
Costco opening a $440M chicken farm to escape America's chicken monopoly - jseliger
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/05/costco--chickens-tyson-perdue-monopoly-america-agriculture-farming.html
======
abc03
Watching several documentation and seeing chicken farms, I Never buy USD 5
chickens anymore. I buy only organic (more time to grow) and if available from
my preferred supplier from the farmer’s market (she only slaughters 5 times a
year and grows different breeds). My nephew from the US came over and was
shocked at the taste (I didn’t tell him about the price as he would probably
not eat it). Food prices are not a concern for me and I prefer to increase
quality instead of quantity. I should anyway eat less.

~~~
henryl
To be honest, although I prefer organic chicken for health and ethical
reasons, mass produced chicken tastes juicier and better.

~~~
onetimemanytime
>> _mass produced chicken tastes juicier and better._

You might be referring to the "gamy" part of it. That's valid for super wild
chickens, but a little walk only makes them a lot better. There's no
comparison in taste between a 50 day old chicken raised in mass-produced
conditions and a 6-7 month one that roams in someone's backyard.

~~~
Spooky23
Also, remember that most chicken has added saline as well.

If you eat more natural white meat, it’s drier because there is less fat and
no added fluid.

~~~
AmVess
Often, just water. Chicken is sold by the pound. If you increase its weight by
5%, then you just got a close to free way of boosting profits by that amount.

They don't even hide the fact that they do it; most of them print it right on
the packaging.

I quit buying supermarket chicken a long time ago because the quality is very
poor. I trim the excess fat off chicken, and supermarket stuff has so much
waste it was shocking.

------
oblib
I am surrounded by chicken farms, and the farmers who own and operate them.
Almost all of them are family owned farms who sell to Tyson.

I can say with confidence that they work hard and are very diligent in
maintaining a high standard of quality.

It's a false sense of higher morality to claim "ethical reasons" for not
buying those chicken. You aren't saving or improving the lives of any chickens
when you do that.

And those chickens don't have it all that bad. I also raise my own chickens
and they have a great life for a chicken but it's not idyllic. Chickens have
always been low on the food chain and here where I live there are a lot of
chicken eaters that are not human.

As for safe and organic feed, we all want that, even my neighbors who are
chicken farmers. Right now that's still easier said than done. Costco's move
may help lead/push us that direction and I commend them for leading on this
issue.

~~~
jMyles
> It's a false sense of higher morality to claim "ethical reasons" for not
> buying those chicken. You aren't saving or improving the lives of any
> chickens when you do that.

I don't see how this statement can be held with confidence to be true.

If I buy chicken whose precise provenance is known, and which are raised in
humane conditions with high-quality feed, with a process that is minimally
negatively (or, ideally, positively) environmentally impactful, then indeed
there is an ethical gain in doing so.

If I buy from Tyson, I have no way of knowing any of this. Nor does Tyson even
claim that I can know these things.

~~~
Falling3
> If I buy chicken whose precise provenance is known, and which are raised in
> humane conditions with high-quality feed

We're talking morals and we're surely going to have some differences in
opinion, but I don't see how raising animals who've been selectively bred to
grow an order of magnitude faster and larger than they would naturally, kept
indoors for most of their lives, and killed at less than 1% of their potential
lifespan could ever be considered "humane". Especially when their consumption
is wholly unnecessary.

~~~
oblib
Ok, I'll talk morals for a bit.

First off, not eating chickens doesn't make life any better for those chickens
that are eaten, and no chickens live better as a result of not eating them.
The best that can be said is less chickens live because they were never
hatched from an egg specifically to be eaten.

Those Tyson chicken farmers are not torturing chickens, not by a long shot.
They get good feed and fresh water and as much of that as they want. I don't
know what you imagine chickens do all day when they're not in a barn, but I
know what they do. All they do is eat, drink, crap, and screw, and by far most
of their time is spent eating. They don't drink much and nothing I know of
screws faster than a rooster, so that takes up almost none of their day.

And I can assure you that the lifespan of a free range chicken isn't very
long. I know this because there are no wild chickens running around where I
live, even though 1000s of acres of National Forest surround me and there are
many people that raise them at home and farmers with huge barns full of them
surrounding the National Forests here. And because I hatched and kept over 30
chickens myself last year and all of them got eaten by wild carnivores. Mostly
fox. They're sneaky as can be.

I don't have a problem with those who don't eat meat, but if we're going to
talk in terms of morals let's not kid ourselves or others by thinking that
eating only veggies isn't taking "life". It is, and I just cannot kid myself
into thinking that killing a tomato is less or more of an affront to God than
killing a chicken.

There's really very little difference between raising tomatoes from seed and
raising chickens from eggs. Both of those are living things and you have to
kill them to eat them.

And I won't try to kid myself into believing that I'd not eat a chicken raised
by those Tyson farmers if I were starving. I would, and fast too. And so would
most everyone who feels a sense of moral superiority to those who eat chickens
when they're not starving.

I'll probably piss some people off with this, but here it goes anyway...
Chickens, and really pretty much every animal we raise to eat, are all fairly
well packaged for eating. From cows to pigs to chickens and even fish of all
sizes, they all are dressed out pretty much the same and it's a pretty simple
and fast process to get them kitchen ready, and they taste good, and they make
you feel good (as opposed to modern junk foods).

Here's another thing... Most everyone I know who's taken the life of any
animal for food did so with a very reverent and thankful attitude. You think
about that a lot more than you do when buy a taco at Taco Bell or a salad at a
restaurant. I do the same when I take veggies from my garden because I know
I'm taking life to sustain my own. I provide care and protection to both my
veggies and my chickens and I give thanks when I take them to sustain myself
and family and friends.

That's all any of us can do and the best we can do. There is no other way to
live as a human.

~~~
zanny
> It is, and I just cannot kid myself into thinking that killing a tomato is
> less or more of an affront to God than killing a chicken.

Just a reminder, fruiting plants make the fruit for animals to eat to spread
their seeds. It doesn't kill the plant. With the exception of herbs and fungi
almost every plant humans eat evolved to be eaten and often we only eat parts
of the plant that regrow with the intent to be eaten without killing the main
body.

~~~
oblib
"Just a reminder, fruiting plants make the fruit for animals to eat to spread
their seeds. It doesn't kill the plant"

But the fact is we do kill those plants. Those tomatoes are filled with seed
intended, by nature, to propagate the species, but the chance of that dies
when you eat them, and then the entire plant dies. There are no birds eating
their fruit and spreading their seed. It that were the case we'd see tomatoes
growing wild all over the US, but we don't.

Carrots, lettuce, broccoli, radishes, etc, etc, are all harvested (murdered if
you will) before they even get a chance to go to seed. Your reminder doesn't
account for that.

So, yes, in fact, billions of plants are murdered each year because we humans
eat them.

I'm more curious about why this so difficult for some people to accept. It's
obviously driven by empathy and compassion, and I admire that, but it ignores
the facts that plainly exist all around us all the time.

The latest figure I could find easily says "In 2008, 9.08 billion chickens
were slaughtered in the United States".

And tomatoes? "According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural
Organization statistics, around 340 billion pounds (170 million tons) of fresh
and processing tomatoes were produced globally in 2014. The harvested area
covered 12.4 million acres (5 million hectares) of farm land."

That's a lot of food for a lot of people. All of it brought to life that's
taken for one purpose, to sustain us.

This does not make us murderous beasts, and no one, not even those who've
claimed to be "Breatharians", has proved they could exist without taking life.
There's just no getting around that necessity.

As far as I can make out, this notion that one is existing without taking life
is almost exclusively found in cities, generally far from where food is grown
and harvested. I'm pretty much convinced it is a willful denial of the truth
created by and to convince oneself they are superior to the crude masses who
haven't achieved their advanced level of conscientious. And it's a growing
trend.

The fact is, it's an example of denial. We all take life to sustain our own.
The best we can do is provide the means for it to flourish and take it in as
painless a way as possible, rather it's a chicken or a radish.

------
AceJohnny2
> _American chicken monopoly run by the likes of Tyson, Pilgrim 's Pride and
> Perdue._

That's not what "monopoly" means.

~~~
chrisseaton
'Monopoly' seems to have become a completely meaningless word. I think it now
sort of vaguely means a marketplace or any number of successful companies
doing their own thing, and people complaining about a monopoly just seem to be
complaining that there are any number of existing successful companies in a
space they'd either like to be in as well, or that a company won't do exactly
what they want.

~~~
zzzcpan
> in a space they'd either like to be in as well

But that's exactly what monopoly means, i.e. you can't get in and compete with
those players.

It sounds like you are justifying monopolized markets for whatever reason.

~~~
dragontamer
"Mono" means ONE. Literally the number 1. Monopoly generally means ONE
supplier that controls the entire marketplace.

There are other forms of market failure relating to a small group having too
much power in the market: Monopoly, Cartel, Oligopoly, Monopsony, etc. etc.

Oligopoly or Cartel are far closer to what the article is describing. To use
the word "Monopoly" here is simply incorrect English.

~~~
zzzcpan
Literal meaning of the word is absolutely irrelevant. Historically monopoly
was about granted status, but it's mostly a theoretical concept today, where
everyone is in the middle between monopoly and perfect competition. You can
say that if it's not competitive enough, it's a monopoly.

~~~
chrisseaton
> You can say that if it's not competitive enough, it's a monopoly.

A market that is not competitive enough is an 'oligopoly'. That's the word you
want. Why do you want to move the definition of 'monopoly' when we already
have the word 'oligopoly'?

~~~
zzzcpan
I don't want to move the definition, my definition is fine and is shared among
many people. Yours is the one I think is wrong. You shouldn't imply that
oligopoly is not a form of monopoly. It absolutely is.

~~~
chrisseaton
> You shouldn't imply that oligopoly is not a form of monopoly.

But the article said 'monopoly', not 'oligopoly'.

Monopoly is a form of oligopoly. But oligopoly is not a form of monopoly.

All monopolies are oligopolies. Not all oligopolies are monopolies.

This chicken situation is maybe an oligopoly. It isn't a monopoly.

If you think a situation with multiple supplies and limited competition is a
monopoly, then I'd ask you... why do we also have the term oligopoly? What do
you think the difference is?

~~~
NegativeK
You can argue that all laypeople should use the terms that specialists use, or
you can accept that people use words differently and try to understand people
when they write/speak.

The latter is far, far easier and actually achievable.

~~~
sievebrain
This is the first time I've encountered people using the word monopoly
incorrectly like this. I'm not really minded to just roll over and accept
wrong usage because a few other people object - the usage is wrong so they
need to improve their English.

Also for what it's worth I don't believe the article author misunderstands the
word monopoly. I think they abused it to get clicks.

------
ChuckMcM
I think the bigger story here is whether or not Costco's chicken will improve
with respect to the other players in the market.

Consider that the 'big players' have all extracted the costs they felt they
could, with the choices they made, and that is the 'standard' product most
people are offered. Now we get CostCo which is making different choices and
perhaps getting a different result (size, flavor, what have you). In the event
that CostCo chicken becomes the market leader and perhaps people are even
incentivized to join CostCo in order to have access to their chicken supply,
CostCo would likely open a second and third farm so that all of their chicken
needs could be met. And what would that do to the profitability of the others?

To my reading, the article implies that these large farms conspire in their
offering, otherwise CostCo could just move their business to the one that was
willing to meet there terms. Sort of like McDonald's and their beating potato
farmers over the head with demands for the specific variety and size pototato
they needed for their fries. (which they could do because their purchases were
a significant chunk of the market[1])

So without cooperation from the chicken cartel, or perhaps for other
unmentioned reasons, CostCo decides to become an agricultural company too.

I'm really wondering if there is some way to disrupt these large agricultural
interests effectively. Imagine the Uber for Chicken Farming where an app
connects people with extra chicken into a chicken acquisition and slaughtering
pipeline for resale.

[1] [http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32983108/ns/business-
us_business/t...](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32983108/ns/business-
us_business/t/mcdonalds-holy-grail-potato-farmers/)

~~~
droopyEyelids
Forgive my tangent, but do you have any idea why you like to write it as
"CostCo"?

I notice it's a common practice on news.y to find (or invent) sub-words in
names and capitalize them. Like I remember everyone writing "GroupOn" for the
portmanteau of "group coupon"

It's puzzling to me and I want to understand where you're coming from!

~~~
hodder
It is a variable naming convention known as "CapWords" or "upper CamelCase".
This is the recommended naming convention for Python class's

[https://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#naming-
conventi...](https://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#naming-conventions)

~~~
twic
If the poster was a Haskeller, they would doubtless also have mentioned Co-
CostCos.

------
devonkim
Costco is on a supply chain shakedown it seems because they’re also making an
eyewear factory for similar business reasons as with chicken.

Being in Georgia I see some of these chicken trucks full of live and dead
chickens and while they’re pretty dumb and dirty birds there’s no question
that the birds in the system are suffering terribly. On top of that is the
human suffering of the farmers that raise them in the kind of financial
conditions they’re subjected to.

I’m fine paying substantially more for better treated chicken but the issue is
that I have few guarantees that this is happening when I choose some labels
over another given how convoluted the US agriculture and FDA system is.

~~~
debacle
They likely just hit an inflection point where it started making sense to do
their own fab.

------
JSeymourATL
The rotisserie chicken is a well-documented loss-leader for Costco. At $4.99
for a three-pound bird, it’s an amazing solution for quick weeknight dinners.>
[https://www.thekitchn.com/costco-chicken-loss-leader-
strateg...](https://www.thekitchn.com/costco-chicken-loss-leader-
strategy-260017)

~~~
larrik
Costco's rotisseries chickens are MUCH better than the grocery stores', as
well.

~~~
maerF0x0
And yet, so far below getting a quality bird and roasting yourself...

I've noticed that many of the rotisserie birds have really odd texture, I
think because they're grossly overcooked

~~~
WaxProlix
If you don't get a fresh one there's a chance it's sat in the warming area for
a few hours, which could definitely do something bad to the texture.

~~~
rednerrus
There's a sticker on each box telling you what time it went out.

------
dbg31415
Look, it's Costco. Not Walmart.

Costco has higher standards than just about any other retailer I can think of.

* Costco tightens standards for antibiotics use by meat producers | The Seattle Times || [https://www.seattletimes.com/business/agriculture/costco-tig...](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/agriculture/costco-tightens-standards-for-antibiotics-use-by-meat-producers/)

I suspect this move to own their own production is because they couldn't get
the quality they expect, at prices they expect, at scale from the current
suppliers.

* Animal Welfare | Costco || [https://www.costco.com/sustainability-animal-welfare.html](https://www.costco.com/sustainability-animal-welfare.html)

------
aristophenes
This is really confusing. When the top 5 companies control 2/3 the market, how
is that a monopoly? The biggest company is less than 25%.

Anyway, the fact that I can walk into a store (not just Costco, I do this
elsewhere) and buy a fully prepared, seasoned, cooked, ready-to-eat, warm,
entire chicken for 5 US dollars blows my mind. We don't understand how good we
have it. Most of us here on HN can exchange the money we get for less than 10
minutes of work for the aforementioned culinary delight. We're not talking
about a bowl of porridge here, this is protein-packed meat. I've been around
the world. Everyone (who eats meat at all) loves chicken. We live in paradise.

I can understand ethical and environmental concerns, but we have to be doing
something right here.

~~~
antisthenes
Agreed, rotisserie chicken is the 8th wonder of the world.

Nice nickname, btw.

------
elektor
Given Costco's size and influence in the food market, I'd like to see them
lend more credence to the plant-based meat market which would be even better
for them financial and environmentally.

~~~
ianai
I don’t know why I can’t at least buy lentils from Costco. They’ve got the
huge bags of pintos and rice already. They could definitely apply their
business model to plant based options. Instead their shelves are prime
examples of foods that could otherwise be great vegan but just have animal
products needlessly included.

~~~
_coveredInBees
I think it depends on the local market. I live in an area with a large Asian
(Indian/Pakistani/Chinese/East Asian) population and my local Costco sells all
sorts of lentils along with Naan, etc. They even have a few types of boxed
pre-made lentil soups (dals). It probably just doesn't make sense for them to
stock lentils in markets with low demand.

~~~
savrajsingh
NJ?

------
mark-r
For an article about chickens, there sure wasn't a lot of meat in it.

------
ivankolev
If it is going to use the same factory farming processes, what's the point?

~~~
traek
NPR has more info about motivations:

> Building a system to stock its own stores is a way for the company to better
> manage supply and costs, especially because poultry companies are trending
> away from raising chickens to be sold whole.

> According to Will Sawyer, a meat industry economist for the Denver-based
> farm lender CoBank, chicken producers are growing bigger chickens to sell in
> parts. "The vast majority are processed into chicken breasts or leg quarters
> or thighs, or they're further processed into strips or nuggets," Sawyer
> said. "That's where the industry has gone over 50 years now."

[https://www.npr.org/2018/10/22/659561091/costco-builds-
nebra...](https://www.npr.org/2018/10/22/659561091/costco-builds-nebraska-
supply-chain-for-its-5-rotisserie-chickens)

------
tokyodude
You can eat raw chicken at many if not most izakaya (Japanese tapas) in Japan.
Tastes great!!

No idea if that means Japanese chicken production is safer or if it's just
their food culture is more risky like France's

------
dawhizkid
I hope Costco survives Amazon

~~~
rthomas6
It sells a lot of large things in its warehouses that are expensive to ship.
I'm sure you _can_ buy a 50 pound bag of dog food or a giant pack of paper
towels online, but will you beat Costco's price? Doubtful.

~~~
maerF0x0
mostly because we value our own time below the market price to have someone
else do it for us. If shipping cost ever plummets then this upend warehouse
style stores.

~~~
Qwertystop
Not just that - if you can get an entire shopping trip worth of stuff in one
trip to a big warehouse-store, toss it all in your trunk, you don't need to
fit it all in standardized boxes with bubble-plastic padding, and the distance
from warehouse to your house will be covered in the most direct route. Even if
you valued your own time at market rates, it would probably take less of your
time than it would of someone else's, because shipping has more intermediate
steps.

------
setgree
This is kind of a nitpick, but I wish articles like this specified somehow
that Costco buys _dead_ chickens, and dismembered to boot. I know everybody
reading it knows that, but I don't like euphemisms/language games that divorce
consumers from the choice to eat an animal that was killed for you.

~~~
loco5niner
No language games.

It's clear that the chickens will be killed and eaten.

There is nothing wrong with killing and eating chickens as long as its done in
a responsible manner.

~~~
mx24
Responsible or sustainable animal agriculture is a pipe dream at this point.
With 7+ billion people on a planet facing environmental destruction it’s
irresponsible to advocate for the consumption of meat.

~~~
loco5niner
Costco is quite responsible. I think the fact that they are opening a giant
chicken farm is a good indication that it is not a pipe dream.

------
bg0
Just moved to Montreal from the US. Was astounded that chicken price per pound
is 5x the price it is back home.

------
chrischen
It says monopoly byt then lists 3 other competitors. Are they all colluding?

------
immichaelwang
Does anyone have recommendations on good documentaries in this space?

~~~
mistrial9
I recall seeing the "giant chicken vacuum" in a documentary once..that was a
new low for me.. it is 10 or 12 feet high, but somewhat like a vacuum with a
big bag for the birds, and a pole sweeps across a measured, enclosed area such
that none of the birds escape.. what comes next is also in that movie..
mercifully I do not recall the name..

------
MrTonyD
I suspect that this is about quality of product. Chicken has had a lot of
problems with poisoning people here in the US (since our standards for the
environment where chickens are kept isn't designed to reduce disease - rather,
it encourages disease.) People have gotten sick from Costco chickens - and
Costco's better smaller suppliers have been taken over by the large producers
- and of course people start dying again. As long as the profits stay high
chicken producers are able to get laws passed to avoid any real regulation.
Corrupt government is the real problem we should all be trying to solve as
software developers.

~~~
danieljohnson
Do you have any ideas on how software developers can solve the problem of
corrupt government?

Not being facetious, curious to hear what your views are.

~~~
Centigonal
OpenSecrets[1] and Sunlight Foundation[2] are great places to start. That
said, IMO the greatest change is achieved by canvassing, working in public
policy, or running for office oneself. Senator Jacky Rosen (D - NV), a former
Software Developer, is a great example.

[1] [https://www.opensecrets.org/](https://www.opensecrets.org/) [2]
[https://sunlightfoundation.com/](https://sunlightfoundation.com/)

