Organic Duck at $7 a Pound Triggers a Debate About Price, and Questions About Values
Monday, November 26, 2007 at 09:28AM 
It was a seemingly ordinary posting on a raw milk listserve I subscribe to in Massachusetts (sponsored by a raw milk dairy, Oake_Knoll_Ayrshires, at Yahoo Groups). On the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, a farmer offered “Certified organic fresh duckling available first come first serve basis.”
They sounded wonderful: “Locally raised, free-range ducklings from a certified organic poultry … These ducklings are Muscovy, known for having less fat than the traditional Peking duck.” Small ducklings about four pounds, and large one about ten pounds. Cost: $7 a pound, or from $30 to $70 a duck.
If we hadn’t already committed to a turkey at Whole Foods for Thanksgiving, I would have seriously considered one of these ducks.
Yet the first comment on the listserve in response to the posting stated, “I was almost tripping over myself to get out the door to camp out in order to make sure I got one of these. Until I saw the price. Ouch. I just paid $2.25 a pound for turkey. Happy backyard-raised turkey (but not organic, much less certified). As much as my husband and I
adore eating duck (and you better bet we do) I can't buy one…Seven bucks a pound. Yowza…”
That price concern sparked a major discussion about the role of price in food from sustainable farms. Among the comments:
“Organic feed costs more than double, and I'm finding triple these days, the cost of conventional feed. So I don't wonder at how you were able to find conventionally fed turkeys at that price.”
"I think presenting the organic movement and the choice of high quality foods as some expensive, elitist endeavor is very wrong. Even when I earned minimum wage, I made buying top quality food a priority because nutritious food gives me the most pleasure in life. I know people on food stamps that think nothing of a $100+ monthly cable bill or paying for cell phones. A coworker thinks my shopping at Whole Foods or the Health Food market in Quincy is too expensive
for her or normal people (not fanatic about nutrition or environment) to consider. Yet I didn't deride her for saving up to buy a flat-screen plasma TV & HD upgrades, even though she admits there's barely anything worth watching on TV these days. I gladly give up buying new stuff to pay a bit extra for toxin & genetic-engineering free food, especially if it means the farmer makes more from the transaction.”
“I know that organic and locally grown food is often more expensive than we would like. But the quality and flavor are worth it to me. It is a quality-of-life issue. So I spend $8.50 per gallon for raw milk (much more when you figure in the travel cost). People (myself included) spend that much or sometimes more for a bottle of wine. And for what? Not nutrition! So it's about priorities.”
“Consider what people pay DAILY at places such as Dunkin Donuts, etc. -- makes all the organic/raw food seem like quite the bargain!!”
“I find that it often doesn't matter what your financial status is when it comes to making healthy food decisions. We have friends who have a SIGNIFICANTLY higher household income than ours, and have all of the material trappings that come with that, but eat horrible, poisonous, processed food and think nothing of it. To them, being healthy is choosing artificial sweeteners over sugar. Their children are always battling ear infections, etc. It doesn't matter how much money you have if you don't have your health, and that is why we spend our income on food and alternative healing practices not covered by health insurance. I think that people are so afraid to change because it means admitting they've been doing wrong by themselves and their children, or going out of the familiar and changing lifestyles. Like my grandmothers ganging up on me because I don't feed my children crap like they used give me whenever I visited them as a child. Their reasoning being ‘you ate it, and you turned out fine!’ They don't realize that I have spent the last 10 years ‘cleaning house’ in my body.”
“I introduced my elderly in-laws to raw milk, and despite having grown up on summers spent at family farms, they still will not even try it, claiming that they can't trust it!!!! And this, even after reading the multitude of information out there on the negatives of pasteurizing and homogenizing, and its harmful long-term effects!”
It is encouraging to see people come to the defense of the duck farmer. We’ve been so conditioned as a society to see cheap food as a major benefit of our factory system that it can be difficult to accept the reality that food from sustainable farms must cost more because more labor and higher-quality feed/pasture is required to produce food that is more nutritious and safer than the factory food.
The process of coming to that mindstate often includes a personal journey that involves some illness along the way. But it is also a function of marketing. The agribusinesses, with heavy government backing, have marketed cheap food as desirable. But there are all kinds of examples of very successful premium products--cars, watches, furniture…and foods. The duck farmer is on the right path: emphasize benefits and differentiate your product from the mass-produced stuff. As several individuals point out following my previous post, the regulators eventually respond to consumer pressure as well.
Reader Comments (14)
Plus, I question whether it's really that much more expensive at all, when done right. When I buy my chicken from Polyface Farm, I buy the whole broiler and use all of the bird, not just parts. I use the carcass to make broth. That chicken costs me about $12.50, and I get 1.5 meals' worth of meat from it for my family of six, plus the broth I then make as an ingredient in other meals. By the time one purchases ground beef, taco shells, a sad flavorless tomato out of season, and pre-shredded cheddar cheese for, say, a typical taco dinner, are they really spending much less? I don't think so.
And as far as the nutrients per bite, or nutrients per penny ... well, we all know which is the far better investment.
I have to admit that some of the organic foods are expensive and I have walked by without picking it up. If I can't afford it, then I can't have it and I don't substute with the processed stuff.
I disagree with the statement "doesn't matter what your financial status is when it comes to making healthy food decisions." How could someone on minimum wage, even if lucky enough to work 40 hrs/week, buy mostly healthy foods?
In CA I think it is $7.50/hr = $300/week gross 15% tax is $45, (I have no idea what the taxing is) That would leave you with $255/week. Rent/utilities at the low end $700/month $255 X 4 weeks=1020 minus $700= $320/month for food,clothes and transportation to work. (I don't know how much food stamps one qualifies for. If you don't have kids, you get nothing.) The foods at the food banks are mostly processed foods, even the govt commodities are processed food.
For many years, people have been taught what is good and what is bad food. I don't recall who said it, something to the effect of;If you say something enough, it becomes truth.
People have been told that processed food is harmless. To recondition that way of thinking is a slow process. Most don't read the ingredients, and when they do,they have no clue what they are looking at.For example: Sorbitol is a bulk substitute sweetner,it is also used for constipation,it's side effects are; Nausea, gas, diarrhea, stomach cramps, to name a few.
Factory farmed dairy has to be pasteurized because of the living/nutritional/health conditions of the cows, beeves have to be processed with the chemicals because of basically the same. If the mass processed produce wasn't processed as it is, then there would be more outbreaks of lethal pathogens as the spinach contamination of last year.
I do believe that knowledge is power, and the majority of people are asleep until it affects them or someone close to them. Many believe that the govt entities are looking out for them. If people don't have all the facts then they cannot make informed decisions.
The comments on this topic (and those embedded in David's post) have reminded me of some thoughts I had last night while reading Lights Out: Sleep, Sugar, and Survival, by, T.S. Wiley. The premise of the book is that there is a huge amount of research (much of it from the NIH & NASA) indicating that there has been a huge health toll on humans since the age of cheap electric lights, since the 1920s or so, when we were able to push back the night and party, work, or otherwise not go to sleep. We know about the resarch focus o the dietary changes since around that time. But there is lots of research into the effects of sleep, light, and seasonal variations, that seems to be practically a secret.
Prior to the mass adoption of electric lights humans slept an average of 9.5 hours a night, whereas Americans now are lucky if they get a full 7 hrs.; many get by on far less. The research shows this excess exposure to light and lack of sleep creates hormonal havoc in the body, particularly in winter, causing carb cravings, hyperinsulinemia, weight gain, & worse, but the natural order of things in the "real world", i.e., before the age of agriculture when humans were developing, summer was the time to sleep less, eat more available carbs, and lay down some fat and insulation for the winter, when protein and fat were the dominant macronutrients and carbs were scarce. So we live in an "endless summer". While diet clearly has gone awry in the 20th century in terms of fostering human health, the book makes an argument that our dietary and health problems are possibly more directly caused by the reduction of our amount of sleep, as well as quality of and timing of sleep. I don't think it's really arguable that we still live in nature anymore so I find this plausible and intriguing.
My point for bringing this up is that, according to the book (and the huge endnote reference section), the massive amount of disease caused directly and indirectly by our 24/7 "endless summer" society and the lack of sleep and carb feasting that results, is known to at least a good part of the scientific community, yet it certainly hasn't filtered down into general practice medicine or the masses in more than generic terms, "get a good night's sleep". As I thought about this, I imagined that there were conversations among the scientists about what to tell people, but the conclusion was probably right on the money, that people wouldn't pay attention, wouldn't want to change their habits, and while they have been willing to give up the fat (a mistake), they won't be so willing to give up the sugar (a real problem), especially in the winter. And ultimately, like quality food, shortening our days, sleeping more, working less, reducing the convenience and enjoyment of our 24/7 lifestyle *will cost money* one way or another, personally and as a societal cost. The economy would slow to a snail's pace. I think that is too much for most to consider, so they would keep on doing what they do, even if it kills them in the end.
Makes paying more for food seem like nothing.
Has anyone else read this book and have thoughts on it?
I’ve noted that a roasting chicken in the grocery store typically goes for $1.50/pound, while I pay $2.50/pound for organic free-range meat chickens. (I know the farmer, and he’s very happy with his margin.) Meanwhile, in other areas it’s not unusual to see free-range organic whole chickens advertised for $4.00/pound and higher. Why the disparity?
Forgive me, but I can’t help but suspect that “what the market will bear” sometimes gives primary guidance in setting those high prices. To me, that’s not a fair way to price anything, least of all food.
We encourage the problem by viewing basic, old-fashioned food as having “artisan” qualities. No matter how good a naturally-raised chicken or duck looks look in comparison to today’s industrial foods, it is still what it is: a basic food. We warp reality when we promote our plainest, most essential commodities as elite products.
Believe me, I am not promoting susbsistence farming, just trying to find a proper balance.
Seven a pound isn’t too much…if the farmer can get it. And if he doesn’t there are two options…reduce the price, or eat the duck himself.
With the demand for properly raised food so high, it’s the smart farmer that will push the envelope, and maximize his profit. After all, it’s not being raised for fun, and making food from Earth and Sun isn’t as easy as you think. There is a limit though, and finding it makes good business sense. Customers low-balling farmers is the quickest way to drive your food source bankrupt. Paying what is needed to keep your farmers land payment paid till next year (plus all the other bills), is better in the long run. Most eco-farmers aren’t blowing their hard earned ‘fortunes’ on wide screen TV’s and Hummers.
Many farmers I know refuse to deal with customers who complain about price. They way they look at it, with so many clamoring for the limited supply of healthy products; it’s just not worth the noise. Sure, some feel the effort to educate is worthwhile, but others don’t have the patience for those who fail to see the larger picture (and recognize their place in it).
The extra dollar or two (or 10 or 20) makes a statement. It’s the best way to show your appreciation for the alternative food supplier. It’s a perfect way to flex your economic muscle, and support those whose priorities and views are similar to your own. It’s the fuel that drives the revolution (and fuel of any kind isn’t cheap).
The only thing worse than someone wanting something for nothing, is someone wanting something REALLY good for just a little more than nothing.
So it cost approx. $1,000 to raise two pigs organically for 7 months. And that does not count my personal time giving them all those massages, that was priceless! lol
That's a start. Then let's add $20 per hour for the labor (that's a $40,000 per year job at the standard approximately 2000 hours per year, which is hardly Wall Street wages, altho if paid for the 60-80 hours per week that he/she works, a farmer could make $80,000 if paid for all hours), plus another $7.00 per hour allowance for health insurance, sick time off, retirement, vacation and holiday (which don't exist on the farm unless you pay someone to take over and give you a break), plus an amortized portion of the cost of disposable tools and equipment to haul those 100 lb bags of feed around, and associated maintenace (farmer provides, and gets to keep, the land and buildings so it's not in the equation although it's an interesting question about where he/she gets the land and buildings to start with), plus taxes and license costs and/or downtime dealing with regulators who just might want to put you out of business, plus (gasp) maybe even a profit. Plus the education to know how to run the complex enterprise that is a farm (we'll assume that is for free, but it really ought to be priced into the hourly wage, at least for the boss).
It all adds up. Many farmers do it for the love of the work. That's great - we should all be so lucky as to love our work. But farmers owe it to themselves, to their families, to the sustainability of the enterprise, and thus ultimately they "owe" it to their customers, to price their products fairly. Let's not forget, commodity pricing of farm products is the principal reason why there are more people in prison today in the USA than there are farmers.
The bottom line is that ALL food is expensive, be it factory farmed junk or the good stuff. The only difference is in how you pay for it, and how many times you pay for it.
When you go to the grocery store and buy a gallon of the stuff that is passed off as milk, you are buying it for the second time. The first time was when the government took money from you at the point of a gun (taxes) and gave it to the factory farm in the form of a subsidy, and the second time is at the checkout line at Krogers or Publix or whatever.
You pay me once. Period. I qualify for grants, subsidies, etc, but refuse to take them, so when you pay me for a gallon of milk you get the whole deal...all the milk and all the cost.
Isn't that as it should be?
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Isn't that as it should be?>>>
Bob, I believe that is how it should be. I don't have a problem paying a fair price for good quality items. I would pass on the $7/lb duck, I prefer goose and would have splurged on that.
Are there any books that teach one to eat healthy on a small budget? I don't believe I've seen any. Eating healthy on a budget...there's a title for you.
I shop at the co-op,and have had some of my friends make mention that they thought it was expensive. Some things are, yes, but many of the bulk items are much cheaper than at a regular store. Besides it is the only place I know of to get my raw milk in this area.
Problem is, most people get sticker shock over quality food, but think nothing of eating out or buying prepared food that will make them sick. They don't know how to cook from scratch and really make food stretch, while still eating well.
On a separate note, I have raised many free-range Muscovy ducks. They can fly, and are open to loss due to predation, thus increasing the cost to raise them.
So I'm always baffled by people (including family members and friends) who have very high incomes, and shop food price only. These same people are taking multiple drugs (expensive drugs) to deal with multiple conditions and diseases brought on by eating the cheapest 'food' that they can find. Very strange, this total disconnect between what they put in their bodies and what their health is.
In the dead of winter the pastures are unreachable, buried under several feet of snow here in Vermont, but we have hay.
In addition to that we get excess dairy from a local organic cheese company, primarily in the form of the whey that is left over after making butter and cheese. That and the pasture/hay makes for a very complete diet for our pigs.