But What Happens To the Cattle Ranchers and Other Meat Producers?

Questioning the call for reduced meat consumption and production…

My boss raised this question to me when he and I were debating the cause for a reduction in meat consumption as discussed in another post on my blog.

I understand if you are arguing the consumer impact vs. the producer impact; The consumers far outweigh the cattle ranchers and other meat ‘farmers’. But without resorting to a socialistic means of reducing meat consumption for the greater good of the people and world, theoretically, how do we ensure that those producing meat are still able to make a living?

With 1 billion pigs, 1.3 billion head of cattle, 1.8 billion sheep and goats, and 15.4 billion chickens in the world, what happens to those who rely on these animals as a means of survival?

Laws of supply and demand argue that if these meat farmers were to give up producing meat and begin using their land and facilities to produce fruits, vegetables and the like, that the current market prices of these commodities would be reduced. Thus reducing profit for not only the farmers which have shifted to non-meat production, but for all farmers in general.

This argument he posed to me, and a response I was unable to think of at the time, is flawed in that all other factors in the market would not remain equal. The meals which meat is left out and substituted for vegetable and fruit products would cause an increase in demand and consumption for fruit and veg products. Thus overall supply and demand should even out for these products.

Now the question which is posed and needs to seriously be addressed is “Why would a meat producer want to switch to agricultural farming?” With the world meat demand ever increasing, and the price for all meats on the rise, from a financial standpoint, why would the worlds meat producers get out of the game during a period of rapid growth in demand with a limited supply, ensuring high prices and profit margins?

We have seen time and time again, and continue to see it in the food industry, that social responsibility of a firm is trumped by the shareholders and a quest for higher levels of profit. Is change then to come from the general public to begin eating less meat, or from the government, or from the producers? More people eat more meat than ever before, will anyone listen to the call to reduce such consumption without economic and governmental pressures? It of course is the right for everyone on this earth to eat whatever they would like (within the law), but what happens when the industries producing such food impose a high environmental and health cost to the public?

To expand on the question of “Why would a meat producer want to switch”, we have to take into account the billions of dollars of invested capital in these industries, both privately and publicly owned. I have a hard time believing that much of the equipment and methods used in producing meat can be transferred into agriculture. Are we then to ask that meat producers throw away all of these facilities and equipment and invest further in whatever it takes to grow the crop of their choice? And all of this for, what is up to now an indeterminable profit / loss.

I can understand market forces driving meat producers to switch to farming, but at this time do not see the world changing their diets for the better in a way that would facilitate such change.

To further the complexity of this situation and plan, international trade restrictions and taxes and government subsidies lift this further out of a realm of comprehension to place a blanket solution that the entire world would be able to work with.

Lastly, what about those who raise meat in areas which may not be adequate for other lucrative farming methods?

Thats enough pondering for tonight…