Again, a couple of good articles. I am not naive enough to believe that the cost of seeds does not enter into the equation, but I do believe it is only a part ,and possible a small part, of why the Indian producers are going bankrupt after a bad season. I suspect the answer is a little more complicated.
Like the Oklahoma lawsuit against the Arkansas chicken interests for possibly polluting the Illinois River by fertilizing fields with chicken manure, this one will be (I hope) decided on the legal issues. Although I know that political influence factors in these decisions, I'd like to think that our system is a system of laws, not a system of the whims of whoever happens to be in power at the time. I do favor competition, by the way. While some may find this to be proof of something, I notice that it is in process, not concluded. I'm kind of reminded of a recent thread over on the chicken forum. People were all up in arms over a law that had been passed. Turned out the law had not been passed, it was a proposed law. It had been proposed in the previous legislative session, not the current one. It had been soundly defeated. It was a non-issue but I agree I would have considered it a bad law, had it actually passed.
T&E, for example, sells conventional ground beef for $2.67 a pound. The local ground beef, from animals without antibiotics or hormones, goes for $3.50 a pound, and local grass-fed beef runs $3.99 a pound.
I wish the article had given the cost of comparable ground beef in the local supermarkets or health and natural food stores, wherever you could buy comparable products. Just quoting prices does little for me unless, at that snapshot in time, I have something to compare them to. Since being competitive to feed the masses worldwide instead of filling a niche market is (I think) a portion of this discussion, I think the article would have been a lot more informative with that information.
I'm trying, and failing, to rationalize why grass fed beef is more expensive than beef without hormones and antibiotics. The implication is that the hormone and antibiotic free beef is still feed lot finished, so they had to buy feed and provide the labor to feed and water. With grass fed beef, you have to maintain fences, fertilize and maybe lime the fields and wait until the cattle grow big enough to butcher. Should be less expensive, but maybe when you factor in the time value of money if you are operating on borrowed money (or looking at what your money invested could have been earning had it been invested elsewhere), factor in the cost of the extra land you need to grass feed, or maybe consider the smaller size of the grass fed animal at a comparable age due to slower growth on grass since it is a cost per pound basis?
I can only apply my knowledge and experiences to what I read. I am cynical enough to believe that some people, especially those with a passion for a cause, may be just a bit biased or simplistic in their writing or may be even a bit loose in their logic and reasoning. I have been involved in enough stories that made the media to know, since I had inside knowledge, that the reporter usually got some basic facts wrong. Not their fault. They are trained to report and usually don't have the detailed technical background to know when something is not quite right or maybe when some other piece of information would be pertinent to the story. I do try (and sometimes fail) to not fall in the trap of believing the conclusions I want to believe and ignoring things that don't jibe with my preconceived conclusions. I do occasionally change my conclusions.
Hattie, again thank you for pertinent and informative articles.
If you snooze, you lose.
....... 
............. 
