4 ms·

Why call out almond farming when dairy uses even more? https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths For a

by __s 6y ago

Why call out almond farming when dairy uses even more? https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths For almonds you have to frame it about where that water is coming from, ie dairy from outside California may be less impactful. So the question should be whether futures will help sourcing water better in some sense Side thought: on things using way too much water, it's always amusing that more water goes into producing bottles as opposed to the water content in a bottled water

s1artibartfast 6y ago
Never got the almond issue. Why not go after beef, or fruit, or wine, or any number of other foods.
- dnautics 6y ago
  Have you ever seen an almond in the wild? It's basically the the thing inside of the pit of a fruit like nectarine or plum. The fleshy part of the fruit, which is quite moist and watery, gets thrown out.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    The flesh is called the husk. What conclusion do you draw from that? If a almond takes the same amount of water per calorie as a strawberry, does it matter that it has a husk?
    - dnautics 6y ago
      > If a almond takes the same amount of water per calorie as a strawberry, does it matter that it has a husk? No. But it sounded like you were surprised that almonds were so consumptive it the first place. I don't know off the top of my head that they are consumptive relative to any given metric, but it shouldn't be surprising that they are, considering how almonds "work" and how much they are produced in CA. Especially since you compared against wine. Wine can be extremely drought tolerant; there are wine fields in california that are only watered for the first season of growth and the remaining productive years are sustained by waters from the local aquifers (rainfall).
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        I am continually surprised because I grew up in an agricultural area and know almonds are not particularly water consumptive when compared to other crops commonly grown in california, like grapes or or strawberries. Grapes and Beef both take more water per calorie than almonds. I think the confusion comes because people don't take calorie density into account. An acre of grapes produces 375 million calories and uses 2.5 Acreft of water An acre of almonds produces 580 million calories and uses 3 acreft of water Beef is much much worse. As an aside, Husks take up negligible water in terms of the trees consumption and are not a good indicator. 99% of the water used by nut trees goes into evaporation.
        __s 6y ago
        Thanks for the information. Something I've wondered with these sorts of things is what's meant by "used" with water? I can understand measuring the input into the system, but there's a lot of outputs, & some of those outputs should flow back into the system sooner than others, causing variance of how much impact that input of water had on the surrounding areas' drought Since you're saying 99% evaporation, I assume for most everything most water follows air flows which through the pareto principle collect to places which don't need water? (& may actively not want water in the case of flooding)
        s1artibartfast 6y ago
        As you surmised, "used" water is the input to the system. For most systems, the waste water outputs ends up in places which are not useful. The valuable output of the water (H20) is converted to other molecules (eg sugar, cellulose, ect). You could measure this by the change in plant mass from the start of the season to harvest time. Some of the water will also seep into the ground deeper than the tree can reach, and some will be lost as evaporated vapor from the leaves and tissue. This water would is generally gone from the system. This can and cause increased humidity and cloud formation and be blown to different locations. There is some literature on the subject. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/hydr/15/3/jhm-d-13-049_1.xml?tab_body=fulltext-display https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/hydr/15/3/jhm-d-1... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-008-0445-z https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-008-0445-z
- eru 6y ago
  They grow lots of almonds in California and export them all over the world. I had Californian almonds in Europe and Asia. I don't get Califarnian beef there. (The beef on offer is usual from places with fewer water problems. There's no big need to conserve water where it ain't scarce.) So almonds are very visible.
Cd00d 6y ago
I worked in remote sensing 2012-2014 and we had an agriculture customer base in California. The problem I saw with nut trees, is during the drought nuts became far more profitable, largely because they are not drought resistant. So, a lot of farms were replacing the more traditional, regional, drought-resistant plants (hay, alfalfa, soy?) with nut trees that would take 5-8 years to mature and use way more water.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  What do you mean when you say nut trees are less drought resistant than Soy? Both crops are based on pumped water. Trees can survive on 10% water for a year but wont bear fruit or make a profit. The other crops cant be grown on 10% water. You simply don't plant alfalfa if you don't have the water.

by __s 6y ago

s1artibartfast 6y ago

Never got the almond issue. Why not go after beef, or fruit, or wine, or any number of other foods.

dnautics 6y ago
Have you ever seen an almond in the wild? It's basically the the thing inside of the pit of a fruit like nectarine or plum. The fleshy part of the fruit, which is quite moist and watery, gets thrown out.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  The flesh is called the husk. What conclusion do you draw from that? If a almond takes the same amount of water per calorie as a strawberry, does it matter that it has a husk?
  - dnautics 6y ago
    > If a almond takes the same amount of water per calorie as a strawberry, does it matter that it has a husk? No. But it sounded like you were surprised that almonds were so consumptive it the first place. I don't know off the top of my head that they are consumptive relative to any given metric, but it shouldn't be surprising that they are, considering how almonds "work" and how much they are produced in CA. Especially since you compared against wine. Wine can be extremely drought tolerant; there are wine fields in california that are only watered for the first season of growth and the remaining productive years are sustained by waters from the local aquifers (rainfall).
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      I am continually surprised because I grew up in an agricultural area and know almonds are not particularly water consumptive when compared to other crops commonly grown in california, like grapes or or strawberries. Grapes and Beef both take more water per calorie than almonds. I think the confusion comes because people don't take calorie density into account. An acre of grapes produces 375 million calories and uses 2.5 Acreft of water An acre of almonds produces 580 million calories and uses 3 acreft of water Beef is much much worse. As an aside, Husks take up negligible water in terms of the trees consumption and are not a good indicator. 99% of the water used by nut trees goes into evaporation.
      - __s 6y ago
        Thanks for the information. Something I've wondered with these sorts of things is what's meant by "used" with water? I can understand measuring the input into the system, but there's a lot of outputs, & some of those outputs should flow back into the system sooner than others, causing variance of how much impact that input of water had on the surrounding areas' drought Since you're saying 99% evaporation, I assume for most everything most water follows air flows which through the pareto principle collect to places which don't need water? (& may actively not want water in the case of flooding)
        s1artibartfast 6y ago
        As you surmised, "used" water is the input to the system. For most systems, the waste water outputs ends up in places which are not useful. The valuable output of the water (H20) is converted to other molecules (eg sugar, cellulose, ect). You could measure this by the change in plant mass from the start of the season to harvest time. Some of the water will also seep into the ground deeper than the tree can reach, and some will be lost as evaporated vapor from the leaves and tissue. This water would is generally gone from the system. This can and cause increased humidity and cloud formation and be blown to different locations. There is some literature on the subject. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/hydr/15/3/jhm-d-13-049_1.xml?tab_body=fulltext-display https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/hydr/15/3/jhm-d-1... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-008-0445-z https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-008-0445-z
eru 6y ago
They grow lots of almonds in California and export them all over the world. I had Californian almonds in Europe and Asia. I don't get Califarnian beef there. (The beef on offer is usual from places with fewer water problems. There's no big need to conserve water where it ain't scarce.) So almonds are very visible.

Cd00d 6y ago

I worked in remote sensing 2012-2014 and we had an agriculture customer base in California. The problem I saw with nut trees, is during the drought nuts became far more profitable, largely because they are not drought resistant. So, a lot of farms were replacing the more traditional, regional, drought-resistant plants (hay, alfalfa, soy?) with nut trees that would take 5-8 years to mature and use way more water.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
What do you mean when you say nut trees are less drought resistant than Soy? Both crops are based on pumped water. Trees can survive on 10% water for a year but wont bear fruit or make a profit. The other crops cant be grown on 10% water. You simply don't plant alfalfa if you don't have the water.