Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It looks like that is based on per-unit basis of meat. So cows may be much less, but if there are 100x as many cows as anything else...

It's basically carbon emissions created for every kilogram of consumed feed. Cows are the most inefficient source of meat, because in the grand tradition of nature fething with us, everything good is terrible for us

Farm animals are actually fairly low on carbon emissions compared to other things, especially since their waste has other uses that tends to absorb carbon back into the landscape. Where they kill us in Methane and Nitrous Oxide, which trap way more heat than carbon and animals are major producers of both gases and both are released into the atmosphere by basically every living thing. It's normally not an issue, but you industrialize the making of cold cuts and well it becomes a problem.

As for how many cows there are relative to chickens;



When the Chik'Fila cow tells you to eat moar chiken, he really means it. One of the best things we could do for the planet is to reduce our consumption of beef and eat more poultry (also has the side effect of being healthier for us, because red meat really feths with out digestive track over time... but hamburger so goood ).

Anyway, all that stuff said this law won't achieve its goal. It will reduce California's emissions maybe, but come on Businesses will move just over the border and it won't effect the US' total emissions that much. State level environmental protections are as pointless as state level gun control laws. They can be circumvented by jumping over the border.

I'm more curious why they are going after dairy when they still require tons of water to feed those almond fields.

 LordofHats wrote:

As for how many cows there are relative to chickens;

Your graph doesn't really illustrate this. It's showing per capita consumption which does very little to reflect animal numbers by nation due to difference in animal sizes and the impact of trade skewing numbers around. Edit: And the US isn't even on that map. It's all the BRICs.

India for example has a very high cattle population but they are not consumed by 85%+ of the population resulting in rock bottom per cap consumption and an inventory that is essentially 'hidden' on your map.

That also helps illustrate why even a unilateral beef ban within the US would have no real effect whatsoever on 'emissions' because the US is actually one of, if not the, most efficient feed converter on the planet. It takes far less feed/water to produce a pound of beef/milk in the US than in developing BRICs nations. The US limiting our animal livestock production just leaves a void for developing nations (primarily S. America) to fill, likely with cattle raised on deforested rainforest. It's like replacing nuclear energy with coal.

It's generally tough to fight demographics or economics, taking on both at the same time is impossible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I'm more curious why they are going after dairy when they still require tons of water to feed those almond fields.

Ding ding ding this guy gets it.

It's not about fixing problems, it's about politics of convenience and pandering to the uninformed to score easy points.

 sourclams wrote:


Your graph doesn't really illustrate this. It's showing per capita consumption which does very little to reflect animal numbers by nation due to difference in animal sizes and the impact of trade skewing numbers around.

Functionally the total number doesn't really matter for illustrating whether cows of chickens have more impact as producers of greenhouse gases. Per capita consumption is a worthwhile way of showing how much of one animal we eat relative to another. The US consumes a lot of beef (they don't call Americans "red blooded" for nothing I actually have no idea if that idiom is related XD). Where it comes from doesn't really change that US consumers are providing the market for the animal product. We kill a lot more chickens, but the the cows make a hell of a lot more greenhouse gases (and also hit the water table a lot harder but that's another issue).

EDIT: Doh. Just now realized the US isn't even on that chart XD That's what I get for grabbing the first thing with a map and some nice charts;

That also helps illustrate why even a unilateral beef ban within the US would have no real effect whatsoever on 'emissions' because the US is actually one of, if not the, most efficient feed converter on the planet. It takes far less feed/water to produce a pound of beef/milk in the US than in developing BRICs nations.

What other countries do is on them just the same as what we do is on us.

It's not about fixing problems, it's about politics of convenience and pandering to the uninformed to score easy points.

Don't really disagree. Environmental issues are important, but the US as a whole treats it like a bad filter in an engine that can be fixed by just putting in a better filter. Law makers in the political realm have the bad habit of treating the issue like an item on a bullet list they have to check off every now and then to renew their credentials. Which is true of a lot of things for both sides of politics, the point is that there's less concern with solving the problem than there is with seemingly like the problem is being worked on.

 LordofHats wrote:

Functionally the total number doesn't really matter for illustrating whether cows of chickens have more impact as producers of greenhouse gases. Per capita consumption is a worthwhile way of showing how much of one animal we eat relative to another. The US consumes a lot of beef (they don't call Americans "red blooded" for nothing I actually have no idea if that idiom is related XD). Where it comes from doesn't really change that US consumers are providing the market for the animal product. We kill a lot more chickens, but the the cows make a hell of a lot more greenhouse gases (and also hit the water table a lot harder but that's another issue).

Your graph doesn't even have America on it. Even if it did have America on it, it would show poultry consumed greater than cattle. Even if it did show poultry consumed at a greater quantity than cattle, it would ignore the US dairy industry. Your analysis is simply incomplete on many levels. You may as well say 'there are a lot of cows in the US' and leave it at that.

What other countries do is on them just the same as what we do is on us.

The US is a net exporter of virtually every foodstuff... except beef where we tend to be a small net importer. If the country we import from is not as efficient as we are in converting plant matter to beef, we're actually creating more greenhouse emissions, net, versus simply producing the animal here. Then also add the transportation emissions from producing that animal in Oceania or S. America or Canada on top.

If you want to reduce global emissions, it's best for the US as the most efficient total supply chain to produce more of the world's beef.

 sourclams wrote:


Your graph doesn't even have America on it.

In my defense, I noticed it eventually XD Found a different one. And yeah. I remember chicken overtaking cows a number of years ago, but cows aren't really that far behind, and it doesn't really change the efficiency ratio for beef vs chicken.

And I don't really care about dairy cows, because dairy cows aren't as problematic as beef cows (I'm pretty sure I said this). Dairy is actually really efficient in a general sense, because from milk you can make a lot of products. pretty much everything a cow makes in milk gets used by us somehow. We use a lot of the stuff from beef cows too and this has never been factored into any math I've ever seen (non-edible parts of a beef cow go into lipstick, footballs, soap, that stuff in fire extinguishers, gelatin, glue <- there's a reason Elmer's has a cow for a mascot). We're really damn efficient at using slaughter animals. Doesn't really change that cows make a very disproportionate amount of green house gases relative to other animals.

If the country we import from is not as efficient as we are in converting plant matter to beef, we're actually creating more greenhouse emissions, net, versus simply producing the animal here.

There's a really good book about Honduras and the US called Banana Cultures by John Soluri. It's basically about how US consumer behavior not only drove the production of bananas in Honduras, but shaped the way people in Honduras lived socially and politically. Demand for a good in one country can have far reaching effects, especially in a global economy. If other countries are even worse at greenhouse gases from cows than us, it doesn't really change that we've helped generate the demand for that product, especially as we export our food culture to other parts of the world.

If you want to reduce global emissions, it's best for the US as the most efficient total supply chain to produce more of the world's beef.

It's best for total beef consumption to decline. Not that I expect that to happen. Burgers are damn tasty.

 LordofHats wrote:

There's a really good book about Honduras and the US called Banana Cultures by John Soluri. It's basically about how US consumer behavior not only drove the production of bananas in Honduras, but shaped the way people in Honduras lived socially and politically. Demand for a good in one country can have far reaching effects, especially in a global economy. If other countries are even worse at greenhouse gases from cows than us, it doesn't really change that we've helped generate the demand for that product, especially as we export our food culture to other parts of the world.

Globally, beef is the fastest-growing meat animal demanded if excluding Africa (because Africa generally screws up everything) and it has nothing to do with the American diet or 'exporting our preferences'. Americans have been shifting away from beef and towards other animal proteins for 50 years. The limiting factors for beef production tend to be water resources, feed resources, and labor. North and South America have all 3. Most other countries have 2 of the 3. Increasing GDP allows them to co-opt #3 and boosts their beef production, or it allows them to buy from a low cost supplier like Brazil. Developing nations want to consume beef because it tastes good. America established a commercial beef intrastructure 150 years earlier because of resource abundance. In Meat We Trust is a good read detailing the fundamental macro factors behind US meat production and the growth of the industry.

Americans demand a relatively small amount of beef relative to a sizable number of countries (mostly S. American and Spain), and our per cap consumption is close to saturation based on any correlation between meat consumption and gdp (which exists, and is solid for a variety of geographies and timeframes). Demand growth is going to come from non-US, non-European countries.

Producing beef within the US for either our own consumption or for purpose of global 'feed the world' export makes sense based on both nationalistic 'Americans want to eat it, let them eat it' and globalistic 'the world wants to eat it/but has limited resources/let resource-abundant countries produce for resource deficit countries" standpoints.

The only standpoint from which it makes sense to try to to impose crappy legislation, like this, is from simplistic Statist 'let's arbitrarily make life harder for this commercial entity to please a vocal minority' irrationality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

It's best for total beef consumption to decline. Not that I expect that to happen. Burgers are damn tasty.

If one believes that resource availability is both finite and zero sum, it's best for total consumption of everything to decline. Yet we never try to apply these altruistically lofty standards to 'good' consumer products like iPhones or the electricity sucked up by Tesla cars or Leonardo di Caprio's private jet emissions.

Only 'bad' resource expenditure, like the US cattle herd.

Meanwhile the floral industry produces nothing of consumptive or caloric worth whatsoever, and consumes enormous water resources doing it. But flowers are 'good', so better regulate cow farts.

 sourclams wrote:
Developing nations want to consume beef because it tastes good.

So does most other meat.

Producing beef within the US for either our own consumption or for purpose of global 'feed the world' export makes sense based on both nationalistic 'Americans want to eat it, let them eat it' and globalistic 'the world wants to eat it/but has limited resources/let resource-abundant countries produce for resource deficit countries" standpoints.

I don't disagree. But there's really no reason we couldn't achieve either of those goals with pigs and poultry. There's a lot of complex reasons why beef is a growing industry but dismissing cultural reasons is premature. Cattle are status symbols far more than other animals, and that's something Western culture really introduced in the world (well technically it was the Aryans/Indo-Iranians, but that's anthropology and anthropology isn't real science ). Cattle and Cattle ranching are culturally valued for reasons beyond how tasty the meat product is, and the value of cows for a growing economy probably exceeds the value of chicken and pigs because cows can be used for a lot more things. Especially in the US beef was the proverbially American meat. We turned it into a huge industry and you identify very correct why we did it.

It's just that it's all kind of beside the point. I'm not disagreeing that the beef industry is good business. I like beef (reason I keep mentioning burgers), but indisputably cows are disproportionately worse for the environment than other animals, so it makes sense to look at how to resolve that if we're going to keep eating beef. it actually gets pretty bad when you move closer in than global green house gases and just look at impacts on local environments.

The only standpoint from which it makes sense to try to to impose crappy legislation, like this, is from simplistic Statist 'let's arbitrarily make life harder for this commercial entity to please a vocal minority' irrationality.

I would say this crappy legislation is more from a simplistic "lets feel good that we're doing something to 'save the world' and conveniently ignore that it probably won't work" irrationality.

And honestly, at what point will we stop pretending that concern for the environment is a minority issue? In 2015 Gallup reported that 56% of the population thought environmental protection should be a priority. The big difference among people is how bad they thing the problem is, and how they'd go about resolving the issue, not whether or not they believe it to be an issue.





I'd be willing to bet there's significant sectionalism in how those numbers break down but I'm too lazy to bother trying to track it down right now (assuming someone has...).

If one believes that resource availability is both finite and zero sum, it's best for total consumption of everything to decline.

Then it's a good thing I never made that assumption.

And while we're bring it up, all the electronics we toss in the trash is pretty bad for the environment, and Apple deserves a little credit for inducing the revolving tech door we see in the consumer market.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sourclams wrote:

Meanwhile the floral industry produces nothing of consumptive or caloric worth whatsoever, and consumes enormous water resources doing it. But flowers are 'good', so better regulate cow farts.

I'm not really sure I've ever seen anyone argue that the floral industry is "good." I'm actually not sure I've seen many people care at all about the floral industry XD

But then, why would they when 80% of water use in the US is for agriculture? And guess what food is king of the water footprints? It's beef.

Though I wonder how beef and almonds stack up against each other in water consumption on a per-pound basis. I know almonds are bad (I try to avoid buying them for this exact reason) but I don't know if they are beef levels of bad.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Though I wonder how beef and almonds stack up against each other in water consumption on a per-pound basis. I know almonds are bad (I try to avoid buying them for this exact reason) but I don't know if they are beef levels of bad.

Let me see if I can find out;


First chart that came up fyi

Almonds are pretty bad for nuts. One of the things that makes nuts attractive from an environmental stand point is that they're generally efficient on resources to make (notice where walnuts are on the chart). It's pretty bad when you're a plant product and higher on the chart than rice though. The other one I've heard is pretty bad is pistachios but that one isn't listed here. This chart is generated from one of the same studies in the "beef" link above that was used to compare estimates of water used to produce beef;



The same study that provided these numbers listed beef at 1,799 gallons for one pound of boneless beef (direct link for the animal study and for the crops study the second one took longer to find because I had to notice it was a two part study first XD).

Almond milk actually looks really effective compared to dairy (but it tastes like gak if you ask me XD)


EDIT" Oh wow those charts are big XD

 LordofHats wrote:


Almonds are pretty bad for nuts. One of the things that makes nuts attractive from an environmental stand point is that they're generally efficient on resources to make (notice where walnuts are on the chart). It's pretty bad when you're a plant product and higher on the chart than rice though. The other one I've heard is pretty bad is pistachios but that one isn't listed here. This chart is generated from one of the same studies in the "beef" link above that was used to compare estimates of water used to produce beef;

Well, California found a niche and occupied it.

Traditionally almonds were grown in maginal lands, without irrigation because they can bear fruit even in areas with very little rainfall and poor soils so the good soils were reserved to more delicate crops while almonds shared the same space as olive trees. That's still the case for the most part.

California uses irrigation to get 3 times the yield non-irrigated almonds get, so obviously they get to dictate terms in the global almond trade. The downside is that while almonds are generally very efficient resources-wise, once you start dripping them they're just another fruit tree.

That works for most nuts, olives and grapes. There's a huge difference between traditional and intensive.

I love that big companies pour money in to PR campaigns that among many other things will claim 'oh but small farmers will fall over and it will just leave big farms... like the ones paying for this PR'. And then so many of you believe it.

Anyhow, if anyone read the story the OP posted, they'd see this thing is pushing change over a very long horizon. There will be no regs enforced until 2024, and those will be looking to reach a target by 2030. Farms deal with bigger environmental and industry swings with no warning ahead of time, the idea that a farm would be incapable of swapping to these requirements within an 8/14 year window is nonsense.

Ultimately, at what point are people going to stop getting spooked by excitable PR operations? In 2006 California passed its climate change bill. Those PR companies pumped out all kinds of scary sounding business, and then in the decade following the actual harm to California business has come from the drought, not all that scary environmental regulation.

Thing is, companies need to have an input in to regulation, but as long as they can use scare campaigns to spook the general public then they will look to shut down any legislation that inconveniences them in any way. To get past this just please when you hear doomsaying coming from industry, don't just believe them automatically.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
But to me a "few years" would be 5-10 years. For recouping the costs of major infrastructure upgrades that seems reasonable for a business.

If this product that could reach payback in 5 years, there'd be no need for government regs or incentives. Farms would fall all over themselves to install them. Seriously, a 20% return on a stable, cost saving measure would be great. Even at 10 years it'll be a great investment. The problem comes

Odds are this kind of thing is looking at something more like 20 years or more, which is why no farm would install one by themselves. But given the clear benefits to society at large, it makes sense for government


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
My first thought when reading the headline was how would you control how much methane a cow produces? I had this mental image of a farmer saying "sorry, Bessie, you've hit your quota for the day so I gotta stick this cork in your butt."

Methane emissions from cows vary based on what you feed them. Emissions are much reduced when you feed them grass, for instance. So likely these regs will end up encouraging different feed mixes, as LordofHats wrote. There might also be something to improving the efficiency of each cow, either having them mature faster so there's less farting time before slaughter, or increasing the milk production of dairy cows so there's less cows farting for each gigalitre of milk produced.


Fun fact for the day - kangaroos don't fart. It's something in their gut bacteria, and so there's quite a bit of research put in to deciding if they can transplant that bacteria to a cow, to produce a cow that doesn't fart. I have no idea how plausible that idea is, but it has been researched here in Australia.

This reminds me a lot of that thread where we had people mad at the FDA for enforcing safety regulations on vaping businesses. If a small business can't afford to conduct that business responsibly, I don't think the rest of the world should have to bend over backwards to allow them to remain open.

There might also be something to improving the efficiency of each cow, either having them mature faster so there's less farting time before slaughter, or increasing the milk production of dairy cows so there's less cows farting for each gigalitre of milk produced.

This made it worth it.

 LordofHats wrote:
Anyway, all that stuff said this law won't achieve its goal. It will reduce California's emissions maybe, but come on Businesses will move just over the border and it won't effect the US' total emissions that much. State level environmental protections are as pointless as state level gun control laws. They can be circumvented by jumping over the border.

It depends. Relocating is basically setting up the whole infrastructure of a new farm, ie it costs a bomb. And generally there's a few reasons that the farm was set up in its present location that are likely still true - good farming land, reliable water, good infrastructure to deliver to processing plant & then to consumer. With California the water will be a problem, but 8 years from now that's not certain.

So as long as these regs aren't excessive, and likely come with plenty of government support (ie subsidy on the methane energy generation), then it shouldn't lead to any mass exodus of producers to other states. And while we've seen no actual regs yet, given the very long time frame and the power of the agricultural lobby, I'd be really surprised if this was a business killer.

 sebster wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Anyway, all that stuff said this law won't achieve its goal. It will reduce California's emissions maybe, but come on Businesses will move just over the border and it won't effect the US' total emissions that much. State level environmental protections are as pointless as state level gun control laws. They can be circumvented by jumping over the border.

It depends. Relocating is basically setting up the whole infrastructure of a new farm, ie it costs a bomb. And generally there's a few reasons that the farm was set up in its present location that are likely still true - good farming land, reliable water, good infrastructure to deliver to processing plant & then to consumer. With California the water will be a problem, but 8 years from now that's not certain.

So as long as these regs aren't excessive, and likely come with plenty of government support (ie subsidy on the methane energy generation), then it shouldn't lead to any mass exodus of producers to other states. And while we've seen no actual regs yet, given the very long time frame and the power of the agricultural lobby, I'd be really surprised if this was a business killer.

Most California cattle farms are not set up on good land, but concentrated feedlots. They used to have a truckload in Chino when I worked there. Conditions there make a Texan weep.

 sebster wrote:
I love that big companies pour money in to PR campaigns that among many other things will claim 'oh but small farmers will fall over and it will just leave big farms... like the ones paying for this PR'. And then so many of you believe it.

Anything that raises marginal cost is going to favor large commercial operators over time. Virtually everything in agriculture does actually go back to economies of scale.

There really are no 'big' dairy companies (compared to industries people are more familiar with like airlines and car manufacture) as it's fragmented and regionalized, which coincidentally is why there's virtually no PR campaigns within this space.

If you wanted to take a completely Machiavellian perspective, larger dairies don't engage in PR because they know that increased regulation will force out marginal players and they can better control price once they gain market share and higher barriers of entry are in play.

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
Industrial cattle farming shouldn't exist, anyway.

It could easily be downsized, sure. We waste tons of food every day, and THAT needs to end before we work on slowing down farming. But for the population of humanity (and our meat eating pets) to sustain itself, some industrial farming is required. We simply can't produce the amount of food needed to sustain our population with local small farms, and that's not even counting areas that can't raise cattle.


Open to suggestions though...

The solution is to switch to far more efficient forms of protein than beef and pork, and to produce food for consumption rather than sale.

This is why the climate changers get kicked to the curb. Telling people what to eat is not going to happen in a Democracy.


What do you mean produce food for consumption rather than sale? Its all consumed.

Rosebuddy wrote:


The solution is to switch to far more efficient forms of protein than beef and pork, and to produce food for consumption rather than sale.

"Efficient"... there's that word again.

Meat is actually a very efficient food. Meat is only ~70% water, which means it's 30% 'food'. Leafy greens like spinach and most of the grocery store produce section is as much as 98-99% water, meaning it's only 1-2% food. As such, the transportation footprint of spinach is 15x higher than meat for the actual 'food' contribution, but you almost never see that addressed in any sort of 'sustainability' analysis because total understanding of the supply chain is hard and there's no real money in proving that the status quo is pretty much the best system we can manage.

By the way, famine in a modern or postmodern context is rarely caused by actual food shortage. About 4 years back some letters branch of the WHO (maybe the FTO or something) estimated there is 18 trillion calories produced per day (annualized) which could sustain a population of 9 billion people, or about 6 billion people after assuming 1/3 waste due to inefficiency. Famine is the result of political barriers and transportation cost preventing food-surplus nations from getting it to food-deficit nations. A pound of corn costs about 6 cents at the farm level in the US.

Food is free. It's the value addition processes by affluent consumers that introduce a lot of the 'inefficiency' that increases the cost of the food you actually pay for, because you don't want to consume 1800 calories/day of beans and rice, you want a diversity of offerings multiple times per day from various different outlets.

Unless you really do just eat beans and rice every day, then I truly congratulate you on promoting a more efficient food supply chain.

You're not taking into account all the energy and transportation that goes into raising the animals which the meat derives from. That's silly.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're not taking into account all the energy and transportation that goes into raising the animals which the meat derives from. That's silly.

Nor the energy and transportation that goes into the fertilizers and pesticides required to efficiently grow plant material for food.

What is your point?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're not taking into account all the energy and transportation that goes into raising the animals which the meat derives from. That's silly.

They can eat grass. In practice they eat other stuff because other stuff is grotesquely in abundance within the US but excluding weather risk creating drought, cattle can eat grass, which is non-food, but don't have to because we have an abundance of corn far in surplus of human consumptive needs.

Those ruminant bellies are capable of a lot that pig and chicken digestive systems (which are very fragile in comparison) simply aren't.

Assuming 6 kilograms of plant material for each kilo of beef, your 30% vs. 2% advantage over plants that aren't used as animal fodder in the first place is halved. Further, that's assuming current efficiency, with specialised feed, is going to give a yield equivalent to that of grass.

As you've noted though, the discussion is a bit moot, as starvation is a structural problem anyway.

 sourclams wrote:
there's no real money in proving that the status quo is pretty much the best system we can manage.

Other than the global multi-billion agricultural corporations, of course.

 Frazzled wrote:
This is why the climate changers get kicked to the curb. Telling people what to eat is not going to happen in a Democracy.


What do you mean produce food for consumption rather than sale? Its all consumed.

People absolutely are told what to eat. There's enormous amounts of money put into advertising to tell you what you should eat. Aside from the fact that people eat what is available, affordable and practical to them.

Not all food is eaten. A lot is simply sorted out because it wouldn't sell very well because it doesn't look perfect like in advertisements. All agricultural business is ultimately to bring in profit, not to provide a balanced and sustainable diet for people. Beef and dairy industries wouldn't be anywhere near as big if that was the case. If growing almonds in California is what brings in the most money that's what farmers will do. The fundamental motivation for large-scale agriculture under capitalism necessarily produces waste.

While I find this good, this stuff really needs to be applied on a country wide scale.
Or everyone realizes my idea of killdrones that run of methane and carbon dioxide that go and hunt terrorists is the best idea.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Other than the global multi-billion agricultural corporations, of course.

Dairy farms by and large don't fit that characterization at all due to being fragmented and regional. Dairy farms also operate on notoriously thin margins, as explained earlier in the thread. Basically you're throwing up a generalization that is pretty much the opposite of reality for this supply chain.

If only there was a wealth of research into the environmental cost of producing certain kinds of foods- oh wait there is.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
While I find this good, this stuff really needs to be applied on a country wide scale.
Or everyone realizes my idea of killdrones that run of methane and carbon dioxide that go and hunt terrorists is the best idea.

Fortunately the rest of the US thinks California is as crazy as a gak house rat and will do no such thing.

 sourclams wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

Other than the global multi-billion agricultural corporations, of course.

Dairy farms by and large don't fit that characterization at all due to being fragmented and regional. Dairy farms also operate on notoriously thin margins, as explained earlier in the thread. Basically you're throwing up a generalization that is pretty much the opposite of reality for this supply chain.

Companies purchase and distribute the dairy. Companies that specialise in dairy products need large amounts of dairy farmers (or at least dairy cattle!). They have an interest in telling the public that they should consume dairy product. That many dairy farms are joined together into farming cooperatives doesn't change that there is, in fact, a lot of money in the status quo. When you make such a massive mistake as claim that there isn't any money in convincing people that the way companies run things now is the best, it throws doubt on your fundamental ability to analyse and explain the situation.

text removed.
Reds8n


This isnt going to do ANYTHING for the environment. It will fill the pockets of the Greenie-wienie left (groups AND politicians), the Commodities traders and Factory Farmers only.

The consumer will pay a higher price, and the small farmer will suffer (again). It's feel-good regulation for the easily led.