4 ms·

>To ignore the infrastructure and space that livestock use is making the implicit claim that livestock are 'free' instead of 'cheaper currently'. No one is ign

>To ignore the infrastructure and space that livestock use is making the implicit claim that livestock are 'free' instead of 'cheaper currently'. No one is ignoring it. It is already baked into the cost of the meat.

jzoch 5y ago
not exactly - cattle farming is very very heavily subsidized. The true price is definitely not baked in
- hcurtiss 5y ago
  This is a talking point for the environmental left, but it's not really true. Ranchers don't get cash subsidies (most other crops do). Farmland, including pastureland, is generally taxed at a lower rate than other lands, but that's because we usually want to disincentivize conversion to other uses. Likewise, sometimes there are NRCS grants available, but those are for things like wetland investments or fallowing ground. Public land grazing rates are lower than what you'd typically pay for private lands, but public lands generally have very low value/productivity with huge tracts of unfenced ground requiring relatively large investments to retrieve and drive cattle, and with a much higher mortality rates. Even if public land grazing were marginally less expensive, only a very small portion of cattle are fed on public lands -- I think it's something less than 2%. People like to distort the meaning of "subsidies," to cast disfavored industries in a negative light, but cattle are no more subsidized than housing or roads or cars or computers or any of the other things that make life better.
  - PretzelPirate 5y ago
    > most other crops do And some of these crops are used in finishing lots. > but cattle are no more subsidized than housing or roads or cars or computers or any of the other things that make life better. I think it’s questionable that cattle make “like better”. They are an inefficient form of food who suffer when we kill them, and we don’t need to eat them to eat delicious, nutritious food.
- macinjosh 5y ago
  Do you have any evidence or a link explaining what these subsidies are? I have been unable to find anything that is not supremely partisan. The only subsidies I can find to support this are FEMA disaster relief and some grants that encourage ranchers to do certain conservation practices.
nimih 5y ago
Maybe it's different in your country, but in the USA, meat production is heavily subsidized by the federal government, and the environmental externalities (carbon and otherwise) generated are not exactly priced in, either.
- macinjosh 5y ago
  It really isn't "heavily" subsidized at all. Please provide evidence for these claims.
  - ffffwe3rq352y3 5y ago
    From what I've looked up It seems like BLM land is cheaper than private land. The current fee of $1.35 per animal unit month for 2021 is the minimum that was set in 1981. So to me it looks like we are giving the farmers cheap land. [1] [2] However, I also read an article [3] that seems to indicate that the complete opposite was true as farmers who use BLM land have to maintain it which made public land cost $1.20 more than private (2011). However, I don't really trust this that much as the guy who wrote it was a farmer and on the "Public Lands Council" which is a pro ranching organization. [4] [1] https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-and-forest-service-announce-2021-grazing-fees https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-and-forest-service-ann... [2] https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RS21232.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RS21232.pdf [3] https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/273445-time-for-the-truth-about-public-land-grazing https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/27344... [4] https://publiclandscouncil.org/ https://publiclandscouncil.org/ (I didn't spent a lot of time researching but I found those articles interesting so hopefully you will as well!)
    - Loughla 5y ago
      I don't understand how BLM land maintenance is a justification for saying that there are heavy subsidies for the beef industry. Are you contending that most beef interacts with BLM properties in some fashion?
      - 5y ago

jzoch 5y ago

not exactly - cattle farming is very very heavily subsidized. The true price is definitely not baked in

hcurtiss 5y ago
This is a talking point for the environmental left, but it's not really true. Ranchers don't get cash subsidies (most other crops do). Farmland, including pastureland, is generally taxed at a lower rate than other lands, but that's because we usually want to disincentivize conversion to other uses. Likewise, sometimes there are NRCS grants available, but those are for things like wetland investments or fallowing ground. Public land grazing rates are lower than what you'd typically pay for private lands, but public lands generally have very low value/productivity with huge tracts of unfenced ground requiring relatively large investments to retrieve and drive cattle, and with a much higher mortality rates. Even if public land grazing were marginally less expensive, only a very small portion of cattle are fed on public lands -- I think it's something less than 2%. People like to distort the meaning of "subsidies," to cast disfavored industries in a negative light, but cattle are no more subsidized than housing or roads or cars or computers or any of the other things that make life better.
- PretzelPirate 5y ago
  > most other crops do And some of these crops are used in finishing lots. > but cattle are no more subsidized than housing or roads or cars or computers or any of the other things that make life better. I think it’s questionable that cattle make “like better”. They are an inefficient form of food who suffer when we kill them, and we don’t need to eat them to eat delicious, nutritious food.
macinjosh 5y ago
Do you have any evidence or a link explaining what these subsidies are? I have been unable to find anything that is not supremely partisan. The only subsidies I can find to support this are FEMA disaster relief and some grants that encourage ranchers to do certain conservation practices.

nimih 5y ago

Maybe it's different in your country, but in the USA, meat production is heavily subsidized by the federal government, and the environmental externalities (carbon and otherwise) generated are not exactly priced in, either.

macinjosh 5y ago
It really isn't "heavily" subsidized at all. Please provide evidence for these claims.
- ffffwe3rq352y3 5y ago
  From what I've looked up It seems like BLM land is cheaper than private land. The current fee of $1.35 per animal unit month for 2021 is the minimum that was set in 1981. So to me it looks like we are giving the farmers cheap land. [1] [2] However, I also read an article [3] that seems to indicate that the complete opposite was true as farmers who use BLM land have to maintain it which made public land cost $1.20 more than private (2011). However, I don't really trust this that much as the guy who wrote it was a farmer and on the "Public Lands Council" which is a pro ranching organization. [4] [1] https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-and-forest-service-announce-2021-grazing-fees https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-and-forest-service-ann... [2] https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RS21232.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RS21232.pdf [3] https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/273445-time-for-the-truth-about-public-land-grazing https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/27344... [4] https://publiclandscouncil.org/ https://publiclandscouncil.org/ (I didn't spent a lot of time researching but I found those articles interesting so hopefully you will as well!)
  - Loughla 5y ago
    I don't understand how BLM land maintenance is a justification for saying that there are heavy subsidies for the beef industry. Are you contending that most beef interacts with BLM properties in some fashion?
    - 5y ago