2

votes

What can I do (farm subsidies, lobbying, ConAgra, factory farming)

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created June 03, 2012 at 1:50 AM

I think... the ideal situation would be to keep more grasslands, which are more natural than wheat fields anyway. Then we'd have more land to raise meat, instead of relying on factory farms.

I heard this is possible but the politics, lobbying, and farm subsidies favor wheat over meat.

But, as a young, working, busy person, what can I do? I don't know if there's anything I can do, like "voting".

I don't think I make sense at the moment, but here is the article I read, to give you an idea: http://paleodietlifestyle.com/vegetarianism-bad-environment/

I am lost.

8e10b687e328468783a72c55b64710e8

(1453)

on June 12, 2012
at 04:45 AM

Yeah it's the subsidies.

8e10b687e328468783a72c55b64710e8

(1453)

on June 12, 2012
at 04:44 AM

Thanks for the tip (:

8e10b687e328468783a72c55b64710e8

(1453)

on June 12, 2012
at 04:43 AM

Sorry but not all of us have that much voting power in the money department. :/

03fa485bfd54734522755f47a5e6597e

(3944)

on June 04, 2012
at 03:50 PM

Calories and profitability really have nothing to do with each other. Yes, there are more calories in a pound of wheat than in a pound of beef, but that's primarily because the wheat is dried and the beef is not. But the farmer might get 90 cents for a pound of beef, versus 12 cents for a pound of wheat. Only the subsidies make it profitable to grow grains today.

03fa485bfd54734522755f47a5e6597e

(3944)

on June 04, 2012
at 03:45 PM

The US government currently pays farmers *not* to produce anything on 35,000,000 acres of land, an area the size of Arkansas. This isn't scrub ground either; it's land that was previously in crops. We could raise a *lot* more meat without touching any precious rain forest or the like.

5cd8441bd01fc10816085bfc092477c4

(925)

on June 03, 2012
at 12:21 PM

true that^. Unfortunately, in the case of beef (cattle are a large animal) more and more forest land must be cleared to create pasture for grass-fed beef. This is what is happening to the rain forest in Brazil and Peru.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on June 03, 2012
at 04:23 AM

Not to mention the subsidies game, there aren't any subsidies for grassfed livestock as far as I know.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on June 03, 2012
at 04:22 AM

Yup, money speaks.

  • 8e10b687e328468783a72c55b64710e8

    asked by

    (1453)
  • Views
    1.2K
  • Last Activity
    1432D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

4 Answers

2
Ce41c230e8c2a4295db31aec3ef4b2ab

(32564)

on June 03, 2012
at 02:36 AM

Vote with your dollar by buying local, 100% grass-fed/free-range/organic and check out this link: http://organicconsumers.org/

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on June 03, 2012
at 04:22 AM

Yup, money speaks.

8e10b687e328468783a72c55b64710e8

(1453)

on June 12, 2012
at 04:43 AM

Sorry but not all of us have that much voting power in the money department. :/

1
6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on June 03, 2012
at 04:25 AM

Write well written letters to your representatives, post those letters on Facebook and ask your friends if they agree with it to forward it to their representatives. Might feel like pissing in the wind at first, but it is possible to create a critical mass of squeaky wheels if there is enough buzz.

8e10b687e328468783a72c55b64710e8

(1453)

on June 12, 2012
at 04:44 AM

Thanks for the tip (:

0
5cd8441bd01fc10816085bfc092477c4

(925)

on June 03, 2012
at 02:06 AM

honestly, I know that everyone here is interested in primal/paleo diet, and I do not eat wheat (or corn and other mass-farmed grains), but when it comes down to money, it is more profitable to raise wheat (and corn)than it is cattle, unless you have thousands of head and can run them on public land (as is premitted in the Western USA). The energy you derive from 1 lb of beef is far more expensive to raise than one lb. of wheat. There are 1429 calories in one lb. of wheat. There are 864 calories in 1 lb of grass-fed beef. It is a matter of economics, not ethics, when it comes to most farmers feeding their families, or stock-holders making money (in the case of corporate farming)

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on June 03, 2012
at 04:23 AM

Not to mention the subsidies game, there aren't any subsidies for grassfed livestock as far as I know.

5cd8441bd01fc10816085bfc092477c4

(925)

on June 03, 2012
at 12:21 PM

true that^. Unfortunately, in the case of beef (cattle are a large animal) more and more forest land must be cleared to create pasture for grass-fed beef. This is what is happening to the rain forest in Brazil and Peru.

03fa485bfd54734522755f47a5e6597e

(3944)

on June 04, 2012
at 03:50 PM

Calories and profitability really have nothing to do with each other. Yes, there are more calories in a pound of wheat than in a pound of beef, but that's primarily because the wheat is dried and the beef is not. But the farmer might get 90 cents for a pound of beef, versus 12 cents for a pound of wheat. Only the subsidies make it profitable to grow grains today.

03fa485bfd54734522755f47a5e6597e

(3944)

on June 04, 2012
at 03:45 PM

The US government currently pays farmers *not* to produce anything on 35,000,000 acres of land, an area the size of Arkansas. This isn't scrub ground either; it's land that was previously in crops. We could raise a *lot* more meat without touching any precious rain forest or the like.

8e10b687e328468783a72c55b64710e8

(1453)

on June 12, 2012
at 04:45 AM

Yeah it's the subsidies.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!