Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (106389)	6/22/2005 10:48:36 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

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.