Food Supply Disruptions - Government Response

[William Parcher]

They are not pseudo-patriotic rednecks. Just poor immigrants people scratching to get by.

I don't care who they are or what color they are - anyone who intentionally goes without a mask and proper behavior when they ought to be doing otherwise (possibly even by law) is a "muh rights" person.

It's senseless to limit the use of the phrase "muh rights" to a very specific demographic or subculture.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Okay, so I kind of feel like I'm missing something here. I mean, I totally get the hotspots, and plants closing down and how that disrupts the supply chain. What I'm not getting is farmers killing livestock that isn't being processed. I follow that they can't afford the feed for the animals.

But why can't they just turn them loose and let them fend for themselves?

I mean, let 2000 chickens loose in the area, and the local predators will be really happy. But I'm also betting that there's a lot of people who would be perfectly willing to go "hunt" those chickens and slaughter them on their own. Same with cows. We'll end up with a bunch of cows all over the place, some really satisfied wolves, and a solid grip of hunters willing to hunt and dress those cows for their own (or their neighbor's consumption).

Maybe not an ideal solution, but it seems somewhat better than just killing them all and letting them rot.

So I'm guessing I'm missing some key element in this that makes it not an option. Anyone feel like educating me?

 

[Distracted1]

Okay, so I kind of feel like I'm missing something here. I mean, I totally get the hotspots, and plants closing down and how that disrupts the supply chain. What I'm not getting is farmers killing livestock that isn't being processed. I follow that they can't afford the feed for the animals.

But why can't they just turn them loose and let them fend for themselves?

I mean, let 2000 chickens loose in the area, and the local predators will be really happy. But I'm also betting that there's a lot of people who would be perfectly willing to go "hunt" those chickens and slaughter them on their own. Same with cows. We'll end up with a bunch of cows all over the place, some really satisfied wolves, and a solid grip of hunters willing to hunt and dress those cows for their own (or their neighbor's consumption).

Maybe not an ideal solution, but it seems somewhat better than just killing them all and letting them rot.

So I'm guessing I'm missing some key element in this that makes it not an option. Anyone feel like educating me?

Capitalism.

 

[crescent]

Maybe not an ideal solution, but it seems somewhat better than just killing them all and letting them rot.

So I'm guessing I'm missing some key element in this that makes it not an option. Anyone feel like educating me?

Where would they be released? I mean, modern meat and dairy production is based on feeding grain to the animals, not grazing them in pastures. Most of these animals are far away from any forage sufficient to maintain them.

If you did release them into pastures, there would be severe over-grazing with attendant erosion and water quality issues, invasive plant issues, all that.

 

[crescent]

I don't care who they are or what color they are - anyone who intentionally goes without a mask and proper behavior when they ought to be doing otherwise (possibly even by law) is a "muh rights" person.

It's senseless to limit the use of the phrase "muh rights" to a very specific demographic or subculture.

I am feeling like you missed something. There is no indication that these people are intentionally not wearing masks. None at all. They are not going on about rights or anything else.

What they are doing is living in dangerously overcrowded conditions and suffering from poor quality or nonexistent healthcare because they are very poor. The spread may have as much to do with living conditions as it does with the workplace.

 

[Meadmaker]

Okay, so I kind of feel like I'm missing something here. I mean, I totally get the hotspots, and plants closing down and how that disrupts the supply chain. What I'm not getting is farmers killing livestock that isn't being processed. I follow that they can't afford the feed for the animals.

But why can't they just turn them loose and let them fend for themselves?

I mean, let 2000 chickens loose in the area, and the local predators will be really happy. But I'm also betting that there's a lot of people who would be perfectly willing to go "hunt" those chickens and slaughter them on their own. Same with cows. We'll end up with a bunch of cows all over the place, some really satisfied wolves, and a solid grip of hunters willing to hunt and dress those cows for their own (or their neighbor's consumption).

Maybe not an ideal solution, but it seems somewhat better than just killing them all and letting them rot.

So I'm guessing I'm missing some key element in this that makes it not an option. Anyone feel like educating me?

There really are not enough foxes in the neighborhood to eat 2000 chickens. You would basically be unleashing a massive wave of an invasive species into an ecosystem, with not enough food to support them.

The turkey vultures would be pretty happy, though.

And, obviously, doing the same with pigs and cows wouldn't work at all.

In my humble opinion, a bit of planning and perhaps some government subsidization could prevent it, but that isn't happening.

 

[William Parcher]

It's probably illegal to intentionally release domestic livestock animals into the wild.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Okay, so I kind of feel like I'm missing something here. I mean, I totally get the hotspots, and plants closing down and how that disrupts the supply chain. What I'm not getting is farmers killing livestock that isn't being processed. I follow that they can't afford the feed for the animals.

But why can't they just turn them loose and let them fend for themselves?

I mean, let 2000 chickens loose in the area, and the local predators will be really happy. But I'm also betting that there's a lot of people who would be perfectly willing to go "hunt" those chickens and slaughter them on their own. Same with cows. We'll end up with a bunch of cows all over the place, some really satisfied wolves, and a solid grip of hunters willing to hunt and dress those cows for their own (or their neighbor's consumption).

Maybe not an ideal solution, but it seems somewhat better than just killing them all and letting them rot.

So I'm guessing I'm missing some key element in this that makes it not an option. Anyone feel like educating me?

Are you really advocating that farmers *give away* the animals they've invested a lot of time and money into?? There will be an 'after coronavirus', how are you proposing that they replace their livestock then? The whole point of mitigation and social support is so that the farms will still exist after the crisis!

 

[Distracted1]

Are you really advocating that farmers *give away* the animals they've invested a lot of time and money into?? There will be an 'after coronavirus', how are you proposing that they replace their livestock then? The whole point of mitigation and social support is so that the farms will still exist after the crisis!

How does giving the livestock away affect the farmer differently than killing it and allowing the uneaten corpses to rot?

 

[William Parcher]

I am feeling like you missed something. There is no indication that these people are intentionally not wearing masks. None at all. They are not going on about rights or anything else.

I don't think I missed anything. We really don't have any idea what these tens (or hundreds) of thousands of meat processing workers do when they leave work. I see that they wear masks at work. We also don't know if they remove the mask for their lunch break at work with others around them doing the same. Maybe a 6 foot distance isn't enough when people are without masks and yapping to each other while on break.

We also have no clue what they think about rights and it isn't decided one way or another if you don't see their faces at protests or on the news.

What they are doing is living in dangerously overcrowded conditions and suffering from poor quality or nonexistent healthcare because they are very poor. The spread may have as much to do with living conditions as it does with the workplace.

Are you talking about the kind of poor that can't afford to get their own mask and sanitizer? Neither you nor I know if they wear masks in public when they should be. Some might go without a mask because they don't really fear being punished for not wearing it.

The way I see it, anybody who isn't wearing proper gear and with proper behavior is a "muh rights" person and I don't even care what their personal feelings are. As far as the virus is concerned, they are identical. A MAGA "muh rights" Redneck without a mask is the same as a poor Somali immigrant meat worker without a mask. Both of them can kill others or be killed themselves because this virus is a bitch.

 

[Elagabalus]

Okay, so I kind of feel like I'm missing something here. I mean, I totally get the hotspots, and plants closing down and how that disrupts the supply chain. What I'm not getting is farmers killing livestock that isn't being processed. I follow that they can't afford the feed for the animals.

But why can't they just turn them loose and let them fend for themselves?

I mean, let 2000 chickens loose in the area, and the local predators will be really happy. But I'm also betting that there's a lot of people who would be perfectly willing to go "hunt" those chickens and slaughter them on their own. Same with cows. We'll end up with a bunch of cows all over the place, some really satisfied wolves, and a solid grip of hunters willing to hunt and dress those cows for their own (or their neighbor's consumption).

Maybe not an ideal solution, but it seems somewhat better than just killing them all and letting them rot.

So I'm guessing I'm missing some key element in this that makes it not an option. Anyone feel like educating me?

So you literally want the chickens coming home to roost?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Are you really advocating that farmers *give away* the animals they've invested a lot of time and money into?? There will be an 'after coronavirus', how are you proposing that they replace their livestock then? The whole point of mitigation and social support is so that the farms will still exist after the crisis!

Right now they're killing them and letting them rot? Either way they lose those animals, I was figuring at least some of the animals will be hunted and eaten by other people and/or animals.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

How does giving the livestock away affect the farmer differently than killing it and allowing the uneaten corpses to rot?

Because when they send them for slaughter they are recouping some of the costs in selling the meat. Most of the farmers who say they have to liquidate their holdings are assuming the slaughterhouses will remain active and buy the meat, perhaps even that the meat-packing plants will stop closing now that the government is going to force those employees back to work. They're not giving the animals away. Most farmers don't have near the capability to kill their animals, they only produce them.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Because when they send them for slaughter they are recouping some of the costs in selling the meat. Most of the farmers who say they have to liquidate their holdings are assuming the slaughterhouses will remain active and buy the meat, perhaps even that the meat-packing plants will stop closing now that the government is going to force those employees back to work. They're not giving the animals away. Most farmers don't have near the capability to kill their animals, they only produce them.

Perhaps I misunderstood the articles I read. I was under the impression that the farmers are killing the animals because they can't afford to feed them, but the slaughterhouses aren't taking them because they've closed down due to COVID. I thought the problem was stemming from the fact that some of the meat processing plants have closed.

 

[Elagabalus]

Wendy's ran out of beef in some areas of the country.

I'm pretty sure that's not the result of panic buying.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/meat-shortages-leave-wendy-diners-234925159.html

Went to the local Kroger affiliate on Friday(west coast). They had everything - chicken, pork and beef. Big sale on pork. Pork shoulder roast (skin on for delicious crackling) was $0.79 a pound.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Perhaps I misunderstood the articles I read. I was under the impression that the farmers are killing the animals because they can't afford to feed them, but the slaughterhouses aren't taking them because they've closed down due to COVID. I thought the problem was stemming from the fact that some of the meat processing plants have closed.

Dang it now I'm imagining the owner of a battery egg farm standing in front of the henhouses with thousands of hens holding a hatchet...

 

[William Parcher]

For perspective, it's not unusual for large chicken farms to have up to a million birds and more. More than a hundred thousand birds is common.

You cannot intentionally release those into the wild. It can't be legal and the social ramifications would be extreme.

 

[Meadmaker]

Perhaps I misunderstood the articles I read. I was under the impression that the farmers are killing the animals because they can't afford to feed them, but the slaughterhouses aren't taking them because they've closed down due to COVID. I thought the problem was stemming from the fact that some of the meat processing plants have closed.

That's exactly right. The animals are being killed and the bodies disposed of by burying. (So I read. Burning? I don't know. One way or another, they are being killed and not eaten.)

Could the government step in and pay for the cost of transport to an available slaughterhouse, that has some spare capacity, and then either give the meat away or juggle the money so that only the government (i.e. us, i.e taxpayers) end up paying a portion of the cost? I would think so, but I'm sure the details are complicated.

 

[Meadmaker]

Went to the local Kroger affiliate on Friday(west coast). They had everything - chicken, pork and beef. Big sale on pork. Pork shoulder roast (skin on for delicious crackling) was $0.79 a pound.

My guess is that the Wendy's shortages are local. The regional Wendy's probably has a contract with one company, perhaps with a backup, to supply a whole heck of a lot of beef from one really big slaughterhouse. If that one goes down, then so do the Wendy's restaurants served by that one.

I've read that the same thing can happen with grocery stores. One distributor loses its shipment, so their stores go without, while the stores across the street have plenty, because their distributor gets the meat from a different facility.


So far, I'm not reading about real crises or real shortages, just inconvenience and difficulty. Even the stories about chickens or pigs being killed and not eaten are mostly small scale, local, problems. I said I would give credit where credit is due if things are still ok this week. It seems like they are. So, Trump and team haven't done anything incredibly stupid, or failed to do the minimum. We'll see how that holds up in the weeks ahead.

 

[lomiller]

Okay, so I kind of feel like I'm missing something here. I mean, I totally get the hotspots, and plants closing down and how that disrupts the supply chain. What I'm not getting is farmers killing livestock that isn't being processed. I follow that they can't afford the feed for the animals.

But why can't they just turn them loose and let them fend for themselves?

I mean, let 2000 chickens loose in the area, and the local predators will be really happy. But I'm also betting that there's a lot of people who would be perfectly willing to go "hunt" those chickens and slaughter them on their own. Same with cows. We'll end up with a bunch of cows all over the place, some really satisfied wolves, and a solid grip of hunters willing to hunt and dress those cows for their own (or their neighbor's consumption).

Maybe not an ideal solution, but it seems somewhat better than just killing them all and letting them rot.

So I'm guessing I'm missing some key element in this that makes it not an option. Anyone feel like educating me?

Starvation is a terrible death and that’s what most would face. It’s better just to kill them.. Pigs can actually survive when set free like that, but they become pets that destroy property and damage crops.