Pew Report on Factory Farms

[grannysoo]

Make of it what you will.

Report highlights:

http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_repor ... x?id=38442

Complete report:

http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/ ... _FINAL.pdf

 

[Jogeephus]

Have you ever noticed that whenever someone is pointing a finger at the cattle industry and beef production they always use dairy cows as an example. And normally, these dairy cows have been retired from the milk business. You know, I'm pretty darn sure if you give me enough time I could come up with a bunch of reasons I shouldn't bathe. Probably could take some water samples and even back it up with a bunch of statistics. Might even get some federal grant money to further study this environmental threat.

They showed a neat statistic in their book. Showed in 1970 people paid nearly 5% of income to buy meat and poultry. Now its only 2.4%. Seems like they should be applauding the industry rather than pointing at our inperfections.

 

[J. T.]

If the public finds "factory farms" unappealing, then I suggest that they begin producing their own beef, pork, chicken, eggs, and milk. Only 2% of our population are farmers and they feed the other 98%. The reason that is possible is because of the existence specialized farms. Small farms are in decline because people left the farm and moved to the city. I fail to understand the concept of "biting the hand that feeds you." But then, I'm preaching to the choir.

 

[john250]

If the public finds "factory farms" unappealing, then I suggest that they begin producing their own beef, pork, chicken, eggs, and milk. Only 2% of our population are farmers and they feed the other 98%. The reason that is possible is because of the existence specialized farms. Small farms are in decline because people left the farm and moved to the city. I fail to understand the concept of "biting the hand that feeds you." But then, I'm preaching to the choir.

2% is actually a little high. True, 2% (approximately) of the population farms. But, 10% of the farms produce 90% of the output. The % which actually does this for a living is more like .00001 %.
"you don't miss the water till the well runs dry" and we won't miss meat until it is $25/lb at Wal-Mart.

The "factory farm" opponents are misguided, well funded (Mayor Michael Bloomberg has billions at his disposal and he isn't shy about spending for projects like http://www.gracelinks.org/), and totally clueless about how the vast masses are fed. The agenda is vegetarian, organic and passionate.
Subscribers to the agenda are above average in income. If milk is $10/gal, that won't matter. Beef at $15/lb wouldn't bother them. They don't buy that anyway. These folks flip out $500 for a bottle of wine, y'know. And, they think they have the answers.
The world is better nourished than ever. Thank industrial ag.
China and India are well fed. That is a good thing. Thank industrial agriculture.
Do we really want to go back to starvation in China and India? Major implications there, since both have "the bomb".
Working class Americans can still afford a pork chop. (They will struggle with the cost of gas to get to the store, however. )
Industrial agriculture feeds the world, but it isn't love able. It smells bad, unless it smells like money. And yes, it consumes oil. And puts some undesirable stuff into the water. And bothers the "rural residents" of my county. But, for now, it is the only way to keep up with the growing population on this planet.
Remember Malthus? And his equation? Population expands geometrically while food production expands by addition. His theory was taught to me in HS. Massive famine is the solution to the equation. And, he was wrong. The agricultural system made a fool of him by raising production at an incredible rate.