 |
|
| General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Organic turkey
My brother mentioned an organic turkey brand by the name of Deitzel?
Deitsel? He wasn't sure of the spelling. Does anyone what the brand is? He said this is one of the better quality turkeys. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
no
-- Bruce-n-Gold Beach |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Bob wrote: > My brother mentioned an organic turkey brand by the name of Deitzel? > Deitsel? He wasn't sure of the spelling. Does anyone what the brand > is? He said this is one of the better quality turkeys. Slow Food has an excellent heritage turkey program. See http://www.slowfoodusa.org/ark/turkeys.html for background and ordering info, if you're interested. According to one of the organizers of the heritage turkey program: "I don't like to be negative, but watch out for turkeys advertised as Heritage breeds which aren't. Diestel Turkey ranch is raising an older breed called the Orlop strain of Broad-Breasted Bronze turkey. This is the predecessor of the Broad Breasted White. It's essentially a white, but with brown feathers. These turkeys were developed by Orlop Turkeys and others in the 1930's. They can't mate naturally. They do not mature like true Heritage Turkeys and they don't taste as good. Diestel is by far the largest independent turkey producer in Northern California. Patrick and I approached them in 2002 to raise real Heritage Turkeys but they went in their own direction instead." Jeneen |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
at Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:05:41 GMT in
>, (Michael Odom) wrote : >On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 06:04:03 -0000, >(Alex Rast) wrote: > >>Diestel. Personally I think their main organic line, "Heidi's Hens" >>isn't as good as Shelton's organic. However, they have a better line, >>"Heritage" which is pretty good. >> >>Irritatingly, none of them seem to be available fresh,... >>It would seem as though, somehow, there aren't many people who care >>that their meat is frozen if they're buying organic. Furthermore, it >>would seem as though the distribution systems that prevail in the USA >>make it *incredibly* difficult for an organic producer to get fresh >>meat to market.... >> >>Any answers to these, anybody? > >'Round these parts (NE Texas) the health and food safety laws pretty >much put the kibosh on finding never-frozen organic meats unless you >slaughter your own. It's not a matter of what I would like to have, >it's a matter of the scale of production which proves prohibitive for >small producers to meet the fresh meat regulations. At least that's >what I think is going on. Yeah, people say that the regulatory environment is tough, but what I don't understand is, how can the legislators draft legislation that would make it tough for organic producers to sell fresh? I don't mean what motivation or excuse they can use to justify this - it's always possible if not probable that legislators are in the back pocket of large, industrial meat producers who would naturally wish to see the regulations favour *them* - that, I have no problem understanding. What I don't get is, what specific provisos do they have in the law that makes it so hard? It seems to me that you'd have to do something like explicitly set an absolute minimum on quantity of meat shipped in order for it to be able to be fresh. If so, where are the activists, for surely a law like this is so manifestly preferential to industrial businesses that the activists could create a media circus over it? If not, it would seem to me that the worst they could do is make the resulting meat more expensive. And if that's the case, is the number of people who recognise that there is no free lunch and would be prepared to pay more for fresh, organic meat really that small? If so, why is that? -- Alex Rast (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
at Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:05:41 GMT in
>, (Michael Odom) wrote : >On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 06:04:03 -0000, >(Alex Rast) wrote: > >>Diestel. Personally I think their main organic line, "Heidi's Hens" >>isn't as good as Shelton's organic. However, they have a better line, >>"Heritage" which is pretty good. >> >>Irritatingly, none of them seem to be available fresh,... >>It would seem as though, somehow, there aren't many people who care >>that their meat is frozen if they're buying organic. Furthermore, it >>would seem as though the distribution systems that prevail in the USA >>make it *incredibly* difficult for an organic producer to get fresh >>meat to market.... >> >>Any answers to these, anybody? > >'Round these parts (NE Texas) the health and food safety laws pretty >much put the kibosh on finding never-frozen organic meats unless you >slaughter your own. It's not a matter of what I would like to have, >it's a matter of the scale of production which proves prohibitive for >small producers to meet the fresh meat regulations. At least that's >what I think is going on. Yeah, people say that the regulatory environment is tough, but what I don't understand is, how can the legislators draft legislation that would make it tough for organic producers to sell fresh? I don't mean what motivation or excuse they can use to justify this - it's always possible if not probable that legislators are in the back pocket of large, industrial meat producers who would naturally wish to see the regulations favour *them* - that, I have no problem understanding. What I don't get is, what specific provisos do they have in the law that makes it so hard? It seems to me that you'd have to do something like explicitly set an absolute minimum on quantity of meat shipped in order for it to be able to be fresh. If so, where are the activists, for surely a law like this is so manifestly preferential to industrial businesses that the activists could create a media circus over it? If not, it would seem to me that the worst they could do is make the resulting meat more expensive. And if that's the case, is the number of people who recognise that there is no free lunch and would be prepared to pay more for fresh, organic meat really that small? If so, why is that? -- Alex Rast (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Alex Rast) wrote in
: > at Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:05:41 GMT in > >, > (Michael Odom) wrote : > >>On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 06:04:03 -0000, >>(Alex Rast) wrote: >> >>>Diestel. Personally I think their main organic line, "Heidi's Hens" >>>isn't as good as Shelton's organic. However, they have a better line, >>>"Heritage" which is pretty good. >>> >>>Irritatingly, none of them seem to be available fresh,... > >>>It would seem as though, somehow, there aren't many people who care >>>that their meat is frozen if they're buying organic. Furthermore, it >>>would seem as though the distribution systems that prevail in the USA >>>make it *incredibly* difficult for an organic producer to get fresh >>>meat to market.... >>> >>>Any answers to these, anybody? >> >>'Round these parts (NE Texas) the health and food safety laws pretty >>much put the kibosh on finding never-frozen organic meats unless you >>slaughter your own. It's not a matter of what I would like to have, >>it's a matter of the scale of production which proves prohibitive for >>small producers to meet the fresh meat regulations. At least that's >>what I think is going on. > > Yeah, people say that the regulatory environment is tough, but what I > don't understand is, how can the legislators draft legislation that > would make it tough for organic producers to sell fresh? I don't mean > what motivation or excuse they can use to justify this - it's always > possible if not probable that legislators are in the back pocket of > large, industrial meat producers who would naturally wish to see the > regulations favour *them* - that, I have no problem understanding. > What I don't get is, what specific provisos do they have in the law > that makes it so hard? It seems to me that you'd have to do something > like explicitly set an absolute minimum on quantity of meat shipped in > order for it to be able to be fresh. If so, where are the activists, > for surely a law like this is so manifestly preferential to industrial > businesses that the activists could create a media circus over it? If > not, it would seem to me that the worst they could do is make the > resulting meat more expensive. And if that's the case, is the number > of people who recognise that there is no free lunch and would be > prepared to pay more for fresh, organic meat really that small? If so, > why is that? > > > Having the organic food products frozen expands the provider's market, allows for cheaper shipping methods and keeps the product's quality under control. An example is I live in Canada but eat New Zealand Lamb. I remember when there wasn't a lot of pre-frozen stuff and most veggies were canned...pre-frozen is way better taste-wise, and packaging and frieght rates are cheaper due to less weight...(no metal can); even when figuring in the expenses required for freezer capable trucks, ships, trains and airplanes. Businesses like to make money...they're funny that way. So they prefer to sell lots at a cheaper rate/lower profit margin, then to sell few with a higher mark-up. Therefore organic products that aren't local truck stop type stuff are pre-frozen if at all possible. So if I was Joe's organic turkeys, I'd pre-freeze to sell more over a larger area. Also it is cheaper to put the slaughter houses where the meat is raised and ship from there to where large population centers are. -- Starchless in Manitoba. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Alex Rast) wrote in
: > at Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:05:41 GMT in > >, > (Michael Odom) wrote : > >>On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 06:04:03 -0000, >>(Alex Rast) wrote: >> >>>Diestel. Personally I think their main organic line, "Heidi's Hens" >>>isn't as good as Shelton's organic. However, they have a better line, >>>"Heritage" which is pretty good. >>> >>>Irritatingly, none of them seem to be available fresh,... > >>>It would seem as though, somehow, there aren't many people who care >>>that their meat is frozen if they're buying organic. Furthermore, it >>>would seem as though the distribution systems that prevail in the USA >>>make it *incredibly* difficult for an organic producer to get fresh >>>meat to market.... >>> >>>Any answers to these, anybody? >> >>'Round these parts (NE Texas) the health and food safety laws pretty >>much put the kibosh on finding never-frozen organic meats unless you >>slaughter your own. It's not a matter of what I would like to have, >>it's a matter of the scale of production which proves prohibitive for >>small producers to meet the fresh meat regulations. At least that's >>what I think is going on. > > Yeah, people say that the regulatory environment is tough, but what I > don't understand is, how can the legislators draft legislation that > would make it tough for organic producers to sell fresh? I don't mean > what motivation or excuse they can use to justify this - it's always > possible if not probable that legislators are in the back pocket of > large, industrial meat producers who would naturally wish to see the > regulations favour *them* - that, I have no problem understanding. > What I don't get is, what specific provisos do they have in the law > that makes it so hard? It seems to me that you'd have to do something > like explicitly set an absolute minimum on quantity of meat shipped in > order for it to be able to be fresh. If so, where are the activists, > for surely a law like this is so manifestly preferential to industrial > businesses that the activists could create a media circus over it? If > not, it would seem to me that the worst they could do is make the > resulting meat more expensive. And if that's the case, is the number > of people who recognise that there is no free lunch and would be > prepared to pay more for fresh, organic meat really that small? If so, > why is that? > > > Having the organic food products frozen expands the provider's market, allows for cheaper shipping methods and keeps the product's quality under control. An example is I live in Canada but eat New Zealand Lamb. I remember when there wasn't a lot of pre-frozen stuff and most veggies were canned...pre-frozen is way better taste-wise, and packaging and frieght rates are cheaper due to less weight...(no metal can); even when figuring in the expenses required for freezer capable trucks, ships, trains and airplanes. Businesses like to make money...they're funny that way. So they prefer to sell lots at a cheaper rate/lower profit margin, then to sell few with a higher mark-up. Therefore organic products that aren't local truck stop type stuff are pre-frozen if at all possible. So if I was Joe's organic turkeys, I'd pre-freeze to sell more over a larger area. Also it is cheaper to put the slaughter houses where the meat is raised and ship from there to where large population centers are. -- Starchless in Manitoba. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
at Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:55:04 GMT in
>, (Hahabogus) wrote : (Alex Rast) wrote in : > >> at Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:05:41 GMT in >> >, >> (Michael Odom) wrote : >> >>>On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 06:04:03 -0000, >>>(Alex Rast) wrote: >>> >>... >>>>Furthermore, it >>>>would seem as though the distribution systems that prevail in the USA >>>>make it *incredibly* difficult for an organic producer to get fresh >>>>meat to market.... >>>> >>>>Any answers to these, anybody? >>> >>>'Round these parts (NE Texas) the health and food safety laws pretty >>>much put the kibosh on finding never-frozen organic meats... >> >> Yeah, people say that the regulatory environment is tough, but what I >> don't understand is, how can the legislators draft legislation that >> would make it tough for organic producers to sell fresh? ... is the >> number >> of people who recognise that there is no free lunch and would be >> prepared to pay more for fresh, organic meat really that small? If so, >> why is that? >> > >Having the organic food products frozen expands the provider's market, >allows for cheaper shipping methods and keeps the product's quality >under control. > >An example is I live in Canada but eat New Zealand Lamb. > >I remember when there wasn't a lot of pre-frozen stuff and most veggies >were canned...pre-frozen is way better taste-wise, and packaging and >frieght rates are cheaper due to less weight...(no metal can); even >when figuring in the expenses required for freezer capable trucks, >ships, trains and airplanes. > >Businesses like to make money...they're funny that way. So they prefer >to sell lots at a cheaper rate/lower profit margin, then to sell few >with a higher mark-up. Therefore organic products that aren't local >truck stop type stuff are pre-frozen if at all possible. Undeniably the ability to distribute to a wider area could have appeal to larger organic meat producers, who themselves are getting close to industrial-farm size, but how would these economics apply to the smaller, local farmer? Most of them can sell their entire output locally - within a day's journey of their farm. How would they have an incentive to freeze? Wouldn't the reverse apply, that being a small-volume producer, they stand to get a better profit by selling at higher margin? Meanwhile, under your description, why wouldn't *all* meat be sold frozen? After all, if the producer can expand his market by selling frozen, and this arrangement is especially beneficial to larger companies, wouldn't, then, the larger meat producers, supplying the bulk of meat sold in U.S. supermarkets, wish to freeze everything, guaranteeing them the greatest possible distribution area and shelf life, thus the highest volume and profits? The fact that fresh meat is sold at all seems, therefore, to indicate that a pretty healthy demand exists for it. Why, then, would the people who buy organic meat, who, I would imagine, are more selective in their meat choices, be less selective with respect to fresh vs. frozen, to the point where the demand is sufficiently low, relative to the demand for fresh meat in non-organic channels vs. that for similar frozen meat, that organic meat producers, be they large or small, wouldn't see a market for non-frozen, organic meat? What, if anything, is making demand for non-frozen organic meat so low? -- Alex Rast (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
YOU MUST BE KIDDING
>>>>Furthermore, it >>>>would seem as though the distribution systems that prevail in the USA >>>>make it *incredibly* difficult for an organic producer to get fresh >>>>meat to market.... >>>> >>>>Any answers to these, anybody? >>> >>>'Round these parts (NE Texas) the health and food safety laws pretty >>>much put the kibosh on finding never-frozen organic meats... >> >> Yeah, people say that the regulatory environment is tough, but what I >> don't understand is, how can the legislators draft legislation that >> would make it tough for organic producers to sell fresh? ... is the >> number >> of people who recognise that there is no free lunch and would be >> prepared to pay more for fresh, organic meat really that small? If so, >> why is that? >> > >Having the organic food products frozen expands the provider's market, >allows for cheaper shipping methods and keeps the product's quality >under control. > >An example is I live in Canada but eat New Zealand Lamb. > >I remember when there wasn't a lot of pre-frozen stuff and most veggies >were canned...pre-frozen is way better taste-wise, and packaging and >frieght rates are cheaper due to less weight...(no metal can); even >when figuring in the expenses required for freezer capable trucks, >ships, trains and airplanes. > >Businesses like to make money...they're funny that way. So they prefer >to sell lots at a cheaper rate/lower profit margin, then to sell few >with a higher mark-up. Therefore organic products that aren't local >truck stop type stuff are pre-frozen if at all possible. Undeniably the ability to distribute to a wider area could have appeal to larger organic meat producers, who themselves are getting close to industrial-farm size, but how would these economics apply to the smaller, local farmer? Most of them can sell their entire output locally - within a day's journey of their farm. How would they have an incentive to freeze? Wouldn't the reverse apply, that being a small-volume producer, they stand to get a better profit by selling at higher margin? Meanwhile, under your description, why wouldn't *all* meat be sold frozen? After all, if the producer can expand his market by selling frozen, and this arrangement is especially beneficial to larger companies, wouldn't, then, the larger meat producers, supplying the bulk of meat sold in U.S. supermarkets, wish to freeze everything, guaranteeing them the greatest possible distribution area and shelf life, thus the highest volume and profits? The fact that fresh meat is sold at all seems, therefore, to indicate that a pretty healthy demand exists for it. Why, then, would the people who buy organic meat, who, I would imagine, are more selective in their meat choices, be less selective with respect to fresh vs. frozen, to the point where the demand is sufficiently low, relative to the demand for fresh meat in non-organic channels vs. that for similar frozen meat, that organic meat producers, be they large or small, wouldn't see a market for non-frozen, organic meat? What, if anything, is making demand for non-frozen organic meat so low? -- Alex Roast (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:50:32 -0000,
(Alex Rast) wrote: >at Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:05:41 GMT in >, >(Michael Odom) wrote : >> >>'Round these parts (NE Texas) the health and food safety laws pretty >>much put the kibosh on finding never-frozen organic meats unless you >>slaughter your own. It's not a matter of what I would like to have, >>it's a matter of the scale of production which proves prohibitive for >>small producers to meet the fresh meat regulations. At least that's >>what I think is going on. > >Yeah, people say that the regulatory environment is tough, but what I don't >understand is, how can the legislators draft legislation that would make it >tough for organic producers to sell fresh? I don't mean what motivation or >excuse they can use to justify this - it's always possible if not probable >that legislators are in the back pocket of large, industrial meat producers >who would naturally wish to see the regulations favour *them* - that, I >have no problem understanding. What I don't get is, what specific provisos >do they have in the law that makes it so hard? It seems to me that you'd >have to do something like explicitly set an absolute minimum on quantity of >meat shipped in order for it to be able to be fresh. If so, where are the >activists, for surely a law like this is so manifestly preferential to >industrial businesses that the activists could create a media circus over >it? If not, it would seem to me that the worst they could do is make the >resulting meat more expensive. And if that's the case, is the number of >people who recognise that there is no free lunch and would be prepared to >pay more for fresh, organic meat really that small? If so, why is that? I'm not griping about food safety regulations, myself. I think working to make our food supply safer is a legitimate use of government resources. (Conversely, I think that government sponsorship of unsustainable agricultural practices is stupid.) What I wanted to say was that, under such a regime of food safety regulations, offering an affordable product to their customers requires smaller producers like the organic meat producers in my neck of the woods to freeze their chicken, lamb, pork and beef at the slaughter house. Doing otherwise will require them to observe more costly food safety rules regarding storage and handling and shelf life which would make their meat more expensive for the consumer and likely cut into sales. Several months back we bought 1/4 of a grass-fed steer from the family who raised the animal. They had it slaughtered and butchered locally, but all the meat arrived frozen rock solid. The meat is delicious, by the way. The reason for the freezing was represented to me as a way to avoid some of the more costly parts of standard food safety regulations. This has been also offered as the reason organic meat suppliers at the Dallas Farmers' Market only sell frozen meats, too. I talked to the sellers at the market about it. I don't think the current laws favor non-organic meat producers per se. Rather, the current laws appear to offer smaller producers a frozen meat loophole in handling, storage and shelf-life limitations and regulations which would raise producers' costs to a level that producers of scale can afford to absorb and smaller producers can't. I'm sure others will correct me if I'm wrong. modom "Dallas is a rich man with a death wish in his eyes." -- Jimmie Dale Gilmore |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:50:32 -0000,
(Alex Rast) wrote: >at Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:05:41 GMT in >, >(Michael Odom) wrote : >> >>'Round these parts (NE Texas) the health and food safety laws pretty >>much put the kibosh on finding never-frozen organic meats unless you >>slaughter your own. It's not a matter of what I would like to have, >>it's a matter of the scale of production which proves prohibitive for >>small producers to meet the fresh meat regulations. At least that's >>what I think is going on. > >Yeah, people say that the regulatory environment is tough, but what I don't >understand is, how can the legislators draft legislation that would make it >tough for organic producers to sell fresh? I don't mean what motivation or >excuse they can use to justify this - it's always possible if not probable >that legislators are in the back pocket of large, industrial meat producers >who would naturally wish to see the regulations favour *them* - that, I >have no problem understanding. What I don't get is, what specific provisos >do they have in the law that makes it so hard? It seems to me that you'd >have to do something like explicitly set an absolute minimum on quantity of >meat shipped in order for it to be able to be fresh. If so, where are the >activists, for surely a law like this is so manifestly preferential to >industrial businesses that the activists could create a media circus over >it? If not, it would seem to me that the worst they could do is make the >resulting meat more expensive. And if that's the case, is the number of >people who recognise that there is no free lunch and would be prepared to >pay more for fresh, organic meat really that small? If so, why is that? I'm not griping about food safety regulations, myself. I think working to make our food supply safer is a legitimate use of government resources. (Conversely, I think that government sponsorship of unsustainable agricultural practices is stupid.) What I wanted to say was that, under such a regime of food safety regulations, offering an affordable product to their customers requires smaller producers like the organic meat producers in my neck of the woods to freeze their chicken, lamb, pork and beef at the slaughter house. Doing otherwise will require them to observe more costly food safety rules regarding storage and handling and shelf life which would make their meat more expensive for the consumer and likely cut into sales. Several months back we bought 1/4 of a grass-fed steer from the family who raised the animal. They had it slaughtered and butchered locally, but all the meat arrived frozen rock solid. The meat is delicious, by the way. The reason for the freezing was represented to me as a way to avoid some of the more costly parts of standard food safety regulations. This has been also offered as the reason organic meat suppliers at the Dallas Farmers' Market only sell frozen meats, too. I talked to the sellers at the market about it. I don't think the current laws favor non-organic meat producers per se. Rather, the current laws appear to offer smaller producers a frozen meat loophole in handling, storage and shelf-life limitations and regulations which would raise producers' costs to a level that producers of scale can afford to absorb and smaller producers can't. I'm sure others will correct me if I'm wrong. modom "Dallas is a rich man with a death wish in his eyes." -- Jimmie Dale Gilmore |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
at Thu, 28 Oct 2004 01:56:38 GMT in
>, (Michael Odom) wrote : >On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:50:32 -0000, >(Alex Rast) wrote: > >>at Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:05:41 GMT in >, >>(Michael Odom) wrote : >>> >>>'Round these parts (NE Texas) the health and food safety laws pretty >>>much put the kibosh on finding never-frozen organic meats unless you >>>slaughter your own. ... >> >>Yeah, people say that the regulatory environment is tough... it would >>seem to me that the worst they could do is make the >>resulting meat more expensive. And if that's the case, is the number of >>people who recognise that there is no free lunch and would be prepared >>to pay more for fresh, organic meat really that small? If so, why is >>that? > .... > >What I wanted to say was that, under such a regime of food safety >regulations, offering an affordable product to their customers >requires smaller producers like the organic meat producers in my neck >of the woods to freeze their chicken, lamb, pork and beef at the >slaughter house. Doing otherwise will require them to observe more >costly food safety rules regarding storage and handling and shelf life >which would make their meat more expensive for the consumer and likely >cut into sales. But this is what I was talking about. Is the number of people who'd be willing to pay more for fresh, organic meat, really so vanishingly small that producers can't direct even a small proportion of the meat they raise into fresh sales? In other words, aren't there some people out there who would still consider the increased price they'd have to pay for fresh meat affordable? I would think that, given that people who buy organic tend already to be pretty selective, and that they're also used to paying more for their selectivity, there'd be at least some set of those people that would be selective enough as to be willing to pay the extra amount for fresh. I agree that the markup could be quite steep, but most people who buy organic are very aware of how much the rock-bottom prices in the consumer market generate a false conception how how much things should cost. They know full well that the "real" price one might expect should be higher, in some cases a great deal higher (meat is one of those cases). It just seems pretty strange that when it comes to the issue of fresh vs. frozen an overwhelming majority of them would suddenly turn around and become price-sensitive. -- Alex Rast (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
at Thu, 28 Oct 2004 01:56:38 GMT in
>, (Michael Odom) wrote : >On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:50:32 -0000, >(Alex Rast) wrote: > >>at Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:05:41 GMT in >, >>(Michael Odom) wrote : >>> >>>'Round these parts (NE Texas) the health and food safety laws pretty >>>much put the kibosh on finding never-frozen organic meats unless you >>>slaughter your own. ... >> >>Yeah, people say that the regulatory environment is tough... it would >>seem to me that the worst they could do is make the >>resulting meat more expensive. And if that's the case, is the number of >>people who recognise that there is no free lunch and would be prepared >>to pay more for fresh, organic meat really that small? If so, why is >>that? > .... > >What I wanted to say was that, under such a regime of food safety >regulations, offering an affordable product to their customers >requires smaller producers like the organic meat producers in my neck >of the woods to freeze their chicken, lamb, pork and beef at the >slaughter house. Doing otherwise will require them to observe more >costly food safety rules regarding storage and handling and shelf life >which would make their meat more expensive for the consumer and likely >cut into sales. But this is what I was talking about. Is the number of people who'd be willing to pay more for fresh, organic meat, really so vanishingly small that producers can't direct even a small proportion of the meat they raise into fresh sales? In other words, aren't there some people out there who would still consider the increased price they'd have to pay for fresh meat affordable? I would think that, given that people who buy organic tend already to be pretty selective, and that they're also used to paying more for their selectivity, there'd be at least some set of those people that would be selective enough as to be willing to pay the extra amount for fresh. I agree that the markup could be quite steep, but most people who buy organic are very aware of how much the rock-bottom prices in the consumer market generate a false conception how how much things should cost. They know full well that the "real" price one might expect should be higher, in some cases a great deal higher (meat is one of those cases). It just seems pretty strange that when it comes to the issue of fresh vs. frozen an overwhelming majority of them would suddenly turn around and become price-sensitive. -- Alex Rast (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
at Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:52:44 GMT in
>, (Hahabogus) wrote : (Alex Rast) wrote in : > >> But this is what I was talking about. Is the number of people who'd be >> willing to pay more for fresh, organic meat, really so vanishingly >> small that producers can't direct even a small proportion of the meat >> they raise into fresh sales > >Perhaps you are looking at this from the wrong end. Most busnesses wish >to increase sales every year, standing still isn't a sign of a sucessful >business. Going with fresh meats would limit that increase. > That can hardly be true of the small farmer, who has finite limits on his productive capacity. Whatever acreage he has sets an upper bound on how much he can produce and, in fact, how much he can sell. In fact, given the limits on his productive capacity, it makes more sense for him to increase his income per amount sold - which I believe could probably be done by marketing fresh meat, potentially at a higher margin. Interestingly, as a whole, given that the U.S. population is near 0% population growth, and it can be assumed that the amount of food required by the average person similarly stays static over time, this implies that the food business as a whole should approach zero growth in the long run. Otherwise it indicates that people are eating more, indeed, at some point it becomes to excess, or that food is going to waste. Neither is an efficient use of resources. In fact, I'd argue that much of this is going on right now, hence the U.S. obesity problem. If the economic system such as it prevails in this country requires growth every year, then the food industry would at some point have to find ways of getting consumers to consume (eat, in other words) more than they need, and beyond that, more than they would want. The nationwide problem with obesity could in the largest sense be the result of that - if people must be forced or enticed or misled into eating more year after year, then at some point they're going to start gaining weight. If this is the case, then the current economic model in the food industry has outlived its useful lifespan and must be replaced with a new model that is efficient in a zero-growth state. -- Alex Rast (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Beijing Organic Shopping Guide - Organic food stores in Beijing | General Cooking | |||
| Organic milk sold at ...... not organic at all | General Cooking | |||
| Sure that Organic Food is Really Organic? | Vegan | |||
| Quick and Easy Turkey Gravy using Home Made Turkey Stock | Recipes | |||
| Organic Milk, Organic Cheese | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
