The New York Times article on grass fed beef is a great article that covers all the high spots:
It has all the essential elements of the great debate on grass fed, and talks about the most important issues--processing.
Granted these people solved their processing problem--great---more power to them. They also had millions of dollars in an asset base. How do I know that? Because a bank was willing to lend them money so that means they don't fit the profile of "the starving artist farmer" they talk about.
But, given all that, it's still a success story for local food because compared to the Cargill's of the world White Oaks is a "starving artist type". The ante for the Cargill-Smithfeild game is billions with a b, not millions with an m.
So, the real point is that despite it all, White Oaks is in the processing game. When the ante to be a food purveyor like a Smithfield is 5 billion, and you can get in the game for less than a 100 million that is just as much a success story as being able to drive your pickup from Woosung, Illinois to Chicago to sell organic "taters". The only difference is the zeros. The issues are the same.
Comments