn't. Once you're past the construction phase -- coop, containment, predator defense -- they're fairly low effort. Provide food and water, clean the coop regularly, and pay enough attention to them to quickly notice if your birds start getting sick.

Source: Started with 6 chicks and 8 rescue hens a couple years ago, presently around 40.

Re: High beef prices and the destruction of independent cattle ranching

#185

Post by [deleted] »

gutitout wrote: post #57
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I buy grass-fed beef from my neighbor. There's no difference as far as I can see. I like to support my neighbor, but there's no magic, no difference cooking, no startling color-change tricks as reported elsewhere in this thread.

Maybe it’s not grass-fed. Kidding. Really though if it was you could taste it. In some cases I prefer grain fed cows cause they just taste better. However the fat ratio of healthy to unhealthy fat, omega 3 to omega 6, is a major reason to go grass-fed.

[deleted]

Re: High beef prices and the destruction of independent cattle ranching

#186

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

pfdietz wrote: post #50
freedomben wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but it's difficult to get them in a form that is highly available for digestion/absorption, so most fortified food may have the same things on paper but it doesn't all get absorbed into your body.

We are not eating soil, we are eating plants (and animal flesh). An atom of (say) molybdenum taken up by a plant will be put into use in that plant in a way that's not dependent on its state in the soil. Measurement and correction of soil trace element abundances -- often on a small scale -- is already state of the practice for large scale agriculture. The whole micronutrient thing sounds like trying to apply a thin…

What about chirality? I mean this in several ways. First we are not doing atomic assembly or molecular kitchen here.

Which means the atoms of single nutrients transform into molecules by biochemical processes.

Second, those structures are involved further into transporting nutrients around the plant during growth.

Third, the structure of the soil with a healthy network of fungi and soil seems to be important. Or at least that is the way plants have evolved, even if it seems chaotic and inefficient (like photosynthesis).

Fourth, with wine people speaking of the Terroir, which determines the complex interactions of soil, geography, temperature, sunshine, weather and whatnot else to produce that one specific taste. Why wouldn't the same be true for other plants and products thereof?

Fifth, if it would be sufficient to give them just the 18 common nutrients, light, water and heat they need, why can't we have them massproduced in the most efficient way in growhouses via (say) Aeroponics, where their roots are in no growth medium at all anymore, just sprayed with a fine mist which contains all the necessary nutrients?

Sixth, science is the process of understanding what happens by modelling, until further evidence necessitates revising of the model.

If one does not completely understand how the interactions between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhizosphere & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycorrhiza contribute to taste and nutritional value of the harvest, pointing to big-AG instead, that isn't scientific either, only dumb commerce.

Seventh, I'm not saying I know it, or others do, it's just that we all don't really know so far. While you pretend to.

Do you really think all the posters in this thread complaining about taste are suffering from some placebo/nocebo effect? Dancing their names under the full moon, or what?

Man, you are so killing my nerves!

Re: High beef prices and the destruction of independent cattle ranching

#187

Post by seoaeu »

narrator wrote: post #155
seoaeu wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, you're criticizing people for caring about the environment and animal rights?

I never said it was good or bad. It's interesting that you would assume that.

Nah, 'intentional destruction' just doesn't have a very positive connotation

Re: High beef prices and the destruction of independent cattle ranching

#188

Post by DougWebb »

philipkglass wrote: post #134
CreepGin wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nonsense - you can get everything from trash to exceptional quality food, depending on the store you buy it from. Not disputing your point that small farmers have it hard but on the consumer side there's lots of choice. When money is of no concern to you, sure. But reality is many people can't even afford to buy organic foods.

Food in general was more expensive before the Green Revolution, back when food usually was organic and came from small farms. Here's a 1922 document showing American retail prices of food from 1913 to 1920: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications/bls/bl... Take a look at eggs, for example (page 21 as numbered in scans, 27 in the PDF). In 1920 egg prices fluctuated between $0.528 and $0.924 per dozen. Ad…

I just looked up the eggs I buy: Vital Farms pasture-raised eggs through Amazon Fresh. Currently $7/dz. They come with a url and farm id code you can use to see a live web cam of the hens that laid the eggs in the pack you're holding.

Re: High beef prices and the destruction of independent cattle ranching

#189

Post by CountSessine »

voakbasda wrote: post #117
loudmax wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Government is actively killing it, by giving away every possible concession to Big Ag. If government were out of the picture would small-scale farmers be better able to compete with Big Ag? If you were making policy, what would you have government do instead?

Break up all large corporations. Sure, start with Big Ag, but we need to dismantle Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc. etc. End the anti-trust run by dismantling Big Government.

Do you break up large foreign corporations? Samsung? Sony? NEC? Philips? BASF? Volkswagen? Oppo? How do you do that? Or do you let small US companies duke it out with foreign giants, without the benefit of scaled efficiency?

Re: High beef prices and the destruction of independent cattle ranching

#190

Post by pfdietz »

LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #186
pfdietz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are not eating soil, we are eating plants (and animal flesh). An atom of (say) molybdenum taken up by a plant will be put into use in that plant in a way that's not dependent on its state in the soil. Measurement and correction of soil trace element abundances -- often on a small scale -- is already state of the practice for large scale agriculture. The whole micronutrient thing sounds like trying to apply a thin…

What about chirality? I mean this in several ways. First we are not doing atomic assembly or molecular kitchen here. Which means the atoms of single nutrients transform into molecules by biochemical processes. Second, those structures are involved further into transporting nutrients around the plant during growth. Third, the structure of the soil with a healthy network of fungi and soil seems to be important. Or at l…

Chirality? You mean, of organic molecules?

Plants make their own organic molecules. They're not fungi, slurping them up from the soil.

Micronutrients, as the term is used in agriculture, means specific chemical elements that are needed in lesser amounts than the primary nutrients (N, P, K) and the secondary nutrients (Ca, Mg, S). Micronutrients are B, Cu, Fe, Cl, Mn, Mo, and Zn.

Soil structure is of course important, but that doesn't have anything to do with micronutrients.

Post reply on HN