4 ms·

I disagree. If I can grow avocado's locally, and it's not the "optimal" place for growth but produces perfectly good avocado's... why wouldn't you? If my area

by dylanz 17y ago

I disagree. If I can grow avocado's locally, and it's not the "optimal" place for growth but produces perfectly good avocado's... why wouldn't you? If my area was a desert, and required an obscene amount of water to grow the avocado tree... that is obviously a no-brainer... don't grow the avocado. I'd grow date palm instead. However, if I could return more water to the ground using water harvesting techniques, and am able to passively water the avocado, I'd would definitely do it. The water issue is farmers tapping the aquifers for mass watering, and doing nothing to help replenish what they've used. Aquifers take a looong time to refill.

ars 17y ago
If it's not "optimal" then you are wasting. Either water, or energy, but you are wasting. It could work - it might even be profitable (if you only waste a little), but if your goal is minimizing resources, it's not the way to go. In your example, grow the optimal plant, and still do the water techniques you suggest. (The optimal plant, is not just one plant, usually there are many options available, which is good since you also don't want to grow to much if there is no demand for it.)
- dylanz 17y ago
  "If it's not "optimal" then you are wasting. Either water, or energy, but you are wasting." Not really. "Optimal" means "most desirable". There are a lot of places that aren't the "most desirable" locations where you can plant an avocado tree and the inputs are not at all comparable to the outputs. I definitely agree that the optimal plant is not just one plant. Farmers in India have been learning the hard way, for the past 10 years, that putting all their eggs in one basket is not the best idea. They are slowly trending toward profitable multi-crop output, where handfuls of other beneficial species are in the mix. For example, many nut crop farmers are now interplanting sweet potato as a ground cover, which not only yields another crop, but also prevents surface evaporation (which is crucial in low rainfall areas).
  - ars 17y ago
    By Optimal I don't mean most desirable, but rather whichever plant(s) grow(s) best in that area. By "one plant" I had a different meaning than what you wrote, but that's OK because I agree with what you wrote. I meant you are not limited to just one choice in a given area, usually you have several choices. If people choose "locally grown", then every area will need to plant a large variety - it might be profitable, and people will pay for it. But environmentally it's a bad idea. It's better for each area to specialize. Say you can plant an avocado tree, and it grows OK. Instead plant some other plant that grows really great. Sell that and buy avocado from someplace where avocado grows really great. You have now minimized the use of resources.

by dylanz 17y ago

ars 17y ago

If it's not "optimal" then you are wasting. Either water, or energy, but you are wasting. It could work - it might even be profitable (if you only waste a little), but if your goal is minimizing resources, it's not the way to go. In your example, grow the optimal plant, and still do the water techniques you suggest. (The optimal plant, is not just one plant, usually there are many options available, which is good since you also don't want to grow to much if there is no demand for it.)

dylanz 17y ago
"If it's not "optimal" then you are wasting. Either water, or energy, but you are wasting." Not really. "Optimal" means "most desirable". There are a lot of places that aren't the "most desirable" locations where you can plant an avocado tree and the inputs are not at all comparable to the outputs. I definitely agree that the optimal plant is not just one plant. Farmers in India have been learning the hard way, for the past 10 years, that putting all their eggs in one basket is not the best idea. They are slowly trending toward profitable multi-crop output, where handfuls of other beneficial species are in the mix. For example, many nut crop farmers are now interplanting sweet potato as a ground cover, which not only yields another crop, but also prevents surface evaporation (which is crucial in low rainfall areas).
- ars 17y ago
  By Optimal I don't mean most desirable, but rather whichever plant(s) grow(s) best in that area. By "one plant" I had a different meaning than what you wrote, but that's OK because I agree with what you wrote. I meant you are not limited to just one choice in a given area, usually you have several choices. If people choose "locally grown", then every area will need to plant a large variety - it might be profitable, and people will pay for it. But environmentally it's a bad idea. It's better for each area to specialize. Say you can plant an avocado tree, and it grows OK. Instead plant some other plant that grows really great. Sell that and buy avocado from someplace where avocado grows really great. You have now minimized the use of resources.