I won't say any thing to the store unless it is overpriced. Our store down here has the markers below the canned and boxed goods. It shows unit prices, so X cents per pound or such. I've sat and did the calculations myself on my phone and occassionally I find an error.

I've never had an issue with the register girls, but on occassion a smart one will catch it and say "these are marked wrong, I need to tell the manager". When they come over they say, "ok, our mistake, your gain" and make the changes so they don't get their profit killed. They never try to make me take a different price because it is "as advertised".

 

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. 

Why yes, I do. I also know how much profit a large corporation makes per hog. Do you? (Hint: Two years ago the number was a $30 LOSS per hog, guess what it is now.)

 

Evil fuckers giving Americans the cheapest food prices in the world, causing us all to overeat and become obese. All in the name of PROFIT. 

yeah, he seems to think that taking advantage of a pricing error only hurts the "corporate" profits. he's as short-sighted as he is stupid. who knows? it's a long shot, but it's possible that if "corporate" spots the error, the poor worker who was putting on price stickers that night, or the low-level manager who was in charge of seeing it get done, might have his or her pay docked, which could have been prevented by brian showing some worker solidarity and insisting on a price check. instead, he justfies it by colludng with an irresponsible employee who was just as short-sighted as he.

Then why do you continue voting for politicians whose STATED GOAL is inflation? Our government is aggressively pursuing inflationist policy. The rising cost of living isn't happenstance, it is the predictable result and stated goal of our federal reserve.

 

When exactly did we have that?!?!? Name some years, or better yet some specific laws.

And no, the rest of "us" don't compensate for tax shelters, "I" and other "evil rich people" (who don't make millions) compensate for them. YOU don't pay a penny in taxes, yet continue to vote for politicians that make all sorts of tax favors for their butt buddies. I have repeatedly advocated for a flat tax, which means EVERYONE pays the same rate- zero deductions, zero exceptions- me, YOU, Bill Gates and everyone inbetween all pay the same rate. You have criticized that approach and have offered no alternative ideas.

 

Use whatever term you want. What wage is livable depends on the individual. Care to take a stab at defining "livable wage"? I still don't know if I pay my employees one because you never told me how much it was. I hope it is livable, because dead employees are almost as worthless as minimum wage employees. I have asked you to explain how to determine if I am "fairly" compensating my employees. You ignored my question, like you ignore anything that requires intellectual depth. Who knows, if you told me some great formula, maybe I would have been paying my employees more all these years. But since you are too cowardly to address it, I just use my current methodology.

 

Big business doesn't want government off their back. Why would they? Big business controls government and idiots like you keep voting for their candidates. Regulations give large businesses a competitive advantage over small businesses and virtually every regulation that passes is being pushed by big businesses.

 

But what does any of this have to do with your OP, let alone my response? I asked you specific questions.

HOW MUCH PROFIT DO YOU BELIEVE IS MADE ON A HOG? And who is getting all those profits? IOW, who do you believe is so evil and overcharging that you feel justified stealing from them? Or do you just prefer not to put a face to the person you take from?

 

I spit coffee everywhere rofl.

you're right about the work. raising and butchering hogs is still a common family activity over here.

if that's another exposee documentary, nothing in it could possibly surprise me. we in the west want to have the best of both worlds: cheap, plentiful meat with no work, but we want it to be clean and "humane." never mind the fact that our idea of clean, edible food is ridiculously culturally biased and just plain picky. my family raised free range beef, but i've been on killing floors. they're not pleasant, but anyone who's genuinely shocked by them is a moron. i was in college when the movie "fast food nation" came out and i was yawning while everyone else was wide-eyed with horror. i told some of my impressionable friends, "even if you've never been to a processing plant, did you really expect it to be different? did you think cows died peacefully in their sleep and just turned into piles of big macs? do you know what goes into raising a beef cow?" my grandparents ate steak like once a year growing up. now our generation eats an obscene amount of it. how do we expect to manage that with nothing but happy cows, each with its own acre of pasture?

Meat wouldn't be half as bad for the environment if not for the green revolution. Growing crops to feed animals that did just fine with local grasses for millions of years is absolutely stupid. 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. Unfortunately a big group of idiots decided it was a good idea to use a strategy invented for Africa to reduce famine in North America where it has less than no value and actually increased costs and environmental damage.

For millions of years we had much smaller populations and a much smaller percentage of the population could ever afford to eat beef, let alone eat the amount of beef a typical first worlder enjoys today. Many people lived and died never knowing what beef tasted like because they could never hope to afford it. 

 

Oh really? What kind of soil is great for grasses, but terrible for soy, corn, wheat, barley and all other crops you could grow? You obviously don't know that much about beef either. Grass fed beef produces far less meat, requires an enourmously larger amount of land, and the grass is not "free". Ranchers who do grass feed their cattle have to plant the grass, just like they have to plant corn, soy, wheat etc. Allowing cattle to just eat whatever occurs naturally leads to skinny cows with small meat yields and poor flavor and texture- plus requires even larger grazing areas yet. That is why out West even wealthy ranchers are forced to rent grazing rights to graze their herds on public land, because no one is rich enough to own enough land to sustain their own herd but overgrazing completely destroys the environment and has to be limited.

Grain fed beef, on the other hand, will consume the amount of grain that can be grown on 1/3rd of 1 acre their entire lifespan (approximately 50 bushels, less if you are using GMO corn and protein supplements). Also, the corn and soy that the cattle eat is the waste leftover from what goes for other purposes. Cows don't eat the same parts of the plant we do. 

For grass fed, you will need about 2 acres of high quality pasture (say a mix of bermuda, rye and some legumes like alfalfa, clover and soybeans) per cow. Plus, you will need additional acreage to grow hay for the winter months- you can't graze year round. Grass fed cattle require 18-24 months to be heavy enough to slaughter and are still often lighter than grain fed cattle slaughtered at 12-14 months. There is no question that grassfed is FAR less efficient. That is part of why it sells for nearly twice the price as conventional beef (which imo isn't worth it because grain fed is far better tasting. Beef fat is delicious and a well marbled steak is superior to a lean steak any day of the week.) 

The idea that farmers are incompetent businessmen is a myth. The margins in farming are incredibly narrow and farmers know their business down to the penny- to be successful they have to. The farming practices that have become conventional are conventional because they are the most efficient and cost effective. 

that's true. every now and then my stepdad would get it into his head to have the farmhands kill and butcher one of the cows for us. mom would get so pissed off because the meat was always like shoe leather.

I did watch it because of all the hype it got. And sure enough, it was about as high quality as all the other tripe that Pollan has written. I also know more than a little about the farming industry since I own a company which appraises property in an area that is 80% agricultural. Knowing what is happening economically in the farming industry is essential for me to me to make educated decisions about my own company. I subscribe to all of the farm trade magazines and routinely have long in depth conversations with farmers in my county about the topic. The movie is full of falsehoods and bears little to no relation to the actual economics of farming. You never see these kind of criticisms towards corporations made by people actually involved in the industry, who actually make a living farming. You see it from people who live in large cities on postage stamp sized lots who have never made a penny in the agriculture industry in their lives. 

 

 

 

How should they function?

 

From a meat pov I'd say less antibiotics, no corn, free range for starters

From a veggie pov I'd say no gmo, less herb/pesticide, more organic, no seeds from Monsanto

For farm hands I'd give immunity to workers who come from central and south america so they don't have to be worrying about being deported.

For farmers I'd say more local farming rather than large mega farms. More local meats, fruits and veggies.

So you are a luddite. You are free to purchase those products already. They are twice the price because such farming methods are far less productive than current conventional practices. Why should the rest of us conform to your luddite views? (You aren't even consistent, gmo LEADS to less herbicides and pesticides, that is why farmers choose to use gmo crops. Not clear what your problem is with gmo other than sheer ignorance.)

 

I go a step further and think we should have completely open borders.

 

All farming is local in whatever locality it happens. Nothing is stopping you from moving to an area that has a lot of farming. You think it should occur in your backyard? Do you have good soil? Go plant it yourself, or rent your backyard like I rent mine. If you are going straight locavore, that limits your choices of what you can eat because no locality has the ideal climate for every crop. My area is one of the highest concentrations of farms in the country, but the types of crops are much more limited than my diet choices. Again, this is completely in your power to choose.

My meat is almost all local. I have a pig that I have already agreed to purchase that I can walk over and pat on the head anytime I have the urge to, I slaughtered a lamb raised by the same farmer last month and most of the rest of the meat I eat this year is what I hunt and fish myself. Nothing stops you from doing the same if you want, although there is no real difference in meat that is local and meat that is shipped from somewhere else.

What is your definition of a "mega farm"? Small scale farming is a thing of the past because most people don't want to be farmers. 2% of our population farms, down from some 90% in the 1800's. If everyone ate the way you advocate, 90% of us would have to be farmers again. I don't want to farm, do you?

Well yeah, because you are doing a lot more of the labor that is otherwise built into the price. Most people don't want to go through that much effort, or even have the skills or time to do so. Even so, a pig or cow that is pasture raised is going to cost you more than one that is raised on a feedlot because it costs the farmer more to raise it. If you think that is worth the money, knock yourself out. Most of us don't think it is worth the extra money.  

 

What business is my health to you?  

 

Purchase whatever you want for whatever reasons you want. Our current system allows that. So what is the problem with it?

 

So what is the problem with that? We have a lot of people to feed. Animals that don't move are much tastier than animals that exercise a lot. Many of us choose to pay extra money for fattier steaks. But again, our current system allows you to purchase lower quality meat at higher prices if you have some moral problem or phobia about antibiotics. So why should everyone else who doesn't have such issues eat the same way you choose to?

 

80% of farms are small scale, and are not profitable. 20% of farms produce the vast majority of our food using mass production techniques. Small farms can't compete because economies of scale play a huge role in farming. There is no reason to have a dozen small hog houses when you can just have one big one. And again, either you have a dozen different farmers, which means you need A LOT more people to take up farming and therefore not doing whatever they do now, or you create a lot of unnecessary work for the one farmer to travel hog house to hog house that could all be done in one. 

 

Ridiculous. In any major city today you can go to a specialty butcher and get whatever quality of meat you are willing to pay for, with the exception of real Kobe since Japan bans the export of it. Although you can get some pretty good imitation kobe. You have access to higher quality beef than has ever been available to mankind if you are willing to pay for it. 

 

If you have a few million small farms taking over for the large farms that exist now, SOMEONE has to do it. 

 

Yes, they found ways that 2% of the population can manage to produce enough for the other 98%. Without those processes, more people would need to farm. 

 

What is your problem with Peru or Costa Rica? But again, our current system allows you to make your purchasing decisions however you want. So what is the problem with it?

Slaughtering your own meat is a better deal. I don't think it is worth my time or money to go sit out in a blind and wait for hours, hoping I might get something.

Your health is my business because it has an effect on the system. Why does society care about other people and their health problems? Because having a bunch of sick people drains the system.

Mega farms like the one in the Chesapeake bay is killing the bay and created dead zones. Why? Because mega farms have lobbyists who get laws modified or ignored in their favor. Who suffers? 

They are barely profitable because 80% of small farms can't compete with 20% of large farms.

Flavor is one thing but what you can't see is what bothers me. I'll conceed. The system in place is pretty good at protecting people. Today you get meat which  is not infected, usually, compared to the wooden butcher stands on the street corner where butchers cut meat in the heat and with bugs.

 

I have a problem with the items coming in from out of the country because they pick every thing earlier so they can ship it. By the time it comes here it is either rock hard or rotting.

 

Really? Drains it of what exactly? What vital resource are we going to run out of? (You are aware that foodborne illnesses are far more prevalent in organic than conventional foods right?)

 

The problems with Chesapeake Bay are not caused by one farm, or even just farms. According to the EPA, about 34% of nitrogen comes from farms, the rest from other sources.  http://www.farmland.org/programs/environment/solutions/chesapeake-bay.asp

Most of the ag problem is from manure, and the farming practices you are advocating are far more damaging in this respect. That is why the government has started targeting the Amish community on this issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/science/earth/09amish.html?_r=0

Meanwhile, you OPPOSE the most obvious technological solution: GMO crops. Precisely the purpose of GMO crops is to increase yield while decreasing the amount of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides required. It is FAR more environmentally friendly than using manure. They are even conducting experiments to make crops that get all of their nitrogen out of the air so you don't need to use any fertilizer at all- evil fucking Monsanto.  

It is the large corporate farms that you malign which have been at the forefront of changing farming practices to be more environmentally friendly. Many new feedlots, for example, are being built with bioelectric generators which process the manure into electricity. The evil Smithfield Farms and Roeslein Energy have started a $100 million project in Missouri in an attempt to completely revolutionize this technology. If it works, it means another revenue source for them and removes a huge environmental problem of how to dispose of tons of manure. Small farms could never afford such an experiment.

The method you advocate, letting cows walk wherever the fuck they want (which means they shit wherever the fuck they want) makes it impossible to contain manure. It sits on the ground, and is eventually washed into water sources when it rains.  

 

Exactly. And why can't they compete? Because they are less efficient. What sense is it to make the 20% that are efficient, less efficient? 

 

Ignorance is never a good reason to be fearful. There is plenty of research, experimentation and knowledge on the subject that is available. Conventional farming works better, that is why it has become conventional. 

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/15/organics-versus-gmo-why-the-debate/

 

i'm a farm boy, born and raised. granted, that doesn't automatically make me an expert in agriculture (i'm not), but, fwiw, my opinion is that organic methods, as they are presently defined (which of course is purely arbitrary), cannot possibly feed the world's population on its own, nor does it have any compelling benefits over state of the art farming methods (quite the opposite, as Beyond has already pointed out). so, we can be like EXC and say a lot of people are just going to have to fucking die, or we can use our brains and find a solution. that solution is GMO products.


imo, anti-GMO activists, especially those crunchy granola fuckers who go to third-world countries racked by famine and convince their governments NOT to accept shipments of GMO foods, are like anti-vaccination activists, i.e. criminally dishonest.

I thought about gathering up all the info I had to show a different side of the coin but you and I have our minds already made up. You accept every thing as happening as part of the reality of advancement of society. If we want to have X billion of people on this planet and don't want to have them starve then the only way to do it is make massive farms which corn feed cows (just an example) then send them off to slaughter. Sure it works but don't try to feed me with the solution you have accepted. I am looking at a different end result. I know that in order to feed the X billion of people we need to produce X billion pounds of meat, fruit and veggies to keep them alive. Sure the system you support works. I don't deny that it is highly profitable and efficent, but it isn't the only way to do things. There is always another way which is less intrusive.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm open to considering any new way of doing things. What you have suggested thus far simply isn't possible unless sustaining our current population is not a goal and you don't mind killing off a few billion people.  

I am of the belief that the current system is flawed. Yes, it feeds billions but it functions unbalanced.

I believe that changes start small and then grow and the public accepts them. Farmer Markets do very well down here and they have them in almost ever city. We also have services which deliver fruit and veggies to your door step. You only get what is in season but it is 100% local and it is roughly 10% cheaper than going to the store (considering gas and time it takes).

----------------------------------------

I'd like to point out one small example of what I speak of when it comes to small changes.

Down here bee farming is huge. Buying local honey functions as a better product because studies have shown local honey will help with allergies/asthma. The honey contain, well read it here...

http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/allergies/allergy-treatments/local-honey-for-allergies2.htm

Many of the non-local honey sources (such as SueBee honey) is not even honey. Much of it comes from China and it has been filtered of the pollen then had corn syrup added. America is not importing Chinese honey because they subsidize their honey which was hurting our honey farmers. They also were using unregulated antibiotics to solve a problem with an infection with their honeybees.

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/11/tests-show-most-store-honey-isnt-honey/

The USDA used to track the honey based on the pollen spores found in the honey but China filters it so well that there is no more pollen. They then ship it to other countries where it is mixed with their honey then sold to America. With out the pollen you are basically eating sugar with zero medicinal benefits.

Local honey is better. It is healthier. It is more beneficial for the end user and the local environment.

It might be more expensive but you get what you pay for.

 I am also really confused by your use of the term "unbalanced". You have repeatedly referred to the current system as unbalanced as if that is a bad thing. Unbalanced with what? 

for the record, i've been buying honey from local beekeepers here in slovakia for years. it has its culinary benefits, but, for the record, i still like "the stupid bear" too. it has a different flavor, it's a different product altogether, and personally i prefer it on a nice hot drop biscuit.

I use the term to cover a wide spectrum of issues such as pollution, pesticides and corruption.