4 ms·

If we're willing to invest in engineered solutions like hydroponics and vertical farms, then there is no need to be growing crops in California in the first pla

by cmsmith 11y ago

If we're willing to invest in engineered solutions like hydroponics and vertical farms, then there is no need to be growing crops in California in the first place. The advantage of California agriculture is that you can grow crops outside year round. If you're growing inside, then you might as well grow where the water/people are.

whyenot 11y ago
> The advantage of California agriculture is that you can grow crops outside year round. It's a little more complicated than that. When it comes to produce, I think you are right being able to grow year round is a huge advantage. But, many of the nuts and stone fruit grown in California would actually do better if were cooler (better fruit set, fewer pests). What is very compelling about California agriculture is the dry, low humidity summers that prevent crop damage and at least in the central valley, quite possibly the best agricultural soil on the planet. Of course the federal and state water projects also help a lot by increasing access to water and historically have been a huge indirect government subsidy to CA agriculture. > If you're growing inside, then you might as well grow where the water/people are. California has a population approaching 40 million.
- jackfoxy 11y ago
  > quite possibly the best agricultural soil on the planet I think the Salinas Valley in California is even a stronger contender for this title than the Central Valley.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> If you're growing inside, then you might as well grow where the water/people are. Well, no, you want to, ideally, grow where the water is but the people aren't. Because otherwise agricultural use and human use are competing for space in the same high-demand areas, and driving the prices up for each other. It may be even be worth moving some water to where the people aren't to support growing to permit this, given the normal tendency for people to also be where the water is.
- bro-stick 11y ago
  It's actually way more complicated than that: farm grower agribusinesses aim to minimize costs of competing tensions between locating input supplies, growing, processing, transportation and distribution. The reality is government should move to align business interests to ecological productivity and sustainability to compel corporations to get with the program. It would take a Bernie Sanders 2016 to get that going in the US, because the corporations have too much power and don't like change (change = risk, obstinacy = power).
  - justinsingh 11y ago
    Why Bernie Sanders? Is this topic in his agenda?
    - bro-stick 11y ago
      It's not critical. Bernie is an honest, consistent, socialist. Look at his interviews from 30 years ago, his message hasn't changed. He's against TTIP. His biggest objectives will include campaign finance reform, income inequality, justice sys racial bias... the long road of fixing the very broken republic. He voted and spoke out against the wars Iraq and Afghanistan which costed $5 trillion USD +- $2 trillion. I won't get into it further because HN is allergic to political speech.

by cmsmith 11y ago

whyenot 11y ago

> The advantage of California agriculture is that you can grow crops outside year round. It's a little more complicated than that. When it comes to produce, I think you are right being able to grow year round is a huge advantage. But, many of the nuts and stone fruit grown in California would actually do better if were cooler (better fruit set, fewer pests). What is very compelling about California agriculture is the dry, low humidity summers that prevent crop damage and at least in the central valley, quite possibly the best agricultural soil on the planet. Of course the federal and state water projects also help a lot by increasing access to water and historically have been a huge indirect government subsidy to CA agriculture. > If you're growing inside, then you might as well grow where the water/people are. California has a population approaching 40 million.

jackfoxy 11y ago
> quite possibly the best agricultural soil on the planet I think the Salinas Valley in California is even a stronger contender for this title than the Central Valley.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> If you're growing inside, then you might as well grow where the water/people are. Well, no, you want to, ideally, grow where the water is but the people aren't. Because otherwise agricultural use and human use are competing for space in the same high-demand areas, and driving the prices up for each other. It may be even be worth moving some water to where the people aren't to support growing to permit this, given the normal tendency for people to also be where the water is.

bro-stick 11y ago
It's actually way more complicated than that: farm grower agribusinesses aim to minimize costs of competing tensions between locating input supplies, growing, processing, transportation and distribution. The reality is government should move to align business interests to ecological productivity and sustainability to compel corporations to get with the program. It would take a Bernie Sanders 2016 to get that going in the US, because the corporations have too much power and don't like change (change = risk, obstinacy = power).
- justinsingh 11y ago
  Why Bernie Sanders? Is this topic in his agenda?
  - bro-stick 11y ago
    It's not critical. Bernie is an honest, consistent, socialist. Look at his interviews from 30 years ago, his message hasn't changed. He's against TTIP. His biggest objectives will include campaign finance reform, income inequality, justice sys racial bias... the long road of fixing the very broken republic. He voted and spoke out against the wars Iraq and Afghanistan which costed $5 trillion USD +- $2 trillion. I won't get into it further because HN is allergic to political speech.