6 ms·

> We don't have a solution for agriculture yet but parched places such as CA central valley will probably have to give up on ag. The Central Valley is probably

> We don't have a solution for agriculture yet but parched places such as CA central valley will probably have to give up on ag. The Central Valley is probably the most productive agricultural region in the world. According to the USGS, "Using fewer than 1% of U.S. farmland, the Central Valley supplies 8% of U.S. agricultural output (by value) and produces 1/4 of the Nation's food, including 40% of the Nation's fruits, nuts, and other table foods."[1] California supplies about a third of the nation's lettuce and is responsible for more than 90% of the organic output of grapes, strawberries and other fruits and vegetables[2]. Ag is an important part of California's economy and a critical part of the United States food supply. The loss of California agriculture would be devastating to California and the entire nation on a number of levels[3]. I assume you weren't advocating for the state to "give up on ag" but frankly, that's not going to happen and treating ag as a silo is not realistic. It's easy for many to see this issue as a battle between cities and farms, but most people haven't spent any time in the Central Valley and don't understand how important and unique it is. The number of people in California who don't consume the state's agricultural products and benefit from their contributions to the economy is literally 0. It's cliché, but we literally are all in this together when it comes to water. [1] http://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/central-valley/about-central-valley.html http://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/central-valley/about-centr... [2] http://giannini.ucop.edu/media/are-update/files/articles/v14n2_3.pdf http://giannini.ucop.edu/media/are-update/files/articles/v14... [3] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/07/california_grows_all_of_our_fruits_and_vegetables_what_would_we_eat_without.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2...

harshreality 12y ago
Don't those numbers suggest that most of California's ag output goes to feed people, whereas a lot of the rest of the country's ag output goes to feed animals that feed people (which turns 1 unit of plant food into a much smaller fraction of a unit of meat food)? related: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full
Spooky23 12y ago
I think it's a strategic problem for such a large portion if our food supply to be concentrated in one region. I think more pain here is good for the nation. There's no reason all of our tree fruits, lettuce, etc need to be trucked out of California. I was in a grocery store in Georgia when traveling awhile back, and couldn't find a single Georgia peach in the produce area of a store, because California agriculture completely dominates. We have climate issues, but places like New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, etc could easily provide that same output, and there is plenty of water in most east coast areas.
- 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
  > We have climate issues, but places like New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, etc could easily provide that same output... That's unfortunately not true. You need to appreciate just how unique California's soil and climate are. Farmers from others parts of the world come to California and literally marvel at what we have. In many parts of the world the same technologies and techniques that we use are increasingly employed but these regions still can't achieve the same yields. Even if it's possible to grow certain crops in other areas, you will not be able to produce in the same quantities as California can and, more importantly, you won't achieve the same yields. Settling for substantially lower yields effectively means you are accepting less efficient use of local resources (water, energy, labor, etc.). That would be counterproductive. > I think it's a strategic problem for such a large portion if our food supply to be concentrated in one region. Even if there's some validity to this argument, the reality is that you can only reduce the concentration so much. Growing and distributing food at the quantity required in an efficient manner necessitates a higher level of concentration than might be desired in the ideal world we don't live in.
  - Spooky23 12y ago
    I think you need to consider the long game. California was very forward thinking in investments in academic agriculture resource... The state is the Silicon Valley of produce. That's a miracle, but it only works if key assumptions like that awesome climate remain there. If we are in fact driving into an era of climate change, doing things like permanently depleting groundwater may irreparably affect the ability to continue the current model. That really worries me... I've never lived in an era or place where food wasn't available. That would be a great shock to the US if it were to happen.
kashkhan 12y ago
Ag is $50B of a $1.8T economy ( <3% ). CA won't miss it much. I am suggesting we buy out ag in CA to reduce the adverse pressure on water and the environment..
- 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
  Putting aside agriculture's direct and indirect economic contributions to California (you completely ignore the latter), California produces half of the nation's fruits, nuts and vegetables, and more than 20% of the nation's milk. If you're worried about the "adverse pressure on water and the environment," you should consider the adverse pressure that killing off ag production in California would put on the United States food supply. For many of our agricultural outputs, there is no other state or region capable of picking up the slack. As a side note, I doubt you're aware of the fact that Kern County alone is responsible for 10% of U.S. oil production and around three-quarters of California's oil production. Do you know how much water is used in oil production? Are you going to "buy out" California's oil producers too? The water problem in California is a lot more complicated and nuanced than you seem to believe.

harshreality 12y ago

Don't those numbers suggest that most of California's ag output goes to feed people, whereas a lot of the rest of the country's ag output goes to feed animals that feed people (which turns 1 unit of plant food into a much smaller fraction of a unit of meat food)? related: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full

Spooky23 12y ago

I think it's a strategic problem for such a large portion if our food supply to be concentrated in one region. I think more pain here is good for the nation. There's no reason all of our tree fruits, lettuce, etc need to be trucked out of California. I was in a grocery store in Georgia when traveling awhile back, and couldn't find a single Georgia peach in the produce area of a store, because California agriculture completely dominates. We have climate issues, but places like New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, etc could easily provide that same output, and there is plenty of water in most east coast areas.

7Figures2Commas 12y ago
> We have climate issues, but places like New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, etc could easily provide that same output... That's unfortunately not true. You need to appreciate just how unique California's soil and climate are. Farmers from others parts of the world come to California and literally marvel at what we have. In many parts of the world the same technologies and techniques that we use are increasingly employed but these regions still can't achieve the same yields. Even if it's possible to grow certain crops in other areas, you will not be able to produce in the same quantities as California can and, more importantly, you won't achieve the same yields. Settling for substantially lower yields effectively means you are accepting less efficient use of local resources (water, energy, labor, etc.). That would be counterproductive. > I think it's a strategic problem for such a large portion if our food supply to be concentrated in one region. Even if there's some validity to this argument, the reality is that you can only reduce the concentration so much. Growing and distributing food at the quantity required in an efficient manner necessitates a higher level of concentration than might be desired in the ideal world we don't live in.
- Spooky23 12y ago
  I think you need to consider the long game. California was very forward thinking in investments in academic agriculture resource... The state is the Silicon Valley of produce. That's a miracle, but it only works if key assumptions like that awesome climate remain there. If we are in fact driving into an era of climate change, doing things like permanently depleting groundwater may irreparably affect the ability to continue the current model. That really worries me... I've never lived in an era or place where food wasn't available. That would be a great shock to the US if it were to happen.

kashkhan 12y ago

Ag is $50B of a $1.8T economy ( <3% ). CA won't miss it much. I am suggesting we buy out ag in CA to reduce the adverse pressure on water and the environment..

7Figures2Commas 12y ago
Putting aside agriculture's direct and indirect economic contributions to California (you completely ignore the latter), California produces half of the nation's fruits, nuts and vegetables, and more than 20% of the nation's milk. If you're worried about the "adverse pressure on water and the environment," you should consider the adverse pressure that killing off ag production in California would put on the United States food supply. For many of our agricultural outputs, there is no other state or region capable of picking up the slack. As a side note, I doubt you're aware of the fact that Kern County alone is responsible for 10% of U.S. oil production and around three-quarters of California's oil production. Do you know how much water is used in oil production? Are you going to "buy out" California's oil producers too? The water problem in California is a lot more complicated and nuanced than you seem to believe.