Grain Prices Up 120%!

[stevento]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/04/14/world.food.crisis/index.html

I bet dollars to donughts this is somehow connected to global warming!
I wonder what it'd be like for us her in USA to walk into a grocery store and see the price of everything doubled!

[dukebound85]

or fuel prices plus weak dollar yes?

[killerrobot]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/04/14/world.food.crisis/index.html

I bet dollars to donughts this is somehow connected to global warming!
I wonder what it'd be like for us her in USA to walk into a grocery store and see the price of everything doubled!

The issue is also fueling a rising debate over how much the rising prices can be blamed on ethanol production....

Analysts agree the cost of fuel is among the reasons for the skyrocketing prices...

Another major reason is rising demand, particularly in places in the midst of a population boom, such as China and India.

Looks like you've got your top three reasons right there in the article.

And if you've never seen food prices doubled in the US, you need to walk into a Whole Foods.:eek:

[dukebound85]

Looks like you've got your top three reasons right there in the article.

And if you've never seen food prices doubled in the US, you need to walk into a Whole Foods.:eek:

i LOVE Whole Foods

[Sun Baked]

Just wait until the brokers playing the oil market right now switch to the agriculture futures market. :eek:

[stevento]

my brother is an enviornmentalist hippie vegan and he has (allegedly) hard proof that meat production is in part responsible for higher food prices, global warming and poverty

[Rodimus Prime]

my brother is an enviornmentalist hippie vegan and he has (allegedly) hard proof that meat production is in part responsible for higher food prices, global warming and poverty

By part of the reason is that because they are eating same grain they have been for years. If they stop raising mean grain prices more than likely would fall but Meat production is not the reason grain prices are going up.

Ethonal is one reason, higher fuel cost, droute and flooding in some parts of hte world killing off a lot of the crop

[ucfgrad93]

my brother is an enviornmentalist hippie vegan and he has (allegedly) hard proof that meat production is in part responsible for higher food prices, global warming and poverty

Really, I thought it would be Bush's fault. ;)

Seriously, like others have said it is a combination of factors.

Just wait until the brokers playing the oil market right now switch to the agriculture futures market.:eek:

Ain't that the truth.

[Ugg]

The misnamed "Green Revolution" gave most of the world lower food prices for over 50 years. It wasn't that long ago that most people in the western world spent ~30% of their income on food. Now it's about 10%.

The revolution took place due to a single factor. Oil. Not only did increases in transportation efficiency allow the growth of large scale farming, post WWII production of oil based fertilizers and pesticides meant yields skyrocketed.

Little can be done to increase yields anymore, despite the desperate claims of ADM and Monsanto. Water is more scarce in most parts of the world as well.

Last but not least is the fact that the world's population has increased from about 2.5 billion in 1950 to about 6.5 billion today.

Not only will people in the west see food prices rise dramatically, many people in Africa and Asia will face death from starvation.

[walangij]

Last but not least is the fact that the world's population has increased from about 2.5 billion in 1950 to about 6.5 billion today.

Not only will people in the west see food prices rise dramatically, many people in Africa and Asia will face death from starvation.

This is the worst part :mad:. Already at 6.5 billion we're having substantial troubles with maintaining this population w/ current technologies. When the population is @ 9.0 billion by 2050 we'll be in even more hot water, we seriously need some major revisions to our way of life. Are we near exceeding the maximum population of humans earth can sustain?

Where is my space ship?

[Ugg]

my brother is an enviornmentalist hippie vegan and he has (allegedly) hard proof that meat production is in part responsible for higher food prices, global warming and poverty

As a population's income rises, people are able to buy more expensive food. Meat is generally at the top of the new shopping list. Ironically, Argentina, one of the most meat friendly countries in the world, has turned a lot of the pampas into soybean fields. The soybeans are then exported as cattle and human feed while the rural population in some areas faces starvation.

Rising meat prices should theoretically slow demand, therefore allowing more grain to be consumed by humans.

The excess commodities program has been a mainstay of school lunches and soup kitchens. Since there are virtually no excess commodities in this day and age, schools are having to buy more food directly increasing costs and many more Americans are having to do without an adequate diet.

Heroin addicts probably have it easier weaning themselves from heroin than the US will when it comes to weaning itself from the false promises of cheap oil.

[stevegmu]

Just wait until the brokers playing the oil market right now switch to the agriculture futures market. :eek:

Most of us who play the commodities markets are already into agricultural futures. Many started to diversify investments when the stock market began its roller-coaster ride, and invested in commodities- artificially driving up prices.
Grain, however, I blame on the ethanol initiative, and increase in the cost of diesel fuel.

[Desertrat]

Yeah, "all of the above", except that climate change is not particularly a factor. Multi-year drouths are nothing new; they come along roughly every couple of dozen years (In the U.S., that holds true back to the Civil War. Peak-to-peak, 22 years.).

A major contributory factor is the increased buying power for food in China and India. So, naturally, more demand for meat. And, of course, more rice and wheat than before, since they can afford more quantity of staple vegetables.

A major impact was the ethanolitis, as mentioned before at this forum. That's diverted millions of acres, worldwide, from wheat and hops to corn--but with a reduction of availability of corn as food for both people and livestock.

So, as usual, Economics 101 rules...

'Rat

[hulugu]

There's also a 20% to 80% rise in the price of hops, owing to poor crop yields, rising barley prices, and a shortage of growers. Gas prices and 'ethanolitis' also seem to be contributing.

[BoyBach]

Did you know that last year was a 'bumper crop' (2.1 billion tonnes), up 5% on the previous year? The crime of it is is that only around half of it will be eaten by us humans: "...760m tonnes will be snatched from the mouths of humans to feed animals..." -
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/15/food.biofuels)

Also, did you know that it 'costs' 700 calories of feed to produce 100 calories of beef? -
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/opinion/07krugman.html)

Add to this the ridiculous bio-fuel craze that has been sweeping the worlds governments and it was a disaster waiting to happen.

[Ugg]

There's also a 20% to 80% rise in the price of hops, owing to poor crop yields, rising barley prices, and a shortage of growers. Gas prices and 'ethanolitis' also seem to be contributing.

That is indeed tragic for beer drinkers.

When I first read your post I saw "hogs" instead of hops.

One reason why food prices have remained fairly flat in the last 20 years is the growth of hog and chicken factories. Most chicken and pork in the US is processed by a very few companies. From a strictly economic viewpoint, those companies have squeezed every last ounce of waste out of the process while destroying many independent farmers.

There will be no more efficiency gains in meat production until meat can be grown in a test tube.

Hopefully what this means is that some of the mega processors will disappear as it becomes more efficient to process meat closer to the consumer.

[fivepoint]

The misnamed "Green Revolution" gave most of the world lower food prices for over 50 years. It wasn't that long ago that most people in the western world spent ~30% of their income on food. Now it's about 10%.

The revolution took place due to a single factor. Oil. Not only did increases in transportation efficiency allow the growth of large scale farming, post WWII production of oil based fertilizers and pesticides meant yields skyrocketed.

Little can be done to increase yields anymore, despite the desperate claims of ADM and Monsanto. Water is more scarce in most parts of the world as well.

Last but not least is the fact that the world's population has increased from about 2.5 billion in 1950 to about 6.5 billion today.

Not only will people in the west see food prices rise dramatically, many people in Africa and Asia will face death from starvation.

A lot of TRUTH in this post. However, I found your claim that ADM and Monsanto can't continue to increase yields to be a bit short-sighted. Perhaps you were simply talking about already agriculturally-advanced locations... but if not, I will point you to locations where agriculture is a rapidly growing culture and where simple genetic modifications can turn a 'natural' 20 bushel/acre crop into a pest proof, drout resistant 100-200 bushel/acre crop.

Companies like Monsanto are doing more good for this world than any hippie tree hugging organization or Al Gore ever will. Its too bad our suburban hippie know-nothings will never understand this fact and continue to spread their destructive propoganda in colleges and internet forums everywhere...

[fivepoint]

Did you know that last year was a 'bumper crop' (2.1 billion tonnes), up 5% on the previous year? The crime of it is is that only around half of it will be eaten by us humans: "...760m tonnes will be snatched from the mouths of humans to feed animals..." -
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/15/food.biofuels)

Also, did you know that it 'costs' 700 calories of feed to produce 100 calories of beef? -
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/opinion/07krugman.html)

Add to this the ridiculous bio-fuel craze that has been sweeping the worlds governments and it was a disaster waiting to happen.

There's always another side to the story. I recommend some actual research intead of taking talking points out of newspaper headlines. The quote before comes from a source that disputes these facts... I am not saying that everything that they say is truth, only pointing out the obvious falicies in what you said, and posting a couter-argument which prooves my original point that you can't get all the information you need from a newspaper article or liberal blog.


"The activist myth goes something like this: meat production uses outrageous amounts of water, feed and land that should be used for something else. The truth is it takes 2.6 pounds of grain and 435 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef in the United States. The reality is that 85 percent of the nation’s grazing lands are not suitable for farming. It is important that we use land that is too rough, too high, too dry, too wet and largely inaccessible to graze livestock to produce food for the world’s population. Cattle eat forages that humans cannot consume and convert them into a nutrient-dense food."

I also feel obligated to point out that all foodstuffs are not created equal. For example... if you are growing genetically optimized corn, you can get about 200 bushels/acre on an average farm in Iowa (US State). On that same exact ground, if you were growing actual human consumable sweetcorn, you are looking at somewhere around 50-100 bushels/acre.

[latergator116]

Companies like Monsanto are doing more good for this world than any hippie tree hugging organization or Al Gore ever will. Its too bad our suburban hippie know-nothings will never understand this fact and continue to spread their destructive propoganda in colleges and internet forums everywhere...

Can you elaborate on that? What destructive propaganda are you talking about?

[Ugg]

A lot of TRUTH in this post. However, I found your claim that ADM and Monsanto can't continue to increase yields to be a bit short-sighted. Perhaps you were simply talking about already agriculturally-advanced locations... but if not, I will point you to locations where agriculture is a rapidly growing culture and where simple genetic modifications can turn a 'natural' 20 bushel/acre crop into a pest proof, drout resistant 100-200 bushel/acre crop.

Companies like Monsanto are doing more good for this world than any hippie tree hugging organization or Al Gore ever will. Its too bad our suburban hippie know-nothings will never understand this fact and continue to spread their destructive propoganda in colleges and internet forums everywhere...

As stated earlier, the so called gains of GM come with a huge price. Few 3rd world farmers can afford the seeds, fertilizers and pesticides needed to provide the yields that you claim. Many that attempt to grow GM crops often find themselves in an endless cycle of debt. All it takes is one year of drought, "unexpected" failure of GM crops, etc, etc and the farmer is finished.

[Ugg]

"The activist myth goes something like this: meat production uses outrageous amounts of water, feed and land that should be used for something else. The truth is it takes 2.6 pounds of grain and 435 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef in the United States. The reality is that 85 percent of the nation’s grazing lands are not suitable for farming. It is important that we use land that is too rough, too high, too dry, too wet and largely inaccessible to graze livestock to produce food for the world’s population. Cattle eat forages that humans cannot consume and convert them into a nutrient-dense food."

I also feel obligated to point out that all foodstuffs are not created equal. For example... if you are growing genetically optimized corn, you can get about 200 bushels/acre on an average farm in Iowa (US State). On that same exact ground, if you were growing actual human consumable sweetcorn, you are looking at somewhere around 50-100 bushels/acre.

How many American cattle spend their lives on open range? My guess is that very few see a blade of grass for more than a few short months of their life. Most US cattle spend their entire lives in feedlots, living in their waste. They eat food that is saturated with antibiotics. The bulk of their food is corn and corn is ill suited to ruminants. There are pretty suggestive links between the rampant spread of ecoli and the high sugar content of feed corn.

There are also fairly strong links between "mega yield" grain varieties and severe environmental degradation. How much topsoil has disappeared from Iowa fields in the last 150 years? How much is left? And, probably most importantly, how long will it last?

Soil is something that can't be replaced no matter how many chemicals are pumped into it.

[fivepoint]

How many American cattle spend their lives on open range? My guess is that very few see a blade of grass for more than a few short months of their life. Most US cattle spend their entire lives in feedlots, living in their waste.

I would guess about 99% of them start their lives on the open range. Almost an idential percentage (those which are not raised as veal) put on roughly 60% of their "kill weight" before being weaned off of their mother. Virtually ALL of pre-wean weight is put on by grass feeding and mother's milk. Cows are virtually never fed grain... So to answer your question, a HECK of a lot more than you care to admit.



They eat food that is saturated with antibiotics. The bulk of their food is corn and corn is ill suited to ruminants. There are pretty suggestive links between the rampant spread of ecoli and the high sugar content of feed corn.


You're right... sick cattle and cattle that died from illness are far more tasty and good for you than those which received antibiotics to keep them healthy. ;) I think we would ALL be better off without antibiotics! Hooray!

Corn is ill-suited to ruminants? I'd love to hear your philosophy on this one... apparently you know far more about it than the people that raise cattle for a living. If only they knew that the corn they were using was "ill-suited to ruminants!" You could start a revolution.




There are also fairly strong links between "mega yield" grain varieties and severe environmental degradation. How much topsoil has disappeared from Iowa fields in the last 150 years? How much is left? And, probably most importantly, how long will it last?

Soil is something that can't be replaced no matter how many chemicals are pumped into it.

I hate this... I really hate this part of the job. I don't like to be the person to break this to you, but do you know how soil is created? I mean... how did it get there? Well, the little secret is bio-mass. Bio-mass from grass, from weeds, from trees, from... CORN, from BEANS! CRAZY, huh? Iowa creates its own soil through the life cycle, so don't worry about that.

And uh... where exactly do you think this soil is going? Is it dissapearing or being taken by aliens? It must go somewhere!

[fivepoint]

As stated earlier, the so called gains of GM come with a huge price. Few 3rd world farmers can afford the seeds, fertilizers and pesticides needed to provide the yields that you claim. Many that attempt to grow GM crops often find themselves in an endless cycle of debt. All it takes is one year of drought, "unexpected" failure of GM crops, etc, etc and the farmer is finished.

Right... like Brazil?

Modern farming is the single-best thing that has ever happened to third-world countries. It gives them self-sufficiency and sustainability, something that they can't get anywhere else.

What would the seed companies have to gain by putting all of their farmers out of business? This is one heck of a conspiracy theory... if only you could actually see the success stories related to modern farming in third world countries... but no, that would be too many clicks on "the internets."

Listen Ugg, you said it best man. "The misnamed "Green Revolution" gave most of the world lower food prices for over 50 years. It wasn't that long ago that most people in the western world spent ~30% of their income on food. Now it's about 10%. " This quote gives a great example of how modern farming can change a people's future for the best.

[blackfox]

The only thing I enjoy patronizing is my local coffee shop...

[Desertrat]

Beef: Ol' mama cow, she'll give ya maybe nine calves before she goes off in that beef category known as "canners and cutters". The calves, at around 400 to 500 pounds, are sold into the feedlot world. Prior to that, they've been on mama's milk and pasturage. I haven't kept track of the whole feedlot deal, but at around a thousand pounds, they head for Ruth's Chris.

A helluva lot of the U.S. is quite suitable for livestock, but truly sucks for farming. Legally, "desert" is 17" of rainfall or less. That begins about the middle of the coutnry, and goes pretty much to the west-coast mountains. Farming in those areas is via irrigation.

Hops: Micro-breweries in the Pacific Northwest have had troubles from either shortages or high prices. Some have shut down. In Germany, since sometime last year, beer prices have risen about 15%, last I read. Corn instead of hops and barley.

Dry land farming (no irrigation), if you get three good years in five, you're in good shape and the banker's happy. A good fourth year, and it's new-Cadillac time. Irrigators don't make as much money in the good years as a dry-lander, but they don't have the bad-year valleys from lack of rainfall. A more even money-flow. Higher overhead, though, from buying or pumping water and a bigger bill for bug-spray, so less net profit per acre.

A guy named David Pimental, a researcher at Cornell U, in a 1998 research paper concluded that it takes 129,600 BTU to produce one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol contains

[skunk]

A guy named David Pimental, a researcher at Cornell U, in a 1998 research paper concluded that it takes 129,600 BTU to produce one gallon of ethanol.The same guy concluded that it takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef.

[Desertrat]

Beef: Ol' mama cow, she'll give ya maybe nine calves before she goes off in that beef category known as "canners and cutters". The calves, at around 400 to 500 pounds, are sold into the feedlot world. Prior to that, they've been on mama's milk and pasturage. I haven't kept track of the whole feedlot deal, but at around a thousand pounds, they head for Ruth's Chris.

A helluva lot of the U.S. is quite suitable for livestock, but truly sucks for farming. Legally, "desert" is 17" of rainfall or less. That begins about the middle of the coutnry, and goes pretty much to the west-coast mountains. Farming in those areas is via irrigation. California's Central Valley depends on snowmelt from the mountains north of Sacramento, largely. The Great Plains farmers irrigate from the Ogalalla Formation, which is recharged from underground seepage from the eastern slopes of the Rockies. The Ogalalla is mostly overlain by impervious strata, so no recharge from rainfall.

Hops: Micro-breweries in the Pacific Northwest have had troubles from either shortages or high prices. Some have shut down. In Germany, since sometime last year, beer prices have risen about 15%, last I read. Corn instead of hops and barley.

Dry land farming (no irrigation), if you get three good years in five, you're in good shape and the banker's happy. A good fourth year, and it's new-Cadillac time. Irrigators don't make as much money in the good years as a dry-lander, but they don't have the bad-year valleys from lack of rainfall. A more even money-flow. Higher overhead, though, from buying or pumping water and a bigger bill for bug-spray, so less net profit per acre.

Ethanol: A guy named David Pimental, a researcher at Cornell U, in a 1998 research paper concluded that it takes 129,600 BTU to produce one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol contains 76,000 BTU. IOW, a net loss from this ethanolitis. I do not know what factors beyond corn production and factory conversion were included. Possibly pumping of water, and hauling of product...

Demographics: I read just today that for the first time in world history, more people live in cities than out in rural areas. This means more people depending on others to produce their food. Fewer home-grown veggies and yard-eggs. So, with more prosperity in the cities, more food per capita is consumed.

Ain't we got fun?

'Rat

[iJohnHenry]

Whatever.

By the time they can no longer produce ale I will be drooling into a cup.

I'm getting mine while I can.



[Queso]

Whatever.

By the time they can no longer produce ale I will be drooling into a cup.

I'm getting mine while I can.


This from the poster who was so concerned about the future of the human race in the thread about gay divorce...

[Eraserhead]

Another major reason is rising demand, particularly in places in the midst of a population boom, such as China and India.

The Chinese had a population of over 1 billion in 1982, they now only have a population of 1.3 billion (30% higher). Comparatively the world had a population of about 4.6 billion in 1982, and now has a population of 6.6 billion (43% higher). So in fact China's population has increased less than the world average, not exactly what I'd call a "population boom".

You're right... sick cattle and cattle that died from illness are far more tasty and good for you than those which received antibiotics to keep them healthy.

Do you actually understand what you're talking about? Pre-emptively giving antibiotics to animals and people just makes the bacteria immune to the antibiotics. That's why doctors are more reluctant to give out antibiotics, and insist people take them for their full term.

Of course if the animals are actually sick, even in Organic farming you can give them antibiotics.

This from the poster who was so concerned about the future of the human race in the thread about gay divorce...

Gay divorce is far worse for humanity than any food shortage though :eek:. [/sarcasm]

[Iscariot]

You're right... sick cattle and cattle that died from illness are far more tasty and good for you than those which received antibiotics to keep them healthy. ;) I think we would ALL be better off without antibiotics! Hooray!

I hate this... I really hate this part of the job. I don't like to be the person to break this to you, but do you know how soil is created? I mean... how did it get there? Well, the little secret is bio-mass. Bio-mass from grass, from weeds, from trees, from... CORN, from BEANS! CRAZY, huh? Iowa creates its own soil through the life cycle, so don't worry about that.

And uh... where exactly do you think this soil is going? Is it dissapearing or being taken by aliens? It must go somewhere!


I think what makes the condescension in your post all the more amusing is just how poorly informed you are. To begin with, do you even know what antibiotics are? Do you realize that an abundance of anti-biotics will compromise your immune system and allow for infections of opportunity that can kill you? There's a reason that human beings aren't swimming with antibiotics from daily doses.

Additionally, might want to look into "topsoil loss" and "desertification". I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with aliens.

[fivepoint]

I find it deeply amusing that you guys only responded to one small part of my post... apparently because you couldn't prove me wrong on any of the others, an you saw a little light at the end of the tunnel on this one issue.

Well, unfortunately for you, you're wrong again. I find it unfortunate that you think that you know better than the professionals who actually raise the cattle. The professionals who are up every morning at 6:00 feeding them, treating sick animals in the rain, snow, sleet, and aren't in from night-time chores until 8:00.

Somehow, you, from your suburban palace reading liberal blogs and trying to fine things to 'stand for' so you don't feel so bad about yourself... somehow you, who has never spent a day on a farm or possibly never even seen a feeder calf in person... somehow you, who wouldn't know the difference between a steer and a heifer if it was right in front of your nose... DARES TO GIVE ADVICE TO THESE PROFESSIONALS.

YOU ASSUME, based on something you read in one blog post and/or one news article that farmers and rachers all across the world overmedicate their animals. When in all reality, THEY'RE the ones who should be worried about such a thing! They're theones who lose their livelyhood if the system fails and the cattle die. They're the ones who spend millions upon millions of dollars sent to beef organizations and college research to try and improve their practices.

The truth is folks, that modern farming practices are the reasons that all of you spend 10% of your income on food, and not like UGG stated earlier... 30%. Modern farm practices have left you with cleaner, safer, fresher, more tasty and 'good for you foods' than has EVER been available in the HISTORY OF MAN. And yet you hippies make it out to be the devil, second only to the almighty conservative, which will be the downfall of our society because of runoff and feeding corn to cattle.

You're right... farming is HORRIBLE! I don't know how we live with it! I think we should all start our own gardens and be come self-suffecient! Hoooray!

[skunk]

Somehow, you, from your suburban palace reading liberal blogs and trying to fine things to 'stand for' so you don't feel so bad about yourself... somehow you, who has never spent a day on a farm or possibly never even seen a feeder calf in person... somehow you, who wouldn't know the difference between a steer and a heifer if it was right in front of your nose... DARES TO GIVE ADVICE TO THESE PROFESSIONALS.Oooh, I love it when you lose your rag! Incidentally, I was brought up on a farm, so you can leave all that rabid ranting about armchairs and liberals at the door.
Oh, look what I found, and it's from cattletoday.com, no doubt a hotbed of liberal city folk.
http://www.cattletoday.com/archive/2005/May/CT395.shtml
OVERUSE OF ANTIBIOTICS MAY BE LEADING TO RESISTANCE

by: Heather Smith Thomas

Use of antimicrobial drugs in food animals has become a controversial issue. There is growing concern among the public that overuse of antibiotics (in treating or preventing disease in both humans and animals) is possibly leading to resistant strains of pathogens that in the future may not be readily controlled by these drugs.
Marie Bulgin (Caine Veterinary Teaching Center, Caldwell, Idaho) says that no one not beef producers, nor veterinarians - advocates indiscriminate use of antibiotics. "We all know it's important for producers and veterinarians to be responsible in their use of antibiotics. This is essential for the future of our profession. But often we tend to look to antibiotics as a cover up for bad management. People would rather get out a syringe and needle than do what it takes to prevent the diseases in the first place (such as having the animals in a clean environment). I think there are a lot of improvements we can make; we need to look at what's causing the diseases we are treating, and look toward prevention rather than treatment," she says.

"That's a question of management. But no matter how good your management is, there will be times you need to use antibiotics. We do need to pay more attention to prevention programs, vaccination, ways to relieve stress, etc. If we do this, we won't have to rely on antibiotics so much; it won't be quite the issue it is now."

YOU ASSUME, based on something you read in one blog post and/or one news article that farmers and rachers all across the world overmedicate their animals. When in all reality, THEY'RE the ones who should be worried about such a thing! They're theones who lose their livelyhood if the system fails and the cattle die. They're the ones who spend millions upon millions of dollars sent to beef organizations and college research to try and improve their practices.Some of us know that antibiotics are not just used to prevent disease:
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/antibiotics_and_food/european-union-ban.html
European Union Bans Antibiotics for Growth Promotion
Europe is far ahead of the United States in the responsible use of antibiotics. On January 1, 2006, the European Union banned the feeding of all antibiotics and related drugs to livestock for growth promotion purposes. The sweeping new policy follows up a 1998 ban on the feeding of antibiotics that are valuable in human medicine to livestock for growth promotion. Now, no antibiotics can be used in European livestock for growth promotion purposes.

Related Links
offsite
2006: The EU bans all non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in agriculture
in food and environment
Estimates of Antimicrobial Abuse in Livestock
The restrictions on antibiotic use are intended to preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics for human use. Long-term, low-level feeding of antibiotics to animals, a practice common in U.S. livestock production, creates the ideal conditions for the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The bacteria can be transferred to consumers in improperly cooked meat and can result in severe, even fatal, illness. People can also be exposed to antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the environment, due to the practice of spraying farm fields with animal manure, which allows resistant bacteria and antibiotics to enter the soil, air, and water. Farm workers can also contract antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections from working around livestock. Keeping antibiotics out of animal feed in the first place is the best way to limit the development of antibiotic resistance and keep antibiotics working in humans.

In the United States, antibiotics and related drugs are used routinely to encourage growth and to compensate for crowded and unsanitary conditions in the production of poultry, swine, and cattle. Livestock producers are not restricted from using antibiotics that are important in human medicine, nor are they required to get a prescription from a veterinarian or limit treatment to the few individuals who demonstrate symptoms of illness. Instead, antibiotics are commonly administered in drinking water to entire flocks of chickens, fed to pigs to stave off illness during forced early weaning, and given prophylactically to beef cattle to ease their transition from grass to a corn diet. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that 70 percent of antibiotics and related drugs used in the United States are used in animals.

Antibiotic-resistant illness causes tens of thousands of premature deaths in the United States annually and drives up medical costs. Restricting the inappropriate use of antibiotics in both the medical and the agricultural sector can save lives and money.
The truth is folks, that modern farming practices are the reasons that all of you spend 10% of your income on food, and not like UGG stated earlier... 30%. Modern farm practices have left you with cleaner, safer, fresher, more tasty and 'good for you foods' than has EVER been available in the HISTORY OF MAN. And yet you hippies make it out to be the devil, second only to the almighty conservative, which will be the downfall of our society because of runoff and feeding corn to cattle.Please take your intemperate redneckery somewhere else. It's really not contributing very much.

[Eraserhead]

YOU ASSUME, based on something you read in one blog post and/or one news article that farmers and rachers all across the world overmedicate their animals.

If you also want to read the latest scientific evidence from the New England Medical Journal (one of the best medical journals in the world) in the world check out.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/340/20/1581

Specifically:

In modern production of food animals large amounts of antibiotics are used for therapy, prophylaxis, and growth promotion. Much of this use can be reduced by the development of better feeding practices and production systems that promote animal health and welfare. In Denmark, the total amount of antibiotics used in food animals in 1994 was 205 tons: 90 tons for therapy and prophylaxis and 115 tons for growth promotion. By the year 2000, this use will have been reduced to approximately 50 tons by the combined effects of legislation, voluntary discontinuation of the use of antimicrobial growth promoters, and new antimicrobial-prescribing guidelines for practicing veterinarians. This reduction is taking place with no apparent adverse effects on animal health and welfare or on the income of the producers.

If we do not want to lose the effect of quinolones for empirical treatment of gastrointestinal infections in humans, the use of quinolones in animals must be limited as much as possible. Quinolones should be used for the treatment of animals only when all other therapies have failed. Furthermore, quinolones should not be licensed for use in animals for indications for which therapeutic alternatives are available, at least until alternatives to the quinolones have been developed for the empirical treatment of gastrointestinal infections in humans. The agricultural industry should be aware that in the future, foodstuffs containing quinolone-resistant bacterial pathogens may be considered unfit for human consumption.


The following article is also interesting:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/343/26/1961

[fivepoint]

Thanks for posting those articles and helping to prove my point! As you can see, especially from the first article... professional cattlemen everywhere are constantly trying to improve their practices and create the best future possible for their customers and their own operation.

It's just common business sense!

[skunk]

Thanks for posting those articles and helping to prove my point! As you can see, especially from the first article... professional cattlemen everywhere are constantly trying to improve their practices and create the best future possible for their customers and their own operation.

It's just common business sense!No, what the articles show is that "professional cattlemen" in the USA have a strong tendency to overuse antibiotics inappropriately both for growth promotion purposes and to cover up poor practice. Did you actually read the articles?

[Desertrat]

skunk, it probably does take that 2,500 gallons of water for a pound of beef. Not just for the grain; that feedlot steer's gotta drink water. According to the PennState Ag folks, 12 gallons per day for a steer. Roughly 90 to 120 days in a feedlot, that's around 1,100 to 1,500 gallons. (And that steer drank water before he got to the feedlot.) Add in the processing water in slaughterhouses and such. Water for cleaning up the mess must be included in the total.

All this talk about drugs'n'beef makes me glad I'm a deer hunter. :D Just a natural-food freak, is all...

'Rat

[Eraserhead]

Thanks for posting those articles and helping to prove my point! As you can see, especially from the first article... professional cattlemen everywhere are constantly trying to improve their practices and create the best future possible for their customers and their own operation.

Did you just completely ignore the scientific evidence I quoted from one of the world most respected medical journals?

[fivepoint]

Did you just completely ignore the scientific evidence I quoted from one of the world most respected medical journals?


Hahaha, yes... I did. I tend to ignore sources which were written 10 years ago.

[Eraserhead]

Hahaha, yes... I did. I tend to ignore sources which were written 10 years ago.

OK, can you find some evidence in a respected medical journal that is more recent that backs up your point then?

Otherwise since the scientific evidence from 10 years ago directly contradicts what you've said I think we'll have to go with that.

[fivepoint]

You're making it too easy man. First of all, the article requires a subscription to their website, which I will not purchase... post the article here if you want a reply to it.

Second of all, based on the 'summary' provided, the article itself admits to knowing nothing, stating this:

"They concluded that major gaps in the data need to be filled in order for them to assess the public health implications of the use of quinolones in animals used for food. "

So... really you're posting worthless information.

On the other hand, there are REAL beef organizations who spend millions of dollars a year searching ways to improve their livlihood by making better products. Safer product, more healthy product, leaner product, more efficient product... These are the people who really care about beef safety, because it affects them directly. Here is one such organization.

http://www.bifsco.org/deImages/BIFSCOhome3.jpg


I am going to try and stop posting to this section of the forums... it is obvious that you guys get all of your knowledge from links posted on liberal blogs and propoganda passed down from like minded people only. You've never taken the time to actually visit a farm, see what the people are like and what their motivations are. You would have no idea that there isn't a single person on the planet more concernet with the safety and quality of beef than the beef farmer themselves.

You sit on your ivory towers criticizing something you know nothing about, and wonder why no one in the 'real world' ever takes you seriously. The people you are criticizing are the 'heartland' of the U.S. They are 'salt of the earth' people with great morals and family values. Hold your head high gentleman, you're really making a difference by criticizing the people and industry that has made your lives the way they are.

You're right man... farmers are the devil, and farming is the worst thing to ever happen to this world. ;) Enjoy your thoughts... I'm just glad that intelligent people all over the world can see the hypocricy.

[hulugu]

^
fivepoint

Now, when you're done beating that straw-man silly, would you be willing to post some links or references for us?

[CanadaRAM]

The truth is it takes 2.6 pounds of grain and 435 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef in the United States. The reality is that 85 percent of the nation’s grazing lands are not suitable for farming. It is important that we use land that is too rough, too high, too dry, too wet and largely inaccessible to graze livestock to produce food for the world’s population. Cattle eat forages that humans cannot consume and convert them into a nutrient-dense food."

But there your argument breaks down completely. Most beef cattle are grain fed, either all their life, or in feedlots for finishing -- fattening them up for market. The industrial production of beef does not, and could not, be sustained with open foraged herds. That is the reason why there are high yield, highly fertilized, highly pesticized corn and grain farms dedicated to supplying the feedlots. You can't get millions of fat steers from nutrient poor forage.

[Eraserhead]

You're making it too easy man. First of all, the article requires a subscription to their website, which I will not purchase... post the article here if you want a reply to it.

I'd love to, but its copyrighted. The quote I provided is as far as I can go under any reasonable assumption of "fair use".

Second of all, based on the 'summary' provided, the article itself admits to knowing nothing, stating this:

"They concluded that major gaps in the data need to be filled in order for them to assess the public health implications of the use of quinolones in animals used for food. "

Not true, that was the position before this research was carried out. In fact even in the summary it makes it clear that some of the gaps in the WHO report have been filled.

[skunk]

Hahaha, yes... I did. I tend to ignore sources which were written 10 years ago.What's your excuse for ignoring the report from 2006 which I posted, then? Wrong conclusion for you? Too liberal?

[Iscariot]

I find it deeply amusing that you guys only responded to one small part of my post... apparently because you couldn't prove me wrong on any of the others, an you saw a little light at the end of the tunnel on this one issue.

75% factually incorrect is still 75% factually incorrect. But hey, congratulations, you're not completely misinformed. All you've done since is throw up the mother of all straw men, a veritable army of Ray Bolger's singing and dancing, stuffed with straw and wishing they only had a brain.

You can claim "liberal bias" all you want, but you can't argue with satellite imaging of topsoil loss. The crux of your argument is that current agricultural is responsible, and the continued loss of topsoil makes that claim demonstrably false. Everything else is just window dressing.

[Eraserhead]

What's your excuse for ignoring the report from 2006 which I posted, then? Wrong conclusion for you? Too liberal?

Given that he decided to take the opposite conclusion from the conclusion fairly clearly given by the Scientists in mine, I suspect it just had the wrong conclusion ;).

However mine was fairly technical. So I'll sum up the key points.


In Denmark, the total amount of antibiotics used in food animals in 1994 was 205 tons ... By the year 2000, this use will have been reduced to approximately 50 tons ... This reduction is taking place with no apparent adverse effects on animal health and welfare or on the income of the producers.

If we do not want to lose the effect of quinolones for empirical treatment of gastrointestinal infections in humans, the use of quinolones in animals must be limited as much as possible.


Noting that quinolones are a type of broad spectrum antibiotic (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinolones)).

[skunk]

Given that he decided to take the opposite conclusion from the conclusion fairly clearly given by the Scientists in mine, I suspect it just had the wrong conclusion ;).

However mine was fairly technical. So I'll sum up the key points.I did read it. It's not rocket science...

[stevegmu]

But there your argument breaks down completely. Most beef cattle are grain fed, either all their life, or in feedlots for finishing -- fattening them up for market. The industrial production of beef does not, and could not, be sustained with open foraged herds. That is the reason why there are high yield, highly fertilized, highly pesticized corn and grain farms dedicated to supplying the feedlots. You can't get millions of fat steers from nutrient poor forage.


It depends where you are talking about. Russian and Eastern European cattle are mainly open-range, grass-fed, since land is plentiful, and feed costs money. Unfortunately, the beef is not as tasty, as the fat content is roughly half as much as grain-fed cattle. I think Brazil had a program several years back to raise cattle on grass, rather than feed.

[skunk]

It depends where you are talking about.Clearly he is not talking about Russian and Eastern European cattle. Why are you?

[BoyBach]

Why are we asking this now?

People are dying because of the global food shortage, which has sparked a sudden surge in food prices. The global food bill has risen 57 per cent in the last year, the price of rice is up by three quarters, and wheat has more than doubled. The head of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation, Jacques Diouf, warned this week that riots in Egypt, Cameroon, Haiti and Burkina Faso over soaring prices could spread.

World grain stocks have fallen to a 25-year low of 5 million tons, enough for two to three months, and World Food Programme officials say 33 countries in Asia and Africa face political instability as the urban poor struggle to feed their families. "The world food situation is very serious," Mr Diouf said.

Are we growing too little food to feed the world?

Bizarrely, no. There was a record global grain harvest last year. It topped 2.1 billion tons, up 5 per cent on the previous year. The problem is that a diminishing proportion of it is being turned into food. This year less than half the total grown – 1.01 billion tons – will find its way on to people's plates, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation. And this crisis is hitting before world food supplies are further damaged by climate change.

So where is the grain going?

There are two reasons why the record amount of grain is proving insufficient to feed the world. First, a large amount is being diverted to make biofuels. From yesterday, all transport fuel sold in the UK must be mixed with at least 2.5 per cent biofuel made from crops. As our front page explained yesterday, the Government's idea is that this will make Britain's 33 million cars greener.

But the consequence is that there is less grain available for food. This year global production of biofuels will consume almost 100 million tons of grain – grain that could have been used to feed the starving. According to the UN, it takes 232kg of corn to fill a 50-litre car tank with ethanol – enough to feed a child for a year. The UN last week predicted "massacres" unless the biofuel policy is halted. Jean Ziegler, the UN's special rapporteur on the right to food, said biofuels were "a crime against humanity", and called for a five-year moratorium.

Would cutting car use solve the food crisis?

Not on its own. Of course we should be reducing our reliance on the car, and on jet travel and other profligate uses of energy, for environmental reasons. Cutting car use, and reducing energy demands overall, would cut demand for biofuels, leaving more grain available for food. But while 100 million tons of grain are being diverted to make fuel this year, over seven times as much (760 million tons) will be used to feed animals. The world's passion for meat is a much bigger cause of global hunger than its passion for the car.

How does eating meat cause hunger?

Because it is a very inefficient way of producing food. It takes 8kg of grain to produce 1kg of beef, and large tracts of forest have been cleared for grazing land that might have been used to grow crops. Chicken is more efficient to produce – it takes 2kg of feed to produce 1kg of meat. To maximise food production it is best to be vegan. According to Simon Fairlie, in his magazine The Land, it would take just 3 million hectares of arable land to meet Britain's food needs, half the current total, if the population were vegan.

Isn't it completely unrealistic for Britain to go vegan?

Of course. Vegans number 0.4 per cent of the population, vegetarians 3 per cent, and most people will not take readily to a diet of green leaves, pulses, fruit and nuts. This is about the direction we should be moving in, not the ultimate destination. We should be aiming to reduce our meat and dairy consumption, and increase consumption of fruit and vegetables.

We are eating 50 per cent more meat than in the 1960s, and global consumption is forecast to double by 2050. More of the extra is chicken, and we eat less red meat than in the past (and a lot less than the Americans). But in terms of overall meat consumption, we are not even going in the right direction.

What about the rest of the world?

China, India and other parts of the developing world are behind the soaring demand for meat. Eating meat is a mark of affluence, and as societies in the east grow wealthier they are demanding the same benefits of a diet that the west has enjoyed for more than a century. In China meat consumption has risen from 20kg a head in 1980 to 50kg a head today. As meat consumption rises there is less grain for (human) food, adding to the pressure on grain prices

Food export controls have been imposed by Russia, China, India, Vietnam, Argentina and Serbia in response to the crisis. Last week the Philippines had to hunt for grain supplies after China withheld shipments, prompting the US to step in to guarantee grain supplies. Tensions are growing not only over energy, but now over food.

Are there other reasons for cutting back on meat-eating?

Yes. The largest study of the link between diet and health published by the World Cancer Research Fund last November concluded that animal flesh occupies too big a place in the western diet, contributing to high rates of cancer and heart disease. There are also environmental benefits from cutting down on meat. Each of Britain's 10 million cows produces more greenhouse gases in the form of methane per day than the average 4x4 on a 33-mile drive. Giving up meat could have a comparable impact on climate change to giving up flying.

Finally, there could be animal welfare benefits. The less meat we eat, the more we can afford to pay – and farmers selling fewer animals at higher prices should be able to provide them with better conditions.

So what diet should we be aiming for?

One that does not eschew meat altogether – if that seems too difficult – but that puts more emphasis on the vegetarian elements. In many countries meat is regarded as a relish, with the bulk of the meal coming from carbohydrates – corn, rice, pasta or potatoes – and vegetables.

We should get used to thinking of meat as a treat – it could help to save the world's poor from starvation.

Should we be trying to cut out meat to help save the world's poor from starvation?

Yes...

* Producing meat is less efficient than growing grain – it takes 8kg of corn to produce 1kg of beef

* Growing crops to feed animals means there is less land on which to grow crops for humans

* There is a shortage of grain for human consumption, and global food prices have leapt by 57 per cent in a year

No...

* It is not realistic to expect people to switch to a vegan diet of vegetables, pulses, fruit and nuts

* China and India should not be denied the same diet that we have enjoyed as they grow wealthier

* An alternative way of tackling the food crisis would be to reverse the policy of diverting grain to make biofuels

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/the-big-question-is-changing-our-diet-the-key-to-resolving-the-global-food-crisis-809566.html


Apologies for using a "liberal" source for my "propaganda"!

[Desertrat]

CanadaRAM is mistaken about the feeding of grains. Feedlots, yes. Dairy cows, yes. Range (beef) cattle, not much if any. The vast majority graze, with winter supplement. The winter supplement is hay and "range cubes". Range cubes contain mostly cotton-seed "innards". Cotton-seed hulls have other uses. (Although back some sixty years ago, we'd feed cotton-seed hulls to the horses, with a large dollop of cotton-seed meal added on. Energy, so they could pull a plow, cultivator or wagon.)

IMO, the best tasting beef is from range-fed steers of three to four years of age, grained for maybe a month before slaughter. (Back before WW II, that's what "aged beef" actually meant.) It's lean and has a good taste without having to add a bunch of spices and/or sauces. Chewy, yeah, but nowhere near tough. Feedlot beef is way too soft to suit me...

'Rat

[stevegmu]

I found this paper rather interesting.

Grassfed Certification: The Case of the Uruguayan Beef Industry

http://www.agmrc.org/NR/rdonlyres/CB436400-2034-4615-8EA0-488E877DB098/0/KStateGrassFedCertificationMay9.pdf

[Ugg]

I found this paper rather interesting.



http://www.agmrc.org/NR/rdonlyres/CB436400-2034-4615-8EA0-488E877DB098/0/KStateGrassFedCertificationMay9.pdf

Would you care to expand on why you thought it was interesting?

I didn't find anything revolutionary or even thought provoking in it. Just a tale about how a small country is trying to find a foothold in the global beef market. Uruguay has done a good job but...

[solvs]

You sit on your ivory towers
My apt is brown and green, not ivory, so do I get to post?

Clearly he is not talking about Russian and Eastern European cattle. Why are you?
Obfuscation?