Panorama tonight (23/05) Antibiotic Crisis

Latest Articles

Panorama tonight (23/05) Antibiotic Crisis
Page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Downsizer Forum Index -> Livestock and Pets

Author

Message

Tavascarow

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall

Posted: Wed May 25, 16 7:15 pm Post subject:

Yet the government are asking doctors to prescribe less antibiotics. Which they have done. Far exceeding the requested 1%. Antibiotic prescriptions have dropped by 7%.
But what's the point of that when antibiotic use in livestock husbandry, particularly in the pig & poultry industries is rife.
& in America beef as well, as it's used as a growth promoter over there.
That's where the real reductions in use should be.
& unlike going organic or giving up those products, there's no benefits once those resistant bugs are circulating in the human sphere through human to human contact.
You can have the healthiest diet in the world but if the majority are still over consuming antibiotics from Doctors & through their food the risk is still high.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Wed May 25, 16 8:51 pm Post subject:
That's why I'm always saying that the eat less meat message is too simplistic. Killing off organic beef consumption is only helping the chicken boom. It's dangerous and it's being done in the name of sustainability. That is very, very wrong.

Tavascarow

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall

Posted: Thu May 26, 16 5:53 am Post subject:

We have had that argument too many times already & it's thread drift.

I personally think the main reason people eat more pork & chicken now & less lamb & beef is more about economics than health & the environment.
I'd guess organic chicken & pig farmers are struggling more than you. As they are competing against vastly cheaper factory farmed food & their feed vastly dearer than organic beef & sheep.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Thu May 26, 16 4:11 pm Post subject:

Tavascarow wrote:

We have had that argument too many times already & it's thread drift.

I personally think the main reason people eat more pork & chicken now & less lamb & beef is more about economics than health & the environment.

Oh thank **** for that, I've been making that point and didn't think anyone was listening. The issues are all interconnected

Tavascarow wrote:

I'd guess organic chicken & pig farmers are struggling more than you. As they are competing against vastly cheaper factory farmed food & their feed vastly dearer than organic beef & sheep.

But on the other hand people are eating vastly more pork and chicken (55.6% of all meat) than beef & other grazing meats (26%), and both the latter are on a downward trend of overall production (-11% & -44% respectively) compared to the former which have gone up (+25% & +478%). (figures from Nat Geo)

That's why the eat less meat thing is codswallop - we all know Tesco makes vastly more money than the corner shop, despite higher prices in the latter, because Tesco is shifting more stuff. And any business (or whole sector) can last longer with negative profit than it can with negative cashflow.

You may dismiss this as thread drift but I actually think it is right on point - unless you address the real reasons behind a problem, you're never going to address the problem & the situation is just going to get worse.

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46233
Location: yes

Posted: Thu May 26, 16 5:38 pm Post subject:

pile it high,rear it intensively and sell it relatively cheap is often going to be the way folk who shop by price want it .

the amounts of chook n pork sold are directly related to the lower prices compared to pre intensive methods

iirc during the change from rationing and a few farmyard birds to intensive chook raising in the uk 1950's the number of table birds went from about 5 mil (a bit over half a kilo per year per person) and mostly consumed by the chook keepers families to around 80 mil over a couple of years in the first shed production and by 1960 to far far more.that was pre antibiotic feed and 50000 birds to a shed and the current rate of production with birds at �2 a kilo which is cheaper than a lot of veg or half decent bread.

to maintain that scale at that price requires antibiotic feed so tis either antibiotic use or pricey chooks which most proles wont/cant pay for.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Thu May 26, 16 6:43 pm Post subject:
It's not just price though, public health information has been in favour of chicken as a 'healthier' alternative to beef for years now. You can offer chicken at a higher price than beef and people will buy it - Tesco chicken is the same price or more expensive than some of our beef.

Tavascarow

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall

Posted: Thu May 26, 16 9:39 pm Post subject:

But the profit margin on that chicken is pennies.
When Tesco where offering two birds for a fiver there was 1p profit for the supplier per bird (according to HFW).
Eating less will impact those low profit high output producers more than smaller, less intensive, low input farmers like yourself.
Because they rely on vulume not quality to make their living.
Encouraging eating more will just encourage more producers to intensify.
Meaning there will be more antibiotic meat on the market not less.

Ty Gwyn

Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4613
Location: Lampeter

Posted: Thu May 26, 16 10:06 pm Post subject:
The profit margin on intensive poultry is small,but HFW does exaggerate some what,lol.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Thu May 26, 16 10:28 pm Post subject:

Tavascarow wrote:

No, you've got it so wrong. Even if your profit is pennies, sell enough and you can keep paying the bills and riding the low points. If you rely upon selling an expensive product (lets face it, noone who ever advocates the eat less meat message ever produces the figures to back it up, otherwise we'd have a blueprint to work to) you're much more vulnerable to blip in the economy than a high volume, high turnover operation.

Eating less favours a high volume retailer such as Tesco more than it benefits me - if you're eating a small amount of meat every week you're better off in Tesco, because not only will they sell you a single slice of ham, but they also have all the other non-meat products that you'd replace it with (which are also much higher margin than any meat).

I have never said we need to encourage people to eat more of the stuff, more organic and grassfed, certainly, but overall the same amount would be ample. If you specify eating more but sustainably produced then you will always be limited by what can be produced. If demand exceeds supply then the price will rise, but if it turns out that sustainable ag can produce enough then we don't need to cut down. The important thing is the interim transition period - if the sustainable producer can't survive in that period then the only thing left to eat less of will be the antibiotic chicken.

As you said above, economics decides how much people can afford to eat, we don't need to encourage rich people to spend even less by buying less. At the same time, encouraging people to eat more [grassfed] beef can only help reduce the amount of meat [chicken] being consumed because it is generally more expensive.

I am one of those producers who should be benefitting from this 'eat less' scenario you describe, but I'm telling you it's wrong because the one group of people who keep my business going on a day to day basis are following the paleo-esque diets - they are eating more good quality meat, not less.

Low input is not no input, I met a farmer a few weeks ago who could control his chicken house from his mobile phone and had started a second business to fill his time. Whereas I am tied to checking and moving my cows on a daily basis, retailing and marketing, etc., etc., it all takes time. His position looked like a very attractive prospect to me and if I was more sensible I would have invested in an intensive poultry unit and just do the grassfed beef as a hobby.

Tavascarow

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall

Posted: Thu May 26, 16 11:02 pm Post subject:

Rob R wrote:

No, you've got it so wrong. Even if your profit is pennies, sell enough and you can keep paying the bills and riding the low points.

Fluctuations yes.
But if the population starts eating less meat consistently it will impact the high volume low profit producer before you.
If demand drops production will have to drop as well.
You can keep a bullock on grass or silage for a week or two if there's a drop in price & it wont cost you much.
But a broiler producer can't.
Broiler & intensive pork systems runs like clockwork.
There is very little wriggle room.
So if supply exceeds demand over an extended period their only option is to reduce production.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Thu May 26, 16 11:55 pm Post subject:

Tavascarow wrote:

Rob R wrote:

No, you've got it so wrong. Even if your profit is pennies, sell enough and you can keep paying the bills and riding the low points.

How does that differ whether you are a broiler or beef producer? A bullock for an extra couple of weeks will cost another �16 [all figures are approximate for illustrative purposes], unless you sell twice as many after a couple of weeks then you've got an extra one hanging around, taking up an extra space over winter. Assuming you have the spare space and silage for it that's another �184 in building space, so it's cost you an extra �200 up front, some of which you might get back if you expand, but you can't do that if your market is contracting. If you're a �1000 down on the sale of the animal that's a total of �1200 less money in the bank. If you make �10k for your efforts usually that's 12% of your income gone.

Like I keep saying, my customers, on the whole, are eating more meat - without them I wouldn't even be here to benefit from this theoretical future situation. Thankfully they are bucking the trend because without them we'd be history.

The people who are most likely to respond to this eat less message are people like you & I, already making the more ethical choices, not the McDonalds regular who, even if they do cut down, are paying the same price for the veggie burger as the Big Mac. As such it is, rather than helping, disproportionately harming businesses like mine, which can only make it easier for the intensive guys to prosper.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Fri May 27, 16 12:20 am Post subject:
Getting back on topic, Tesco is responding and the article has some interesting stats. More veggies in the country should, according to your logic, mean less intensive [antibiotic] farming...

Tavascarow

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall

Posted: Fri May 27, 16 7:16 am Post subject:

Rob R wrote:

Tavascarow wrote:

Rob R wrote:

No, you've got it so wrong. Even if your profit is pennies, sell enough and you can keep paying the bills and riding the low points.

How does that differ whether you are a broiler or beef producer?

Ultimately it wont.
If supply exceeds demand production will have to drop or prices drop to encourage more consumption.
& as the whole farming industry is already working at near or below break even levels there's only one option.
But an intensive low profit system like the majority of poultry, pork & feedlot beef/zero grazed dairy will be hit more than a low input more extensive system like yours.
Their investment in infrastructure (Often with borrowed money) is greater. Their cost of production with bought in concentrate feeds & fertilizers are much higher, & their profit margins per unit much lower (At least in the case of pork & poultry).
So the impact on the unsustainable, poorer quality, more environmentally damaging systems will be greater.

You are farming sustainably. & I'm pleased your customers keep coming back. & I want to see more farms like yours not fewer.
But the industry as a whole is unsustainable, damaging to the environment & as stated in this report increasing risks to human health.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Fri May 27, 16 7:27 am Post subject:
The biggest problem we have is people/organisations telling us what our problems are & not listening.

Tavascarow

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall

Posted: Fri May 27, 16 8:51 am Post subject:

Rob R wrote:

The biggest problem we have is people/organisations telling us what our problems are & not listening.

Pot & kettle springs to mind.

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Livestock and Pets	All times are GMT Page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 2 of 6

View Latest Posts