Switch Theme:

California to regulate cattle emissions for greenhouse gases  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Dominar






Rosebuddy wrote:
[
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.


This might seem heuristically true to you but all I see in this specific case (California dairy farms) is a reflection of economies of scale, and an operating model that in no way represents the 'big ag lobby' (which is typically a spend that occurs at the 'industrialized' processor or consumer outlet level not the production level). There's plenty of vertical integration or cost plus and contracting that amounts to something similar to vertical integration, but regulation at the level of the cow is going to most directly impact a supply chain segment that is most commonly organized around farmer co-ops and regional market share. You're saying that regional land owners are some sort of consumer-controlling illuminati lobby? Can you point me at the Phillip Morris of milk production? Seriously what is the evil marketing arm that everybody but me knows of and can allude to? Is it the Dairy Council of California? Healthyeating.org?

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.


I just think that what you are portraying shows either a lack of understanding of this market segment, or a lack of understanding of what it takes to create a cartel or cartel-like power. There are cartels within N. American ag, but the US dairy sector ain't it. Canadian chicken production is a centralized, controlled supply base where a governing body actually dictates output to producers at the detriment of consumer prices and the enhancement of margin. I could pick out a few more examples but dairy is going to be near the bottom of the list. You're using generalities to try to disprove my subject matter expertise and it's probably working to some number of this audience due to belief that commercial ag systems are bad, what I find funny is that 'taking on dairy' in this manner will likely promote greater centralization at the detriment of small producers due to economic factors intrinsic to the supply chain.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Rosebuddy wrote:
 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.


You are confusing brokers (resellers) and farmers (producers). The farmer joins a cooperative OR enters into an agreement to provide X amount of raw material which is then purchased by the broker to be sold as finished product (milk. cheese, butter etc). Farmers are paid a very paltry sum for the amount of work needed to produce product. The margins are razor thin.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Frazzled wrote:
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.


"Good" doesn't mean glorious, rolling grass plains. That'd be a waste of good land, if you're raising cattle for slaughter. "Good" in this instance means land that is best suited economically to this purpose, above all others.

You should see the blighted wastelands we stick cattle on. We've got a couple of cattle farms in the outback that are bigger than more US states, and it's economically powerful because it's land that's really good for cattle and nothing else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sourclams wrote:
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.


Sure, but that's an industry direction driven by fundamental economics. Focusing on regulation misses the reality.

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.


That's not so much Machiavellian as contrived.

Marginal players are forced out by economies of scale, market access and also lately branding and gimmicky nonsense (permeate free, A2). The idea of big farmers accepting regulation that increases their own costs, in order to pressure small farmers who are already unable to compete is a bit of a contrivance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sourclams wrote:
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.


You are ignoring grains, and focusing on leafy green vegetables because you are inventing a contrived comparison. Don't do that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 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.


This happens now. Various food sources are subsidised and encouraged. Government is deep in every part of food and agriculture, and has been a key part of the massive increase in farm production in the last 100 years.

The question isn't about suddenly adding government, or even about adding more government, it's about aligning government involvement with the actual needs of society. Working to improve production and efficiency is still a core area for government to get involved, but in addition to that it is reasonable to add environmental concerns.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/12/01 04:15:37


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






 Frazzled wrote:
 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.

So what your saying is it is crazy to try to regulate and hopefully decrease a very large contribution to global warming?

5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






This is being marketed as a climate regulation though, not a food regulation. It's very poor in those terms, and if it's supposed to be a measure about improving the food production system it should be openly approached as such. Ultimately we have something being presented as something it isn't so I can see why people would be irritated and prone to swing fault.

As for the discussion of beef efficiency vs plant efficiency, there is no contest. Meat will always be exponentially less efficient than plants because the meat is grown in the form of plant-eating animals.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 NinthMusketeer wrote:
This is being marketed as a climate regulation though, not a food regulation. It's very poor in those terms, and if it's supposed to be a measure about improving the food production system it should be openly approached as such. Ultimately we have something being presented as something it isn't so I can see why people would be irritated and prone to swing fault.


I'm not sure there's a real distinction there. When you are regulating food production for the purpose of limiting climate change, it is both a climate and a food regulation.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 sebster wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
This is being marketed as a climate regulation though, not a food regulation. It's very poor in those terms, and if it's supposed to be a measure about improving the food production system it should be openly approached as such. Ultimately we have something being presented as something it isn't so I can see why people would be irritated and prone to swing fault.


I'm not sure there's a real distinction there. When you are regulating food production for the purpose of limiting climate change, it is both a climate and a food regulation.
I worded my statement poorly.

What I mean to say is that the stated purpose of the legislation is fighting climate change but it is not effective at doing so. If it were presented as a measure to improve the system of beef & milk production it would probably go over much better with people. Because it is presented as being directed as climate change that instantly biases a large potion of liberals for it and a large portion of conservatives against it. Because of California's liberal demographic this is a decent way to gaining popular support without really trying, but it will also create criticism from people who see it as a bad way to fight climate change because that is supposedly the purpose. All of that takes the conversation away from what the legislation actually does do and I think the public dialogue would be better served by presenting this as a means of improving food production.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I worded my statement poorly.

What I mean to say is that the stated purpose of the legislation is fighting climate change but it is not effective at doing so. If it were presented as a measure to improve the system of beef & milk production it would probably go over much better with people.


Okay, maybe I'm missing something, as I haven't read anything about this legislation beyond what's in the OP, but how are you concluding that it is ineffective in fighting climate change? And is there more in the bill than just climate change, than transforms other parts of the beef and cattle industry?

From what I knew I thought this bill was about a couple of different means of limiting methane, with beef & cattle being the major one alongside landfill.

Because it is presented as being directed as climate change that instantly biases a large potion of liberals for it and a large portion of conservatives against it.


This is true, and a good way of summing up this thread

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Ineffective at fighting climate change because a slight change in California's contribution to climate change makes negligible difference on the whole. The best way for this to positively impact climate change on a significant level is for it to be economically successful, or at least viable, to make it look like an attractive option for other states & nations to enact as well. Ironically the measure would do this better if presented as an improvement to food production.

The improvement to food production I am referring to is not the reduction of methane emissions but how that is achieved. If methane is captured and used for electricity the benefit is rather obvious, but even if the reduction comes in the form of reducing cow burps there is a benefit. It isn't as biologically efficient for a cow to produce more methane as opposed to a diet that produces less, which ultimately means less resources spent per pound of beef/milk produced. While more expensive in the short term consuming less resources will be better in the long term, especially as economic incentive to improve the new processes kicks in. I think the solar industry is a good example; regulation restricted less eco-friendly options while funds were invested into development and now solar is quickly becoming a much better option than burning coal ever was.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Ineffective at fighting climate change because a slight change in California's contribution to climate change makes negligible difference on the whole. The best way for this to positively impact climate change on a significant level is for it to be economically successful, or at least viable, to make it look like an attractive option for other states & nations to enact as well.


Yeah, the best way for something like to work is by representing a leadership position, showing how you can be clean and maintain viable industry. But to do that, I think you need to put the climate change element first and foremost.

It isn't as biologically efficient for a cow to produce more methane as opposed to a diet that produces less, which ultimately means less resources spent per pound of beef/milk produced. While more expensive in the short term consuming less resources will be better in the long term, especially as economic incentive to improve the new processes kicks in.


Except the foods that produce more methane are often cheaper. Cattle put on dirt paddocks and given grain are much cheaper than maintaining a grass field for cows to graze on. And grass feeding cows is the kind of thing where scale works against you, as you push to more and more grass fed cattle you have to make new grass fields in less and less suitable land.

I think the solar industry is a good example; regulation restricted less eco-friendly options while funds were invested into development and now solar is quickly becoming a much better option than burning coal ever was.


Yeah, this is definitely the way that most successful clean tech has worked. Initial investment and patience, leading to long term superior tech. LED lighting is another example.

The issue is that not everything is solvable with tech, and certainly not with tech that ends up cheaper than current options. Sometimes you have to mandate/subsidise tech that is never going to be as cheap, or in some cases where there no tech solution of any kind we will have to bring in the tax and quota beatsticks.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Dominar






 sebster wrote:

You are ignoring grains, and focusing on leafy green vegetables because you are inventing a contrived comparison. Don't do that.



Why do you feel that's a contrived comparison? Per pretty much any look at modern nutritional recommendations, we're told to focus less on meat and carbs and more on fruits and vegetables. I bring up leafy greens versus meat as a store of nutrition because leafy greens are terrible store of nutrition and as an example of why this is actually complicated complex stuff, which most people here don't have much grasp on, either the supply chain implications or the economics.

If your belief is that meat versus produce is too far a comparison because there are more efficient middleground foods like grain, that's true but we're so far beyond saturation of grain in our diet that producing less/different meat (i.e. don't raise cattle due to environmental factors) is unlikely to result in some sort of substitutive boost to grain consumption, we'll just produce less grain as well reflecting decline in feed demand and our total food production base will shrink.

At best that will provide some incremental demand boost to high-end vegetables and fruits, which are also "inefficient" stores of nutrition and have their own environmental impact complications.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sebster wrote:

Except the foods that produce more methane are often cheaper. Cattle put on dirt paddocks and given grain are much cheaper than maintaining a grass field for cows to graze on. And grass feeding cows is the kind of thing where scale works against you, as you push to more and more grass fed cattle you have to make new grass fields in less and less suitable land.


Look I can tell you have an understanding of general principles that you think you're tying together correctly, but you're not tying them together correctly and stuff like this betrays your lack of working knowledge or practical understanding.

Cattle are put on 'dirt paddocks' and given grain for only their last 4-6 months of life out of a 2 year life cycle. For 3/4 of their life pasture and roughage are necessary to their existence. The life cycle of a [beef] cow results in 1 calf per cow per year, and that cow is also going to be consuming pasture or roughage that entire time. Bottom line is grass and pasture are integral to the cattle life cycle for more than 75% of their life when you include the implied consumption of the cow (which is the engine driving cattle production). A different way to say it is that fewer than 25% of the US cattle herd is in a feedlot at any given time.

I'm also going to point out two big contradictions that I'm not sure you pick up on in your statement:

Your statement that 'foods that produce methane are often cheaper', at least as it pertains to cattle, is pretty strange because beef is one of the more expensive foodstuffs per unit at the farm, wholesale, and retail or consumer facing level. That's due to a 2-year lifecycle and multiple stages in the supply chain and greater complexity. The cost versus nutrition delivered is kind of middling, but I doubt you were referencing that.

The other contradiction is your statement that 'scale' works against pasturing cattle; it doesn't, at all. Scale benefits here, just like in anything else. More efficient geographies (i.e. those with water, labor, and pasture) will have an advantage, meaning that the only time 'make new grass fields in less and less suitable land' is feasible is when margins are so excessive that they can absorb the inefficiency. Which they typically aren't. Over the last 10 years, cattle inventories in the US (and you could verify this by pulling annual USDA inventory histories and monitoring the change by state but that will require work on your part) have generally been consolidating, not fragmenting, in pretty much the opposite of the trend you're claiming. I think you're conflating together kind of a very old or developing nation low-technology with the modern N American cattle industry and that's just inaccurate.

The industry is still fragmented, but that's because consolidation has come at the cost of smaller scale operators leaving the cow/cattle business, resulting in a herd that is smaller and is kicking out the 'small' operators first due to, again, economies of scale and marginal advantage.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/01 14:24:20


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 sourclams wrote:
Why do you feel that's a contrived comparison? Per pretty much any look at modern nutritional recommendations, we're told to focus less on meat and carbs and more on fruits and vegetables. I bring up leafy greens versus meat as a store of nutrition because leafy greens are terrible store of nutrition and as an example of why this is actually complicated complex stuff, which most people here don't have much grasp on, either the supply chain implications or the economics.


Because in order to make your point about beef, you picked something with particularly little nutritional value. You might as well have picked play-doh

When you want to make any case for efficiency, you compare to the most efficient alternative. The only reason to pick an equally crappy performer is to hide the failings of the original example.

I get your point about complexity, and it's a good one, though. There is certainly a lot more to this than 'red meat bad, everything else good'.

If your belief is that meat versus produce is too far a comparison because there are more efficient middleground foods like grain, that's true but we're so far beyond saturation of grain in our diet that producing less/different meat (i.e. don't raise cattle due to environmental factors) is unlikely to result in some sort of substitutive boost to grain consumption, we'll just produce less grain as well reflecting decline in feed demand and our total food production base will shrink.


If the issue is about efficiency in food production, then yeah, that'd be the point - keeping everyone fed with a smaller overall level of production. That would mean the total food production would shrink, unless you expanded food exports.

Look I can tell you have an understanding of general principles that you think you're tying together correctly, but you're not tying them together correctly and stuff like this betrays your lack of working knowledge or practical understanding.


That is certainly true, yes

Cattle are put on 'dirt paddocks' and given grain for only their last 4-6 months of life out of a 2 year life cycle. For 3/4 of their life pasture and roughage are necessary to their existence. The life cycle of a [beef] cow results in 1 calf per cow per year, and that cow is also going to be consuming pasture or roughage that entire time. Bottom line is grass and pasture are integral to the cattle life cycle for more than 75% of their life when you include the implied consumption of the cow (which is the engine driving cattle production). A different way to say it is that fewer than 25% of the US cattle herd is in a feedlot at any given time.


How does that work with all that grass fed cattle the foodies are always going on about?

Your statement that 'foods that produce methane are often cheaper', at least as it pertains to cattle,


I meant 'food that cattle eats that causes greater emissions are often cheaper, than food given to cattle that causes less emissions'. Grass fed cows produce less methane, basically.

Scale benefits here, just like in anything else. More efficient geographies (i.e. those with water, labor, and pasture) will have an advantage, meaning that the only time 'make new grass fields in less and less suitable land' is feasible is when margins are so excessive that they can absorb the inefficiency. Which they typically aren't. Over the last 10 years, cattle inventories in the US (and you could verify this by pulling annual USDA inventory histories and monitoring the change by state but that will require work on your part) have generally been consolidating, not fragmenting, in pretty much the opposite of the trend you're claiming.


This is another miscommunication. I'm well aware of the effect of efficiency of scale in cattle, as I mentioned earlier Australia has a couple of cattle farms that are bigger than some US states. My point was that efficiency of scale is an issue for the industry as a whole in regards to moving cattle on to pastures. This is because the first new pasture set up would be on the land best suited for grass fields, then the second farm would be on the land second best suited and so on. Each new field would require a little more infrastructure and a little more running costs than the farm before it.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut




 sourclams wrote:
You're saying that regional land owners are some sort of consumer-controlling illuminati lobby? Can you point me at the Phillip Morris of milk production? Seriously what is the evil marketing arm that everybody but me knows of and can allude to? Is it the Dairy Council of California? Healthyeating.org?


I'm saying there's a huge system of corporations working under the same set of incentives to convince people that whatever the corporations are making is what they should eat. This can be done through advertising, lobbying for price controls or pushing campaigns to convince people that some particular food or diet is the new healthy thing. There are entire fething sciences devoted to optimal placement of goods in grocery stores so that people buy more. That you don't pause to consider this and instead immediately jump to laffin' it up about how I totally believe in The Illuminati shows how deeply ingrained capitalist propaganda is in you. All your minutiae are useless because of the fundamental flaw in your way of looking at the world.

 sourclams wrote:

You're using generalities to try to disprove my subject matter expertise and it's probably working to some number of this audience due to belief that commercial ag systems are bad, what I find funny is that 'taking on dairy' in this manner will likely promote greater centralization at the detriment of small producers due to economic factors intrinsic to the supply chain.


Commercial agricultural systems are bad. It's dumb as hell to have a system where people are pressured to produce whatever sells the best at the moment. Then when sales drop for whatever reason, the market crashes and you end up with a lot of waste. You keep repeating that dairy margins are awful and guess what? It's because there are too many dairy farmers! Too much milk is being produced so prices drop and we end up with enormous quantities of milk that have to end up somewhere. It's an atrocious way of going about things.
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: