Why is Beef so cheap?

[Iamsuperman]

One of the arguments people have for not eating meat is that it uses something like 16 lbs of corn, soy or grains to produce 1 lb of beef.

Why then can beef be sold for so cheap? Other meats like pork and turkey are sold for even cheaper, $2-4 lb!

[ginkgo]

Good question. I think the food for them is very cheap like diamonds. Diamonds are mined by dirt poor people and go through lots of price increases. Also there may be government subsidies.

[Erin Pavlina]

The government subsidizes the meat industry. A hamburger at McDonald's would cost $50 if they didn't.

[ginkgo]

That is awful to hear since that money has to come from somewhere. I went to a meeting of animal rights groups. They had literature of a study by the United Nations showing that giving up eating meat did more to protect from global warming than anything else that you can do including switching to a hybrid car.

In a groundbreaking 2006 report, the United Nations (U.N.) said that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) than all the cars and trucks in the world combined.

[Addict]

The government subsidizes the meat industry. A hamburger at McDonald's would cost $50 if they didn't.

Yea, Dan said a similar thing in another thread, but I have a hard time believing the level of subsidization you guys are describing. Sure, the government subsidizes lots of things, but I'm going to have to say $50 is a bit ridiculous. Maybe you were exaggerating, I don't know....

[Brutha]

Yea, Dan said a similar thing in another thread, but I have a hard time believing the level of subsidization you guys are describing. Sure, the government subsidizes lots of things, but I'm going to have to say $50 is a bit ridiculous. Maybe you were exaggerating, I don't know....

There are a lot of variables in that equation that could allow some animal group to calculate 50$ as a price for a hamburger.

The aim of agricultural subsidizes is to raise the income of farmers.
If the price of some agricultural product goes beyond a certain mark the goverment buys something from it to raise the price. When you add up those subsidizes and treat them like they would keep the price low you could probably get to that 50$ sum.

[WanderingOak]

I am not a farmer, but I believe that the only way grain fed beef is affordable is when you apply economics of scale. IOW, the grain needs to be purchased in large lots at wholesale prices. Only the large operators (which are usually the most subsidised, and the worst environmental and 'cruelty' offenders) can afford to do this.

Unfortunately, diet and nutrition has a tendancy to become a politically and emotionally charged issue, with 'true believers' on all sides making wild claims which may or may not be based on reality. There is money to be made selling diet books and 'healthy-convenience' foods, so of course everybody claims to be an expert and objective information is often hard to come by.

I buy organic, humanely raised, pastured beef, so while I am paying a premium (6.00/lb for ground chuck, upwards of $10.00/lb for roasts/steaks), I believe it is worth it.

[Rose of Cairo]

Other reasons why meat is so cheap is that for example

- the animals europeans and north americans eat are to a huge extent fed with soy or corn produced in so called Third World countries, where it is cheaper than here. (while people there have not enough land to grow their own stuff)

- a huge amount of meat is "produced" in mass industry meat factories where the animals are forced to live in horrible, torture-like conditions to economize space and energy. They are fed with crap because it's cheaper (like slaughter waste: feathers, bones, ...). In order to prevent diseases that are likely to appear because of those poor hygiene conditions, unhealthy diet and shortage of space, they are systematically given antibiotics - that's cheaper than to lose a part of the "production" because of some diseases or to cure the sick animals. And cheaper than letting them live in decent conditions. They are given hormones too so that they grow much faster than they normally would and get fatter than they naturally would. That makes it more profitable too. (You eat those antibiotics and hormones with the meat btw) Sometimes they are fattened in a country/region where it is cheaper and then transported in barbarous conditions over huge distances to another place to be slaughtered. It's cheaper this way, even though you'll lose a part of the merchandise because some of them die or are severely injured during the transport.

Because of all this, meat is produced to the lowest possible costs. It would be much more expensive if the animals were treated decently. Look at organic meat, it is much more expensive indeed.

my 2 cts.

enjoy your cheap meal!

[Zukin]

Beef is probably even cheaper right now thanks to the beef recall. Companies are probably trying to get consumers back, though I imagine more people will be inspired to give up eating beef after the e coli scare.

beef recall - Google News

Some groceries and restaurants say that beef purchases aren't affected - but I don't think they're exactly a neutral source for news.

[Iamsuperman]

Can you share a link showing the calculations for the $49 subsidy per burger, I'm having a hard time believing it.

Thanks, BTW I'm not a beef eater

[Dan.Linehan]

Area of tropical rainforest destroyed for the production of each fast-food hamburger made from rainforest beef: 55 square feet.

(Denslow, Julie, and Padoch, Christine, People of the Tropical Rainforest, University of California Press, 1988, pg 169) [02.08.08.01]

Water required to produce one pound of U.S.beef: 2,500 gallons.

(per Dr. George Borgstrom, Chairman of Food Science and Human Nutrition Dept of College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Michigan State University, "Impacts on Demand for and Quality of land and Water, Presentation to the 1981 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) [02.10.01.03]

Water required to produce one pound (lb.) of California foods:

1 lb. lettuce: 23 gallons
1 lb. tomatoes: 24 gallons
1 lb. wheat: 25 gallons
1 lb. carrots: 33 gallons
1 lb. apples: 49 gallons
1 lb. chicken: 815 gallons
1 lb. pork: 1,630 gallons
1 lb. beef: 5,214 gallons

(according to Soil and Water specialists, Univ. of Calif. Agricultural Extension, working with livestock farm advisors: Schulbach, Herb , et. al., in Soil and Water, No. 38, Fall 1978) [02.10.01.05]

Leading cause of species in the United States being threatened or eliminated (according to the U.S. Congress General Accounting Office): Livestock Grazing.

(Wuerthner, George, "The Price is Wrong," Sierra, Sept/Oct 1990, pg 40-41. Also, Bogo, Jennifer, "Where's The Beef?" E Magazine, Nov/Dec 1999, pg 49) [02.07.27:22]

What a hamburger produced by clearing forest in India would cost if the real costs were included in the price rather than subsidized: $200

("The Price of Beef," WorldWatch, July/Aug 1994, pg 39) [02.08.08.07]

Price paid by American cattlemen for the use of government land to raise beef, per hamburger: 1 cent

("The Price of Beef," WorldWatch, July/Aug 1994, pg 39) [02.08.08.08]

[AtriumGuy]

beef is cheap because most of it is processed and filled with dangerous "shelf-life sustaining" chemicals. Unprocessed, organic meat is much more expensive...and I highly recommend eating better quality ESPECIALLY when it comes to meat. So many people in the US complain about food prices....but what people don't realize is that the US pays less per capita for food than every other country in the world (less than 10% of our incomes go to food). In Europe...its closer to 30%. WE have the means to eat better in this country....but we choose not to because we are marketed cheap, synthetic and unhealthy foods by large corporations whose sole mission is to increase stock prices and not our health!

[Dan.Linehan]

Amount of greenhouse-warming carbon gas released by driving a typical American car, in one day: 3 kilograms.

("The Price of Beef," WorldWatch, July/Aug 1994, pg 39) [02.07.27:16]

Amount released by clearing and burning enough Costa Rican rainforest to produce beef for one hamburger: 75 kilograms.

(Munoz, K, et al, "Food Intakes of U.S. Children and Adolescents Compared with Recommendations," Pediatrics, Sept 1997, pg 323-29. See also, "Few Young People Eat Wisely, Study Shows," Associated Press, New York Times, Sept 3, 1997, A-12) [02.07.27:17]

[Dan.Linehan]

Imported beef..

The Price of Cheap Beef: Disease, Deforestation, Slavery and Murder

[Dan.Linehan]

Also,

Amazon.com: Brain Trust: The Hidden Connection Between Mad Cow and Misdiagnosed Alzheimer's Disease

Amazon.com: Mad Cow U.S.A.: Could the Nightmare Happen Here?: Books: Sheldon Rampton,John Stauber

I wouldn't bring it up except that we all pay into the health system.

It is also worth noting that CWD, or Chronic Wasting Disease, is another prion disease currently becoming a major health problem in wild cervids (deer, elk and so on)--and potentially in the people who hunt and eat them. Large, prion-infected deer populations have been reported in several states, including Wisconsin and Colorado. As of today (14 July 2002), Wisconsin opened deer season several months early & intends to keep it open all year, in order to decimate a population of 25,000 prion-infected deer. Guess what? The NBC news report did not mention that CWD is a prion disease related to BSE, probably because they didn't know (& didn't bother finding out). But guess what else? Prions rather easily jump species boundaries: mink to cattle, cattle to human, squirrel to human....Once opened, its a real Pandora's box that sets one's mind to wandering.

Try a Web search on "cattle rendering" and read what you find. It's enough to make you sick. Cow and pig tissues are widely used in the pharmaceutical industry and in many products intended indirectly for human consumption: hog feed, chicken feed. It is also used in pet food--to think that even my cats might be eating this stuff. There was also a report of a British vegan--a *vegan*, mind you, for a dozen years--who inadvertently got CJD from her pet cat food.

So what's this got to do with hamburgers? "Rendering" is the innocuous term for the practice of grinding up left-over animal organs, tissues, spinal cords etc that are considered unfit for human consumption, then selling it as Meat & Bone Meal (MBM) or Tallow. Agribusinesses use MBM as cattle and pig food and fertilizer (like on vegetables...); tallow has many uses including in the pharmaceuticals and cosmetics industries. Rendering is cow cannibalism, as it were, which is believed to have amplified the incidence of BSE in Britain, just as cannibalism amplified kuru in New Guinea. If you have never heard of rendering then you need to read this book. The British experience of CJD should have been a lesson to US politicians, bureaucrats, cattlemen, and the FDA, because the "new variant" of CJD that has killed numerous British persons is actually a prion disease derived from the BSE prion, that is, from cattle. That is, people have died from from eating prion-infected beef.

etc..

[madgeylou]

i don't think beef is directly subsidized. it's more the crops that are fed to the cattle -- corn and soy.

for a hugely fascinating discussion of this, and how the food industry in america has altered to use up all the subsidzied corn and soy, read "the omnivore's dilemma" by michael pollan.

if you look at an american's tissues in a high density spectrometer, you can see that we are mostly made out of corn. pollan's exact phrase, i think, is "we look like corn chips on legs." fully 1/2 of the items in the average grocery store contain corn or corn products.

there's also the huge amount of environmental cost in factory beef farming, which is "externalized," ie., pushed off onto society at large in the form of filthy groundwater, methane-soaked air from the cows' poo and farts (methane is a much more potent greenhouse grass than CO2), and human and animal suffering -- the rate of injury for a slaughterhouse worker is roughly 20 times that of any other profession.

if beef's true cost were reflected in its price, it would be much more expensive.

the costs of raising grass-fed beef are not externalized, and it is at a much smaller, artisanal scale, and that's why it's more expensive than feedlot beef.

[Addict]

What a hamburger produced by clearing forest in India would cost if the real costs were included in the price rather than subsidized: $200

So assuming a hamburger is on average 1/4 lb. beef, costs about $3, Americans eat 60 lbs of beef on average a year, there are 300 million Americans, and using your own statistics...

($200-$3)*4*60*300,000,000=14 184 000 000 000 (14 trillion dollars/year)

or I'll use the $50 estimate as well

($50-$3)*4*60*300,000,000=3 384 000 000 000 (3 trillion dollars/year)

The US federal budget last year was $2.6 trillion (highest ever of course).

So what you're saying is that the federal government spent more subsidizing beef than it actually had in its entire budget? My calculations are a bit simplified, but I think the point is clear.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to call bull ****.

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by madgeylou

the costs of raising grass-fed beef are not externalized, and it is at a much smaller, artisanal scale, and that's why it's more expensive than feedlot beef.

And a grass-fed beef sandwich at a restaurant would likely be closer to $5 than $50. It's interesting that healthier forms of producing beef might actually be the cheaper option if nothing was subsidized.

[Dan.Linehan]

What a hamburger produced by clearing forest in India would cost if the real costs were included in the price rather than subsidized: $200

Originally Posted by Addict

So what you're saying is that the federal government spent more subsidizing beef than it actually had in its entire budget?

That's for a hamburger produced by clearing forest in India. Not one subsidized by the federal government.

The cost here comes from the value of the land being used by cattle as well and the value of the old growth trees that are cleared.

[Addict]

Thats a hamburger produced by clearing forest in India. Not one subsidized by the federal government.

What a hamburger produced by clearing forest in India would cost if the real costs were included in the price rather than subsidized: $200

If we aren't talking about the same thing, then perhaps you should make that clear.

In any case, I already did the calculation for the $50 estimate, which still ends up exceeding the federal budget.

The cost here comes from the value of the land being used by cattle as well as the value of the old growth trees that are cleared.

I wouldn't label that as subsidization in that case.

[WanderingOak]

Originally Posted by openeyes

And a grass-fed beef sandwich at a restaurant would likely be closer to $5 than $50. It's interesting that healthier forms of producing beef might actually be the cheaper option if nothing was subsidized.

The problem is that grass fed beef is 'popular' among certain segments of the population. That would drive up the price as all of the sudden, the grass fed hamburger is being marketed in trendy resteraunts as 'health food' for $15.99.

[Addict]

The problem is that grass fed beef is 'popular' among certain segments of the population. That would drive up the price as all of the sudden, the grass fed hamburger is being marketed in trendy resteraunts as 'health food' for $15.99.

Yea. I can't stand it when healthier products cost more and there's no real reason for them to. For example, natural peanut butter that has fewer ingredients than the other peanut butters.

[Dan.Linehan]

The general consensus used for "the real price" of subsidized domestic beef, from The Food Revolution is this,

Cost of common hamburger meat if water used by meat industry was not subsidized by U.S. taxpayers: $35/pound

Per the 2,000 - 5,000 gallons of freshwater it takes to produce one pound of domestic beef.

Freshwater is really important, water conservation is why you don't leave the faucet going when you brush your teeth, why we have low flow shower heads, etc.

You would conserve more water by simply not eating two pounds of beef than you would if you stopped showering for an entire year.

And yes, the government can subsidize more than their annual budget in freshwater..

[Addict]

Cost of common hamburger meat if water used by meat industry was not subsidized by U.S. taxpayers: $35/pound

Much, much more reasonable than the $50/hamburger argument, but still wrong.

We generally pay much less for our drinking water
than we do for most other goods and services, such
as cable television, telephone service, and electricity.
On average, tap water costs are slightly more than $2
per 1,000 gallons, although the costs tend to be lower
for large water systems, and higher for small systems.

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/30..._dwsrf_web.pdf

So using your high end estimate of 5,000 gallons, we get $10 in water costs. Mind you, that value would be much lower for a large system and it probably is much lower because it doesn't need to be treated as well as tap water.

Assuming all the absolute most conservative estimates that work in your favor, the math is still coming up $20 short.

And yes, I am curious about your statement about the government being able to subsidize more than it can spend on fresh water. It doesn't matter too much though if the statistic is wrong.

[Dan.Linehan]

Well, $35 was a few years ago - I'd guess that $50 is pretty reasonable by now.

I'll have to go home to grab my copy of The Food Revolution to source the $35 / calculation.

Here are some more statistical realities along those lines, hosted at MIT..

http://web.mit.edu/vsg/www/vsg/INFO/...nment/realites

[Addict]

Well, $35 was a few years ago - I'd guess that $50 is pretty reasonable by now.

Well, you gave $35 as per pound and $50 was per hamburger. So that number could actually be as high as $200 depending on your interpretation of a hamburger. Just wanted to clear that up. I hope I'm not derailing this thread too much.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Addict

Well, you gave $35 as per pound and $50 was per hamburger. So that number could actually be as high as $200 depending on your interpretation of a hamburger. Just wanted to clear that up.

I think the best calculations are $35-$50 per pound for domestically produced beef, and up to $200 per pound if its rainforest beef.

I personally think that stats like these have A LOT to do with global warming:

• A driving force behind the destruction of the tropical rainforests: American meat habit.
  
• Amount of meat imported annually by U.S. from Costa Rica,El Salvador,Guatemala, Nicaragua,Honduras and Panama: 200,000,000 pounds.
  
• Amount of meat eaten by average person in Costa Rica,El Salvador,Guatemala, Nicaragua,Honduras and Panama: Less than average American housecat.
  
• Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests and related habitats: 1,000/year.

Ecological systems get all screwed up when you cut down all the trees? Whaaa?

I'm off to have some Red Curry Pak for lunch... have a good one Addict, thanks for the debate.

[Addict]

No problem. It was fun.

[Brutha]

The general consensus used for "the real price" of subsidized domestic beef, from The Food Revolution is this,

The consesus amoung the total number of a single author isn't really that compelling.

Here are some more statistical realities along those lines, hosted at MIT..

http://web.mit.edu/vsg/www/vsg/INFO/...nment/realites

I wouldn't use the MIT Vegetarian Group as objective source for information about the dangers of meat production.

http://asae.frymulti.com/request.asp...ID=tfl2005&T=2
Says that a cow needs 35 gallons of water per day. Does someone has number of how long a cow lives and how much pounds of beaf it produces?

[seeker5]

I see plenty of cows where I live just eating the grass out in the pasture.