4 ms·
There is also the argument that anything we do to provide additional revenue for the cattle industry is an indirect subsidy for beef. If nobody bought leather,
by ElevenLathe 4y ago
There is also the argument that anything we do to provide additional revenue for the cattle industry is an indirect subsidy for beef. If nobody bought leather, beef would have to be more expensive, which might reduce beef consumption and therefore the footprint of the cattle industry. I don't know enough about the markets involved to say how realistic this is, but it is an argument I've seen.
You could also say the opposite: If nobody bought beef, leather would become much much more expensive, so therefore beef is an indirect subsidy to the leather industry. I've never seen this argument made anywhere though.
- euroderf 4y agoI've had paragraph 1's thought myself. But yes, if lab-grown beef takes off then paragraph 2 applies too, and then leather becomes more difficult to justify. Does not detract from its utility though.
- ElevenLathe 4y agoI hadn't thought of this before, but maybe lab-grown leather is actually a better use of industrially-cultured animal tissue? Seems like, as a durable material, it would be worth more investment (equipment, labor) per unit (mass, volume) of end product. Presumably it's harder to grow cultured leather than just to grow some goop that can be processed into something like hamburger meat though.
- euroderf 4y agoYeah I would imagine so. Meat/muscle seems relatively undifferentiated compared to hide/skin, which has layers and would need gradients to form properly.