Subsidizing Beef

Meat subsidies were mentioned in another thread

Apparently the beef industry has been taken by surprise and hasn't said too much, but I have found a few saying this is not happening. At the very least we can be sure that any subsidy is exaggerated by advocates

Quote:

Is the beef for sale at the grocery store or in a restaurant subsidized by the government? In short, no, beef farmers and ranchers do not receive a check just for raising cattle, nor do they receive government compensation when cattle prices are low. Like essentially every industry in the U.S., the government is involved in some way, but with beef the government is involved much more in food safety certification after the animal is harvested.

https://thecowdocs.wordpress.com/2017/02/28/do-cattle-ranchers-and-farmers-get-government-subsidies/

Quote:

Mark Ferguson
Lives in Arkansas (1966–present)Author has 2.6K answers and 6.2M answer views8y
Originally Answered: In what ways is beef production subsidized?

In the US there is no direct subsidy for livestock. Corn is subsidized and in theory that keeps the price of feed low however the diversion of corn into ethanol coupled with recent droughts has made corn an expensive feed. The situation has been made worse because of the oil production in North Dakota. Rails are running at high volume carrying oil and space for corn shipments has been limited. Many midwest farmer are selling corn at negative premium below market price because of the shipping problem.

https://www.quora.com/Meat-In-what-ways-is-beef-production-subsidized

the following link illustrates the fact that the Feds are "involved in some way" but some of these things increase the price of beef. Beware of advocate exaggeration

https://ambrook.com/funding/product/beef-cattle

Beef would not exist (in a normal consumer context) without subsidies even conservative think tanks admit this:

https://www.aier.org/article/the-true-cost-of-a-hamburger/


If you cut off the subsides for all agriculture, animal products would be the most impacted. Plant growth would be fine and probably would go back to the natural levels (without an absurd level of corn growers for feed and ethanol subsidies).

You can very easily make an argument that simply cutting all farm welfare (which by the way mostly helps large companies, local farms rarely benefit) would be the best action to save the government money and increase veganiam through the free market.

I used to have a cow-calf operation in the USA.

It wasn't a small operation.

I did it as an investment to help pay land off, while I was employed in R & D for a major corp.

I worked about 18 hours per day, some days.

Even on weekends.


I never was subsidized for beef production.

However, I was subsidized to not grow crops, although only very low amounts.

I was not subsidized to not raise beef.

Worth noting, are wetlands (even small areas) have very strict rules.


It could be subsidies are given in a different food chain (beef) area but definitely not for the folks like me.

Quote: Gandler

Beef would not exist (in a normal consumer context) without subsidies even conservative think tanks admit this:

https://www.aier.org/article/the-true-cost-of-a-hamburger/

they've bought into some exaggerated stuff here from some "studies" I am really wondering about. If it is true that it's a matter of corn being subsidized, that's 99% for ethanol production and also pandemic problems.

Quote:

If you cut off the subsides for all agriculture, animal products would be the most impacted. Plant growth would be fine and probably would go back to the natural levels (without an absurd level of corn growers for feed and ethanol subsidies).

as you note

Quote:

You can very easily make an argument that simply cutting all farm welfare (which by the way mostly helps large companies, local farms rarely benefit) would be the best action to save the government money and increase veganiam through the free market.

I can't help but notice that the attack on meat is a two-pronged assault from a coalition of climateers* and Vegans.

* coining a word here

I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me]

Quote: odiousgambit

they've bought into some exaggerated stuff here from some "studies" I am really wondering about. If it is true that it's a matter of corn being subsidized, that's 99% for ethanol production and also pandemic problems.

as you note

I can't help but notice that the attack on meat is a two-pronged assault from a coalition of climateers* and Vegans.

* coining a word here

Oh no, I am fine with a total cutoff of all agriculture subsidies. It is just corporate welfare.

It is just secondary that it would have a desirable effect of closing meat and dairy operations while not really effecting plant production (except where there is artificial excess like you mention).

But of course vegans and climate advocates are going to support this. Factory Farming (of meat) is the worst thing you can do for both animal rights and environment, so I don't see why this is a suprise. But, many (non paid off) conservatives support this too from an economical perspective because it is a massive welfare program.

Quote: odiousgambit

I can't help but notice that the attack on meat is a two-pronged assault from a coalition of climateers* and Vegans.

*

How come it's only the side one doesn't approve of that has the agenda? You just have to decide what's true as best as you can and assume agenda isn't just one side.

In my experience, most vegans and climate change advocates, reside in large blue cities (metro areas).

It's understandable because they choose to live in areas that are not like a beautiful farm where farmers take care of nature ecologically.


It's interesting behavior.

Most of the time, they seem to create most of the pollution, yet if I take you to a farm, it could blow your mind how we conserve.

Conserve resources = Conservative.

I would be for making meat producers pay for the cost of meat inspection, if that is an issue. I bet that wouldnt quadruple cost though, where are they getting that?

What else is really valid as a claim that it is subsidized? I'm not thinking corn growing subsidies count

Margins are not there.

Here is how beef producers, like me, manage.


It's in the tax code.

The net is very small, if any, if a first generation farmer (land & equipment not paid-off).

The net is very small if a fourth generation farmer.


But here is the catch.

The land and equipment eventually get paid-off.


Land prices have skyrocketed as well as machinery.

So net worth increases but profit could be absent.


The largest issue I had to deal with, is nature.

I couldn't count on rain.

If rain was constant, then the risk would go way down.


So farmers play craps.

Quote: odiousgambit

I would be for making meat producers pay for the cost of meat inspection, if that is an issue. bet it wouldnt quadruple cost though, where are they getting that?

What else is really valid as a claim that it is subsidized? I'm not thinking corn growing subsidies count

Feed subsidies absolutely count. Most subsidized plant producers are only subsidized because of an artifical mark (feed or fuel). So growing feed is certainly a meat/dairy subsidy.

If ending all agriculture subsidies would not effect the price of meat, then why have them? They are either uneeded (and lining somebody's pockets) or they are creating artifical prices in the market so that people who cannot afford meat can be encouraged to buy it. You can't have it both ways.


The below article is correct, there should be no tax on meat, simply removing subsidies will put the price where it should be.


"According to recent studies, the U.S. government spends up to $38 billion each year to subsidize the meat and dairy industries, with less than one percent of that sum allocated to aiding the production of fruits and vegetables.6 Most agricultural subsidies go to farmers of livestock and a handful of major crops, including corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, and cotton, with payments skewed toward the largest producers. Corn and soy inputs, in particular, are heavily subsidized crops for the production of meat and processed food by some of the world’s largest meat and dairy corporations. These farm subsidy programs supplement adverse fluctuations in revenues and production, and purchase farmers’ insurance coverage, product marketing, export sales, and research and development.7 This means that while shoppers pay lower immediate prices at the checkout counter, their tax dollars fund major meat operations and advertising. Meanwhile, meat and dairy producers accrue yearly retail sales to the tune of 250 billion dollars.8"
https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/removing-meat-subsidy-our-cognitive-dissonance-around-animal-agriculture