I find that very hard to believe. I live in New Zealand where there are no subsidies on beef and a pound - roughly 500grams - of minced beef would cost you under NZ $10 - less than $6 US. $30 US sounds utterly unbelievable
this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
vegan
2551 readers
25 users here now
Please also check out vegantheoryclub.org for a great set of well-run communities for vegan news, cooking, gardening, and art. It is not federated with LW, but it is a nice, cozy, all-in-one space for vegans.
We ask that the you have an understanding on what veganism is before engaging in this community.
If you think you have been banned erroneously, please get in contact with one of the other mods for appeals.
Moderator reports may not federate properly and may delay moderator action. Please DM an active mod if an abusive comment remains after reporting it.
Welcome
Welcome to c/[email protected]. Broadly, this community is a place to discuss veganism. Discussion on intersectional topics related to the animal rights movement are also encouraged.
What is Veganism?
'Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals ...'
— abridged definition from The Vegan Society
Rules
The rules are subject to change, especially upon community feedback.
- Discrimination is not tolerated. This includes speciesism.
- Topics not relating to veganism are subject to removal.
- Posts are to be as accessible as practicable:
- pictures of text require alt-text;
- paywalled articles must have an accessible non-paywalled link.
- Content warnings are required for triggering content.
- Bad-faith carnist rhetoric & anti-veganism are not allowed, as this is not a space to debate the merits of veganism. Anyone is welcome here, however, and so good-faith efforts to ask questions about veganism may be given their own weekly stickied post in the future (see current stickied discussion).
- before jumping into the community, we encourage you to read examples of common fallacies here.
- if you're asking questions about veganism, be mindful that the person on the other end is trying to be helpful by answering you and treat them with at least as much respect as they give you.
- Misinformation, particularly that which is dangerous or has malicious intent, is subject to removal.
Resources on Veganism
A compilation of many vegan resources/sites in a Google spreadsheet:
Here are some documentaries that are recommended to watch if planning to or have recently become vegan:
- You Will Never Look at Your Life in the Same Way Again
- Dominion (2018) (CW: gore, animal abuse)
Vegan Fediverse
Lemmy: vegantheoryclub.org
Mastodon: veganism.social
Other Vegan Communities
General Vegan Comms
Circlejerk Comms
Vegan Food / Cooking
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Ground beef prices are lower in the USA compared to New Zealand due to government subsidies for grain production, which makes it cheaper for American cattle to be grain-fed. In contrast, New Zealand has eliminated agricultural subsidies, so their cattle are primarily grass-fed[3].
Specifically:
-
In the USA, grain farmers receive heavy government subsidies, artificially driving down grain prices. This makes it economical for large cattle operations to feed grain to their animals[2].
-
New Zealand is an island nation, so it is not feasible to ship in large amounts of grain to feed cattle. It makes more economic sense for them to raise cattle on grass[2].
-
The USA's indirect farm support programs, like buybacks and checkoffs, aim to boost demand for meat, thereby raising its price. However, these subsidies only slightly lower grain costs[3].
-
Nations that have eliminated farm subsidies, like New Zealand, have not seen rising meat prices or declines in meat consumption after removing subsidies[3].
So in summary, while both countries produce grass-fed beef, the availability of cheap grain through subsidies allows American producers to offer ground beef at lower prices compared to New Zealand's grass-fed beef, which lacks the same level of government support[1][2][3].
Citations: [1] http://newzealmeats.com/blog/nz-grass-fed-beef-high-quality/ [2] https://www.folsompointnutrition.com/blog/new-zealand-argentinian-and-american-liver-supplements-what-are-the-differences [3] https://faunalytics.org/why-is-meat-so-cheap/ [4] https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/omxum2/why_red_meat_is_getting_more_expensive/ [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_New_Zealand
Yes I agree. And that underlines the point I was making in my post : $30 per pound is BS
new zealand is much much different, they have almost no factory farms, this is not a global study, it was specifically the usa, thanks for the comment though
The point seems to have gone over your head. NZ is a smaller, unsubsidised, more expensive market than the US and ground beef doesn't cost anywhere near the $30 US per pound you are claiming.
Sounds like the same math that business owners used when they said the California $20 minimum wage for fast food workers would drive them out of business.
Right, why is that not the case in other countries? If this were true, most of the world would be vegetarian
Most of the world does indeed eats little to no meat, especially red meat. In the EU, these kind of subsidies also exist.
Plenty of the rest of the world eats lot of meat. All of the Western world, all of south America.
Most isn't the right word. In countries where the government doesn't or can't keep the cost is meat down, a lot of people don't east meet daily as it's more expensive than other food sources. Gigantic subsidies for meat and diary exist in the US, EU, China, Brasil,...
This is complete bullshit. I buy 1/2 cow from a local farmer and it comes out to cheaper than the store and he gets zero federal subsidies!
Why lie???
he gets zero federal subsidies!
How do you know? These subsidies need not be direct. For example, cattle feed could be subsidised. Not even the farmer might know that he's actually getting a subsidy.
Having said that, I know that at least in the EU, farmers are given very generous direct subsidies, propping up an unsustainable and ecologically destructive industry.
I'd eat my hat if they weren't taking subsidies and charging full price anyway.
Because it's the internet, where sensational claims get lots of reactions.
Hamburger meat 😂 Why would they not call it ground beef?
Or rotting, ground-up flesh from many cattle.
Don't be a dick
I oppose beef subsidies, but the unsubsidized price seems entirely fabricated. How can $38 billion across 80 billion pounds of meat and 25 billion gallons of milk make hamburger $25 cheaper per pound?
That’s why I buy ground pork! It’s much tastier than beef imho.
Lol butthurt moderator removed this.
And smarter!
Paywalls are a nuisance.
Article text
The True Cost of a Hamburger: Unveiling Hidden Subsidies
Hamburgers, those quintessential fast-food delights, have become a staple in many diets around the world. But what if I told you that the price you pay for that juicy patty doesn’t reflect its true cost? Buckle up as we explore why a pound of hamburger meat could cost a whopping $30 without taxpayer subsidies. The Subsidization Game
The United States federal government allocates a staggering $38 billion annually to prop up the meat and dairy industries. These subsidies significantly reduce the price of meat products, including hamburgers. Research from 2015 reveals that these subsidies slash the price of a pound of hamburger meat from $30 to the $5 we see today
However, here’s the catch: subsidies merely lower the market price of meat. They don’t account for the total cost of meat production. Instead, they shift part of these costs onto non-meat consumers. In a truly free market, consumers should bear the full costs of production. But with subsidized meat, those who neither consume meat nor benefit from its production end up footing part of the bill. Environmental Impact
Beyond economics, let’s consider the environmental toll. Industrialized agriculture, including meat production, plays a significant role in climate change and resource depletion. Here’s how:
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Agricultural land use contributes to 13% of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Half of these emissions stem from livestock production. Going vegan would significantly reduce this impact
Amazon Rainforest Destruction: Meat subsidies inadvertently incentivize the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. Brazil, a major beef producer, received substantial government investments in the beef industry. Unfortunately, this led to illegal rainforest burning to make room for cattle ranching, endangering thousands of species
Why Beans are the Best Protein in the World:
Beans, those humble legumes, hold a secret superpower: they’re super sustainable! Let’s dive into why beans are the unsung heroes of the protein world:
Climate Champion:
Meat production contributes to 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, beans emit 90% less harmful greenhouse gases per 100 grams of protein compared to beef.
Beans even benefit the environment by converting atmospheric nitrogen into usable soil nutrients. They’re like tiny nitrogen-fixing wizards!
Land Saver:
Livestock grazing consumes a whopping 26% of the world’s terrestrial surface. Cattle require 20 times more land per unit of protein than beans.
Imagine if we swapped beef for beans: over 40% of US cropland would be freed up! That’s a green revolution waiting to happen.
Soil Health:
Even after harvest, beans leave some nitrogen in the soil. This boosts soil quality and reduces the need for excess fertilizers.
Rotating beans with other crops enhances future yields and keeps diseases at bay. It’s like a natural soil spa day.
Water Warrior:
Producing a kilogram of beef guzzles 43 times more water than beans. Bean cultivation requires fewer fertilizers, preserving water quality.
Beans sip water like eco-conscious tea drinkers.
Biodiversity Booster:
Beans promote biodiversity by fixing nitrogen in the ground. They’re like the life coaches of ecosystems.
Plus, they’re a crucial component of natural functioning ecosystems.
Why Going Vegan Is Best
Now, let’s shift gears and explore why embracing a vegan lifestyle is not only better for the planet but also for our health:
Heart Health: Research involving 48,000 people over 18 years found that vegans and vegetarians have a lower risk of heart disease compared to meat-eaters. However, they do face a slightly higher risk of stroke due to potential vitamin B12 deficiency. But fear not — nutritional yeast or fortified foods can easily provide this essential vitamin
Reduced Environmental Footprint: Going vegan significantly shrinks our environmental impact. It conserves water, reduces deforestation, and minimizes greenhouse gas emissions. It’s like a green superhero cape for your plate!
Healthier Diet: A well-planned vegan diet is rich in fiber, vitamins, and minerals. It allows room for health-promoting options like whole grains, fruits, nuts, seeds, and vegetables. Plus, it’s kinder to animals and supports biodiversity.
So, next time you sink your teeth into a burger, remember that its true cost extends beyond the price tag. And perhaps consider swapping that beef patty for a plant-based alternative — it’s not just good for your health but also for the planet.
They wrote this seemingly on the back of 2015 subsidy research that they link to but instead it's a different article by the BBC that has no information about these subsidies. So it's not clear what the article is predicated on. Though some good points are made, I like to see more of the data presented in articles like this.
I had no idea it was that bad, thanks for sharing. Do you have a way of viewing the full article without signing up for an account?
Farm subsidies are a thing in general. Is there a comparison to subsidies for crops? Not vegan but I support cutting beef & dairy subsidies for sure.
For the EU it is 82% of the subsidies that go the animal industry: https://phys.org/news/2024-04-eu-farming-subsidies-emissions-intensive.html
You don't want to even start to look into subsidies for things like grain and corn. The subsidies for those are higher than the beef and dairy industry.
But those don't kill us and our planet
Let's ignore the absolute devastation to our ecosystem for the untold millions of acres of monoculture
Do you know how much nitrogen fertilizer corn needs? It is one of the heaviest users of petrochemical fertilizer.
More overall to feed it to cattle since that will always have us growing more plants than we would otherwise.
Zero.
The natives that cultivated corn never used petrochemicals. They planted beans with the corn, which provides all the nitrogen needed.
Yes planting the three sisters is a great way to farm in the arid west. It also requires the crops to be hand planted, weeded and harvested. There is no way that this could be done on a large enough scale to feed the current population or even the population 50 years ago.
There is a reason monocroping and petrochemical fertilizer exists. It is the most harmful form of farming, but is also the one way that enough food can be grown.
I dislike the current farming system, but to go back 100+ years to a time. When the only way to have the labor needed to farm was sharecropping or worse doesn't seem like a solution to me.
The reason it exists is because less people contribute to the growing process.
Its entirely false to think that we cannot feed our existing population without mechanized monocropping. We just need every able bodied person to contribute a few weeks out of the year to the fields. It is a shift, bit its not asking much.
Stop spreading misinformation. We don't need oil. We van easily feed everyone with sustainable methods. What we can't do is keep burning fossil fuels.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. I can't even. Dude you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you even know where we got nitrogen fertilizer before petrochemical? We were scraping bird poop off rookies and digging up bat caves. Destroying those populations as we did.
If you really believe this I would suggest you go try to pick veggies for a day. And not just a few in your back yard. Go out and spend 12 hours in the hot sun bent over as you get paid by the pound. Then come back here and say it is easy.
I recommend reading Conquest of Bread to see how easy it is to feed our population.
It wouldn't be 12 hours a day. It would be 4 hour days, at most a few months per year, more evenly distributed amongst all able bodied people.
We slave to capital not because we have to.
You're really just going to down vote me for having a counter argument? Come one, if you disagree back it up with a good argument not just a down vote.
Okay first off I did my university degree in animal sciences and spent just over ten years in the field. So don't @ me
Anyway you seem to be suggesting collectivization of farm work. That is a terrible idea on a few fronts.
First, off it would be incredibly inefficient believe it or not much of agriculture is high skilled labor. It takes years to learn how to do it, it is also one of the more dangerous jobs. You have to be able to handle heavy equipment, understand animals and how to handle them safely, be able to do field repairs on equipment that has the ability to kill if done incorrectly. This requires years of experience and tutelage not a few months a year.
Second, what about all the other high skilled workers that are pulled from their jobs to go do a job they don't know how to do for a third of a year. Do you really want surgeons with 10 years of education doing a job that could cause them to be unable to perform surgery due to the loss of a digit. Throwing away all the years of education and experience they have.
Third, it has been clearly demonstrated that collectivization of farm work leads to lower yields. The western world "won" the cold war in part by being able to feed their population. The USSR couldn't. The USSR went from about 7% of the population in ag to 50% under collectivization. This also led to several famines because yields dropped.
Fourth, do you understand the logistical feat to move everybody to a farm for a few months and then back to their other job. Where are we going to house them? What about their jobs they are doing back home? Something like might have worked a few hundred years when the number of skilled laborers was relatively low. That is not the case today every field is a field of skilled labor.
Look man if you want to say that laissez-faire capitalism is exploitative I'm not going to argue with you. You want to say that we need to be more fair to the people on the bottom rungs I'm not going to argue with you on that one either. But if you want to try to tell me that collectivization is the solution and we can feed the world without fertilizer I'm going to push back because it's just not true. I truly wish there was a better system and I would love to see it happen. Innovation in the field of ag would be amazing and there have been some great pushes forward recently. Moving to no till planting has done wonders for soil health, while high intensity grazing has reduced the impact of animal husbandry.
If you want to help make a better food system I am all for it, but don't go read a book and then tell the people actually doing the work that they need to change. Get your hands dirty and learn how and why it works first. Change can only happen from the inside.
I did. You disregarded it and doubled down on nonsense.
I don't see a point in continuing to repeat myself. Its easily achievable for everyone able bodied to get a few weeks off per year, take a bus to farmlands, and work a few hours per day for a few weeks to provide free food to everyone in their country without moncultures or petrochemicals.
Also, the downvote button isn't for disagreements. Its for hate speech, misinformation, etc
What??? I literally wrote paragraphs of supporting arguments to my position. While you repeated yourself and refuse to refute my arguments. That seems to be doubling down to me. If you really believe what you suggest will work you should be able to defend it and provide counter arguments. Show me how it will work. I am happy to listen, but if your position is so weak it can't withstand debate why should I just accept it?
And you are using the downvote because you are butt hurt. I said nothing hateful, or not factual.
You said we need to have monocultures and petrochemicals and machines in agriculture to feed our population. That's misinformation.
We need to not so those things to stop the climate emergency. And spreading such common misconceptions is harmful.
Just because you don't like something doesn't make it misinformation. The truth is currently the world is dependent on monoculture and petrochemicals. The Haber Process alone is responsible for half of the nitrogen atoms in your body. There are advancements that have reduced the use of fertilizer. The adoption of air drill planting has been a great revolution in fertilizer use reduction. Trust me if farmers could not use fertilizer they wouldn't that shit is expensive.
You are welcome to explain how I am wrong I would be happy to be wrong. All you have done is vaguely suggest the use of nitrogen fixing by the symbiotic relationship between legumes and bacteria. If you understood that process then you would know that it can't produce enough nitrogen to be an effective replacement.
The only other thing you have suggested is busing to the fields. That is exactly what Stalin and Pol Pot did. It was a failure for both of them and created famine and death.
I have repeatedly asked you to explain how I am wrong and how your system will work better. You have repeatedly failed to do that. Please prove me wrong, but don't just tell me I am lying without any supporting evidence.
True, but they also subsidize the beef and dairy industry. Cattle are fed not only the grain, but the stalks. Feed use ... typically accounts for about 40 percent of total domestic corn use.
So the cattle subsidies you see quoted for beef and dairy are usually an underestimate.
lol @ the downvotes, these are literal facts..