8 ms·
> Of course without agriculture we'd all starve to death, so banning farming is no solution. You're absolutely right. Yet, much like the "No Farms No Food" bu
by Kalium 3y ago
> Of course without agriculture we'd all starve to death, so banning farming is no solution.
You're absolutely right.
Yet, much like the "No Farms No Food" bumper-sticker slogan, there's some rhetorical sleight of hand going on here. Those stickers are correct in a general sense, but the slogan is rarely deployed in a general sense. It's generally used to defend uneconomical farming in environmentally questionable places.
Similarly, you're completely correct in every single way that we need agriculture and banning it is not a solution. However, there's perhaps a substantial difference between banning all agriculture everywhere and matching the agriculture in a location to the resources available to support it. If there's inadequate water or sun to grow crops that need lots of both, perhaps that location is not the best for those crops.
Agriculture is essential for human survival. It's possible that growing almonds in areas with sharply limited and poorly managed water is less than essential for human survival.
- bannedbybros 3y ago[dead]
- nielsbot 3y agoI've heard almonds need a lot of water, but I think the biggest culprit is exported alfalfa. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/12/colorado-drought-water-alfalfa-farmers-conservation https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/12/colorado...
- hombre_fatal 3y agoInteresting lack of discussion around animal agriculture in these comments. Closest convo we get is about alfalfa for horse food. Hmm, wouldn’t want to address the elephant in the room though.
- 8note 3y agoThe animals are a range. So.ething like ranching may be assigned a ton of water, but it's not like the rain will stop falling on forest because there's no cows there, and the only water being taken out at the end is the weight of the cows. If you're missing river and aquifer water, you want to tackle the users of river and aquifer water
- fredrikholm 3y ago> the only water being taken out at the end is the weight of the cows And the water needed to produce all of their food, which is way more calories than they end up giving back. And their daily water need, which comes out as urine, which pollutes the nearby environment. > If you're missing river and aquifer water, you want to tackle the users of river and aquifer water Exactly. If that is farmers growing crops to feed livestock, tackle that.
- jarebear6expepj 3y agoLuckily horses do not _need_ alfalfa. Farmers love growing alfalfa because if you give it sun and water in the right setting you can get damn near 14 cuts off a field of it in one year. This by comparison puts a grass hay field or even a nice neutral horse feed, Timothy grass, to shame. Alfalfa is a nutrient dense power bar that is given to horses kept in boxes. I would argue a happy horse would have a range of grassland to graze on, vs compressed cubes or squares of dense, sugary alfalfa that is replacing a normal ration. tldr: alfalfa is an unnatural food for unnaturally kept horses source: have horses on range land.
- dreamcompiler 3y agoAgreed. We have several packs of wild horses near where I live in the mountains of New Mexico--so many that some people find them a nuisance. They thrive quite nicely on whatever they can find, and they certainly don't find alfalfa. (Aside: Anybody who wants free horses to break (not to turn into dog food), let me know.)
- hosh 3y agoFirst, feed lots are a blight. Feed lots are not the only way to raise livestock. Second, there is very much a way to manage water while ranching — the main thing is to have the herds help you maintain healthy soil (which retains and regulates surface water), rather than destroying it like in feed lots. You make sure you can move them to a different section of the land. Third, livestock and crops can co-exist onsite, and there are mutually beneficial processes between the two. Most farmers and ranchers do one or the other. Combined with notill and letting limited grazing on fallow land, what would be toxic runoffs from manure turns into adding fertilizer back into fallow lands. Fourth, price of meat should reflect the added cost. People keep using feedlots because they want meat factories and cheap meat. Solutions already exist.
- slt2021 3y agothis solution is not scalable for "high density" animal farms. Which makes it economically infeasible.
- hosh 3y agoThe "high density" animal farms are the feed lots I was talking about, the very ones I'm calling a blight. I also address this in my fourth point -- price of meat would need to reflect not using feed lots. It's only not a solution because people want cheap meat. And just to be clear, I'm not advocating for all plant-based, vegan diet or using vat-grown meat. I think a clearer assessment of what we actually need to thrive, nutritionally speaking, would be of benefit.
- slt2021 3y agoYou are referring to Grass-fed premium meat? This is already available only to rich people at gourmet grocery shops for $13/lb for ground beef, and $30 for 12 oz for a steak If you are advocating to remove the cheaper options of meat, and leaving only grass-fed and premium meats available on the market - I am not sure this is a good approach. This is very elitist approach that could come from coastal elite only
- foobiekr 3y agoLet's say we eliminated all agricultural use of animals tomorrow. All that would accomplish is one-time shift the point on the continuum that the earth and society can support. The real problem, and the real elephant that no one wants to address, is the human population size.
- depr 3y agoPeople have been addressing it for a long time, it's called family planning, look it up.
- munificent 3y agoWe are addressing that. Human population is predicted to plateau in 2080 and begin to decline after that: https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth
- fkyoureadthedoc 3y ago> The real problem, and the real elephant that no one wants to address, is the human population size. Usually nobody engages this because it's a boring conservative talking point. Do I consume too much? No, it's the world that's overpopulated. And they usually have drastic authoritarian solutions that have no chance of being enacted. But go ahead, you have the floor, what are your proposals?
- vixen99 3y agoAs a special case it's worth noting that some 20 European countries are experiencing depopulation at a rate of around 10-20%. Countries with a significant welfare & national pension system cannot survive long term depopulation if there are not enough taxes coming in to pay for it.
- aerio 3y agoAlmost every single one of those countries are in eastern europe, definitely not countries with "significant welfare & national pension system". The depopulation is also mainly due to migration, not fertility.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoAnd no one would ever question the precious Californian wine industry
- mcdonje 3y agoThe article says only 20% of that alfalfa is exported. So, the biggest culprit would be alfalfa used domestically.
- nielsbot 3y agoGood point. I can't edit my original unfortunately.
- mcbutterbunz 3y agoIve also heard that almonds need a lot of water but how true is it? From what I've read: 1 almond requires 1 gallon of water 1 egg requires 50 gallons of water 1 8oz steak requires 900 gallons of water
- singleshot_ 3y agoKind of amazing that the more water goes into something, the better it tastes. You would maybe think the opposite.
- jimt1234 3y agoI've heard that about almonds, too (that they consume A LOT of water), and even worse: California farms pivoted to growing almonds, not because they're essential food, but because they sell a lot in China, and they're highly profitable. Furthermore, California farms have used the drought as an excuse to raise prices on almonds (that they ship to the Chinese market) and increase profits even more, even though their price of water hasn't changed. This has created a circle of increased water consumption, driven by profits, not the desire to feed the people. I'm definitely not an expert here. Please correct me if this is all BS.
- myshpa 3y ago> not because they're essential food They are essential, ask any vegan :) > but because they sell a lot in China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almonds_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almonds_in_California "Farmers exported $4.5 billion worth to foreign countries in 2016, about 22% of the state's total agricultural exports. The majority of these exports went to the European Union [37%], China [8%] and India [15%]. While the EU is the largest consumer, the latter two countries are expanding markets ...". Canada, Japan and UAE have 6% each. > created a circle of increased water consumption https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/23655640/colorado-river-water-alfalfa-dairy-beef-meat https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/23655640/colorado-river-wa... 1_049_555 million gallons ... beef, dairy __125_218 million_gallons ... soy, rice, almonds, potatoes https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/12/colorado-drought-water-alfalfa-farmers-conservation https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/12/colorado... "Agriculture – mainly alfalfa – consumes 80% of the Colorado River’s dwindling water supply ... One out of every three farmed acres in the valley is dedicated to growing alfalfa ... used as food for livestock." "In 2021, nearly 20% of alfalfa produced in the west was shipped abroad." https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/23655640/colorado-river-water-alfalfa-dairy-beef-meat https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/23655640/colorado-river-wa... "The Colorado River is going dry ... to feed cows." "That means altering the demand side of the water supply-demand equation and shifting diets globally to foods that use less H2O, which ultimately means less meat and dairy, as well as fewer water-intensive tree nuts like almonds, pistachios, and cashews (nut milks, however, require much less water to produce than cow’s milk)." https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/the-other-side-of-almonds-a-light-carbon-footprint https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/the-other-side-of-... "1 kilogram of almonds produces less than 1 kilogram of carbon emissions. (For comparison, the Environmental Working Group estimated that beef causes more than 20 kilograms of CO2-eq emissions, cheese more than 10, and beans and vegetables around 2.)" https://foodrevolution.org/blog/almonds-sustainability/ https://foodrevolution.org/blog/almonds-sustainability/ The authors compared the nutrition content of 42 different California food crops. They also ranked the economic value of 44 food crops. They concluded that for the water needed to produce them, almonds ranked among the most valuable foods grown in California for their dietary and economic benefits. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/environmental-footprint-milks https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/environmental-footprint-m... Cow milk is still 2x more water intensive than almods, needs 16x more land, produces 4x more CO2 and 6x more euthropication.
- droopyEyelids 3y agoI'd be a lot more sympathetic if California was growing Pecans rather than almonds. Almonds simply aren't good.
- mrguyorama 3y agoAll the rhetoric around California being the source of all food is made using Californian agriculture BY VALUE, not by caloric capacity. So of course, all the very expensive crops grown in California seem important by that metric, but they are only important to the value of land in california and the wealth of a few individuals who own those farms. In reality, middle America probably grows an entire magnitude more food calories than california, and most of that is inefficiently turned into beef, or ethanol for cars. America does not need to be worried about starving. We literally throw away like a quarter of the food we purchase, and for incredibly stupid reasons like people swallowing the "Best By" dates as gospel and refusing to eat food with a bruise. This doesn't even consider the massive amount of farmland that we used to use in plenty of rural states across the nation that just aren't as profitable as the factory farms that own the markets nowadays. My state used to produce mountains of potatoes for the entire country but got outcompeted by Idaho and now is stuck growing niche crops and small batches of broccoli for local consumption.
- thadk 3y agoSorry, "best by" dates are the strongest indicator I have that I'm not going to get a migraine after eating pantry food. If any given food was equal, the more I push beyond the dates, the more severe they get. They're not perfect, but to my body, also clearly not meaningless. Consider that food producers are logically often already under ample pressure to set those dates in reasonable thresholds on both sides by their reputations and their own supply chain lags.
- cycomanic 3y agoMigraines from food after the use by date sounds like a strong psychosomatic effect. If you'd say upset stomach or diarrhea ok, but I'm not sure how it would trigger a migraine except psychologically. I'm not saying this to be dismissive. These effects can be incredibly strong, I could not eat pork cutlets for years after I had an extremely strong migraine when I ate one. After my body associated the smell and taste with it and noped out every time I got close to one.
- 3y ago
- omegaworks 3y ago>If there's inadequate water or sun to grow crops that need lots of both, perhaps that location is not the best for those crops. "omg lets just move the farms to where the water is" like you're not talking about growing plants rooted in the literal ground, some that must be cultivated over multiple years to yield quality product. like we're not all going to be chasing water on a hotter planet with a chaotic climate.
- bequanna 3y agoContrary to what the alarmists are saying, the world’s breadbaskets aren’t going to turn into barren Mad Max hellscapes in the next decade. In fact, if warming occurs, the US and Canada stand to net gain arable land and have increased growing seasons. Of course the counter to that will always be “… but we’re going to have like SO much climate chaos!” which has become the perfect scary, vague and ultimately unprovable argument.
- omegaworks 3y agoWe're already seeing climate-related migration, loss and disaster. These things are quantifiable in dollars and lives. That certain regions are expected to "win" does not fully grasp the impact on our overall economic stability, the systems that keep necessities like food cheap and accessible. Whether you like it or not, the food market is global[1]. "Climate chaos" is not hyperbole. 1. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/global-wheat-prices-jump-following-collapse-of-major-dam-in-southern-ukraine https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/global-wheat-prices-jump-...
- bequanna 3y agoWhere exactly is this “climate-related migration, loss and disaster” happening? Calling a flood, hurricane or even several years long drought a “climate related disaster” doesn’t count. These events have occurred since time immemorial. Every weather measurement deviation from average is not some “disaster” that can be blamed on evil corporations and people driving SUVs.
- 3y ago
- Ajedi32 3y agoIsn't this a trivial economic problem? Efficient allocation of scarce resources is one of the strengths of capitalism. If almond farming isn't viable in California due to water being scarce they should naturally just get priced out of the market, right? Why isn't this problem solving itself?
- chermi 3y agoBecause water isn't priced properly.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoIt makes sense to cut wine before we cut almonds. Alcohol is a poison after all and almonds are nutritious and calorie dense.
- Kalium 3y agoYou're absolutely right. I can see I was unclear. Almonds were an example, rather than a particular suggestion of the best place to start.