Guess what? We now have a podcast version of Adding Value! I didn’t want to automatically send it to you because I figured that would be annoying - I’m already sending you this post.
So, if you want to listen to Adding Value: The Podcast, you can subscribe to it through your podcasting platform of choice, so long as your podcasting platform of choice is: Apple Music, Spotify Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, or Pocket Casts.
The content is exactly the same as you will find here,1 it’s me (Jeff) reading the post. Given how long these posts are ending up, maybe listening is a little more your speed. No judgment here. I love listening to podcasts. So far, the posts are timing out at about 7-10 minutes or so; nice easy listens. Enjoy! Tell your friends. Give me a follow.
I wanted to spend the next few posts talking about the ethics and challenges of raising livestock. Sheep, of course, being livestock.
There are three inter-related challenges in the livestock industry: climate change, evolving technology, and the centralization of processing. These things are, of course, all related to each other.
Livestock and environmental change related to livestock operations contributes significantly to climate change. This puts pressure on technology to solve problems related to livestock impact on the environment. Technology in turn puts competitive pressure on livestock and the meat industry; particularly related to pricing through shelf-competition for alternatives. The downward pressure on pricing results in the concentration of the industry towards larger farming operations and economies of scale. Larger farming operations increase the climate impacts.
And the circle continues.
Can the circle be broken? I believe the answer is yes. Smaller scale grazing operations can actually improve land, increasing the carbon capacity of the land, and helping to mitigate (or even remediate) the impacts of climate change.
One of the entrepreneurial theories with our farm is that sheep and even Icelandic Sheep more specifically are uniquely situated (because of their versatility) for the kinds of grazing operations that can increase carbon capacity, limit the kinds of climate harms that are prevalent in larger operations, and be most beneficial for addressing the needs of the future.
The challenge here, of course, is scaling small scale operations. Scaling small scale operations may seem like an oxymoron, but technology can improve coordination. Many small farms spread across a region and interconnected can be more flexible and reactive to changing world conditions. This network of farms can provide commercial scale output to compete in a global marketplace and do so in a way that does not overwhelm the environment.
I will also argue that regenerative grazing operations are more economically beneficial than new technology-based meat options (let’s call it “MeatTech”). This is rooted in the idea that small(er)-scale grazing operations and decentralized processing employ more people and engage more communities in economic activity than a single technology company. MeatTech benefits only the community where the tech company is located and the shareholders of the tech company.3 Coordination of small and mid-sized farms engages multiple communities and regions in a mutually beneficial manner.
I want to be clear that I am not opposed to lab-grown meat or “3-D printed meat” as a competitive option. I’m not delusional enough to think that the technology can (or even should) be stopped. It will be a competitive reality. Period. If I am going to be in the meat industry, I am going to have learn to compete with it. Period. Bring it on.
Relatedly, I do not believe that live animal meat can be (nor should it be) cheaper than MeatTech. The race to the bottom for price is a losing proposition for everyone and for the animals. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (“CAFO”s) are not pleasant places for human, animal, or environment. Yet, in a race to the lowest price, CAFOs are the inevitable result. MeatTech, while more expensive today, will eventually be cheaper (and more convenient) than live animal meat.
Moore’s Law says that the number of transistors in a circuit doubles every two years. This is generally abstracted to technology as a whole to emphasize how quickly technology changes. This is called the Law of Accelerating Returns. And, basically, the evidence shows that technological change is exponential. Thus, the technology that we have today for lab-grown meats will be exponentially better (and cheaper) sooner than any of us realize.
In a future where MeatTech is cheaper and more closely mimics live animal meat, will consumers pay a premium for live-animal meat? I believe so. Why? Exactly because of the community, economic, and environmental benefits that small and medium-scale regenerative operations can engage in. Consumers will have a closer connection to their shepherds, neighbors, and community. They can engage in an on-farm experience, see climate rescue in action, pet a sheep, and shake hands with a farmer that they see in the restaurants where the meat is served.
Moreover, with Icelandic sheep, because of their versatility, this model is not solely reliant on meat. Wool and dairy can help round out the revenue stream to create a more diversified and stable business for the community. These are all benefits and experiences that MeatTech cannot provide.
Over the next few weeks we’ll look at the environmental impact of livestock and how new knowledge in land and farm management can help mitigate those impacts and even regenerate the soil to increase its carbon carrying capacity.
We’ll look at new technologies in meat that will make your head spin - from using vegetables to mimic the flavor of meat, to growing meat in a petri dish, to constructing meat on a cellular lattice just like a 3-D Printer.
We’ll look at the meat processing industry and how concentration in the processing industry is causing supply chain problems and creates not just inventory risks, but health risks.4 We’ll explore how decentralized processing operations can help spread out both risks and create a more stable labor pool.
Finally, we’ll see how the community economic benefits of interconnected small and mid-scale farming and processing operations stands in stark contrast to the economic, cultural, and health devastation of our current models.
I’m only a little afraid this will become more of a treatise than the posts already are. But it does, collectively, form the very thesis of what we are trying to accomplish. So, I hope you’ll bear with me.
I promise I’ll try to mix in some fun stuff along the way.
Of course you won’t get the links and great footnotes in the podcast.
People tend to think of Chumbawamba as a one-hit wonder, but they have a long career as as anarchic agitators in support of workers rights and standing up for the poor. Tubthumping is just the one song that you know.
But even here only if the company is successful and the shareholders divest their holdings to realize a capital gain.
Big Meat argues that the problems in the industry are not related to concentration in the farming or processing tier, but due to the same labor shortages that everyone is having. I’ll argue that these are one and the same problem. Tomato, Tomato.