I didn't see in there the evidence that the consumption of meat is down. I have mentioned before that I really wish you wouldn't just cut and paste whole articles and expect busy people to wade through them trying to find what you think is relevant to the issue, but would quote the paragraph or two that supports your point, and cite to the article so readers who are so inclined can read more to see whether the quotes are in context.
The only thing I find here is the statistic that "Adjusted for inflation, Americans spent $355 per capita on beef in 1980. In 2001, they spent $200." This could mean less meat, of course. Or, it could mean cheaper meat, or a shift from more expensive cuts to cheaper cuts. 67 pounds pf meat per capita per year still sounds like an awful lot of beef (and there's chicken, turkey, pork, fish, and other meats on top of that.)
Ranching may be hurting because there is less product being sold. Or it may be hurting because there is so much supply that prices are down, or because ranching costs are rising faster than meat prices, or for any number of reasons.
One really needs to be very careful about taking a statistic and assuming it says things which it may very well not be saying. |
