5 ms·

The primary contribution of agriculture is feeding people, not GDP. What does watering one's lawn contribute to?

dragonwriter 11y ago
> The primary contribution of agriculture is feeding people, not GDP. The primary value to California of exporting food (which is what most California agriculture is) is the economic activity produced. (Given a global food market with largely equivalent substitute goods, one could argue that the same is true of agriculture that is used for local consumption, as well.)
- WillPostForFood 11y ago
  You say GDP contribution to Californianis more important than supplying food to the state/country/world. I say feeding people and keeping food prices low is more important than that particular economic statistic when looking at the value of water consumption.
  - Kalium 11y ago
    The point being made here is not that feeding people and keeping food prices low isn't important. The point being made here is that California agriculture isn't required to feed people or keep food prices low.
  - jkyle 11y ago
    If this is your honest opinion, you'd be pushing for emergency triage of water allocation for agriculture. Specifically, reducing luxury crops like almonds, beef, and chicken. We could cut our water usage in 1/2 and still produce enough nutritious food for the entire nation plus some. This coming from someone who has favorite pass time of smoking brisket, ribs, and grilling steaks. It's just the facts.
    - yellowapple 11y ago
      > If this is your honest opinion, you'd be pushing for emergency triage of water allocation for agriculture. Specifically, reducing luxury crops like almonds, beef, and chicken. I'd be fine with agricultural triaging, personally. However, pinning the blame on almonds and livestock is misplaced (and, in the latter case, characterizing them as "luxury" crops seems misplaced unless you consider basic nutrients like protein a "luxury"). Instead, it would be wiser to focus on things like rice, which consumes absurd amounts of water relative to the amount of resulting food. I don't have any statistics on hand, but I reckon California's rice production alone dwarfs livestock (and possibly even almonds) in terms of water usage, and (I'd argue) would count much more easily as wasted water than livestock or nuts (since, compared livestock and nuts, rice isn't particularly nutritious).
      - sbov 11y ago
        From my research, pound for pound rice takes less than almonds. Guess what crop California spends almost 50% of its water on? Alfalfa, which is used to feed cattle. Also, just cutting out beef can make a huge dent. It's water usage is truly wtf level, whereas chicken is closer to almond level.
        yellowapple 11y ago
        > Guess what crop California spends almost 50% of its water on? Alfalfa, which is used to feed cattle. Alfalfa isn't used for just cattle, you know. Also, do you have a source for that number? I'm having trouble finding one from a U.S. or California government source (USGS, USDA, CDFA, etc.), but at least one article [0] pins that number at closer to 15% (and almonds at 10%). > Also, just cutting out beef can make a huge dent. It's water usage is truly wtf level A citation is also needed here. According to the USGS's 2010 data (which admittedly is likely outdated), livestock as a whole (beef, chicken, pork, you name it) takes up around 0.5% of California's water [1]. Whether or not this includes alfalfa is unclear, but if the previous figure is correct, I'd suggest that cattle water usage is nowhere near the "WTF" level. That figure makes a lot of sense to me, having grown up raising angus cattle (I'm not sure whether or not dairy cattle have higher water requirements due to milk production being their emphasis). Alfalfa was certainly a big part of their feed, but grass hay and grazing were just as important to their diet. Larger commercial operations might have different methods, but I'd reckon that most ranches aren't high-scale commercial operations. [0]: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/_10_percent_of_california_s_water_goes_to_almond_farming.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/0... [1]: http://ca.water.usgs.gov/water_use/2010-california-water-use.html http://ca.water.usgs.gov/water_use/2010-california-water-use...
  - sbov 11y ago
    Then the nation needs to view it as a national problem rather than a Californian problem. People don't though, instead they point and laugh as they eat our state dry.
jkyle 11y ago
The point is watering your lawn is a drop in the giant reservoir. If only 20% of the water is being used by residents (in reality, it's a bit less) and you pass super aggressive water conservation laws targeting residential use such that it's reduced by 50% then you've conserved a whopping..... 10% In contrast, a mere 12% increase in agriculture efficiency gets you the same win. Targeting residents to curb the water crisis in CA is like targeting SNAP benefits as a solution to the deficit. It just plain won't work.
- mentat 11y ago
  Well said. Thank you for arguing with facts and numbers.
- WillPostForFood 11y ago
  Sure, but you were touting GDP as the way to target water reduction, which doesn't make sense. I agree water should be priced based on supply, which would bring more efficiency to use in farming, lawns, or whatever.
  - jkyle 11y ago
    You misunderstood me. I updated with an edit to clarify in the original post. GDP is mentioned to show that increased cost of production for agriculture will not have a catastrophic effect on our economy....if you ask most Californians (or others), they often think agriculture is a huge proportion of our economy and requiring water efficiency would have a huge negative impact on our bottom line. Lost jobs, revenue, etc.
- mindslight 11y ago
  While this is true for the big picture, it's still fucked up that the status quo is for most everyone to have a well-watered lawn. And the response of "cities" like Los Angeles is to subsidize people's servants completely redoing their yards! Implementing water restrictions is incredibly easy - you declare "no outdoor water usage except on these two days of the week after 5pm" and issue fines to people who don't comply. But it is incompatible with Californian entitlement, because gasp the grass might get a little brown.
CydeWeys 11y ago
Most water used by cities isn't used for watering lawns. This is a red herring fallacy anyway because no one is proposing loosening up restrictions on lawn watering at the expense of waterin crops.
iwwr 11y ago
Homeowner's Association rules or even town planning/zoning may actually prohibit someone from using arid-friendly grasses or perhaps replacements like artificial turf or pavement.
- jkyle 11y ago
  There's a decent movement going to make restrictions like that from HOA's null and void if they conflict with state conservation interests.
- yellowapple 11y ago
  Then HOAs need to die off already, simple as that.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>The primary contribution of agriculture is feeding people, not GDP. Feeding people can be done in many areas. Why should one area sacrifice a limited resource when another area can do the same but with more of that resource? If they aren't compensated for the sacrifice of that resource, there is no reason for that resource to be sacrificed. Charity to big business will lead to being left destitute.
zaroth 11y ago
GDP is simply a measure of the value of this product which is "feeding people". Similarly, parks and landscaping, the cost of upkeep and the resulting increase in property values, are also accounted for in the notion of GDP.
slavik81 11y ago
Is it? A significant proportion of that agriculture consists of luxury crops for export. Nobody's going to starve if the price of water-intensive foods like avocado and almonds increase a little. If you care about feeding the poor, give them money to buy their food. Don't wreck the environment and distort the market with supply-side meddling.
- PerfectElement 11y ago
  Why avocados? It takes 74.1 gallons to produce 1 pound. Much less than most calorie-dense foods.
- emp 11y ago
  Don't forget raising animals for meat, growing food to feed animals, and growing food for export to feed animals. This accounts for more water than almonds that seem to always be the scapegoat.
  - jkyle 11y ago
    Another interesting fact about almonds. They're actually the most cost effective use of water from the volume to profit ratio. So, yes, it takes more water the produce a bushel of almonds then it does to produce a bushel of <whatever>. However, that bushel of almonds earns more profit per gallon. What does this mean? It means if you start charging farmers for water usage (rather than access) then almonds are a more attractive crop then others crops from a profit perspective. Counter to what most believe, restricting farmer's water access or charging more for water might actually increase the shift to certain water intensive luxury crops like almonds.
- yellowapple 11y ago
  > If you care about feeding the poor, give them money to buy their food. Yep. Let's make the poor people dependent on the rich people for basic sustenance instead of allowing food to actually be affordable. Let's also marginalize the people who are just barely not poor enough to qualify for such a thing, because "well, sorry that you're barely keeping your family above the poverty line, but you know, gotta blame the farmers for being inconvenient to the cityfolk, and you're not quite as poor as this family over here so why should we care about your problems?". Any system that depends on the arbitrarily-defined concept of "poverty" v. "not-poverty" is a non-answer to many lower and lower-middle class households.

> The primary contribution of agriculture is feeding people, not GDP. The primary value to California of exporting food (which is what most California agriculture is) is the economic activity produced. (Given a global food market with largely equivalent substitute goods, one could argue that the same is true of agriculture that is used for local consumption, as well.)

WillPostForFood 11y ago
You say GDP contribution to Californianis more important than supplying food to the state/country/world. I say feeding people and keeping food prices low is more important than that particular economic statistic when looking at the value of water consumption.
- Kalium 11y ago
  The point being made here is not that feeding people and keeping food prices low isn't important. The point being made here is that California agriculture isn't required to feed people or keep food prices low.
- jkyle 11y ago
  If this is your honest opinion, you'd be pushing for emergency triage of water allocation for agriculture. Specifically, reducing luxury crops like almonds, beef, and chicken. We could cut our water usage in 1/2 and still produce enough nutritious food for the entire nation plus some. This coming from someone who has favorite pass time of smoking brisket, ribs, and grilling steaks. It's just the facts.
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    > If this is your honest opinion, you'd be pushing for emergency triage of water allocation for agriculture. Specifically, reducing luxury crops like almonds, beef, and chicken. I'd be fine with agricultural triaging, personally. However, pinning the blame on almonds and livestock is misplaced (and, in the latter case, characterizing them as "luxury" crops seems misplaced unless you consider basic nutrients like protein a "luxury"). Instead, it would be wiser to focus on things like rice, which consumes absurd amounts of water relative to the amount of resulting food. I don't have any statistics on hand, but I reckon California's rice production alone dwarfs livestock (and possibly even almonds) in terms of water usage, and (I'd argue) would count much more easily as wasted water than livestock or nuts (since, compared livestock and nuts, rice isn't particularly nutritious).
    - sbov 11y ago
      From my research, pound for pound rice takes less than almonds. Guess what crop California spends almost 50% of its water on? Alfalfa, which is used to feed cattle. Also, just cutting out beef can make a huge dent. It's water usage is truly wtf level, whereas chicken is closer to almond level.
      - yellowapple 11y ago
        > Guess what crop California spends almost 50% of its water on? Alfalfa, which is used to feed cattle. Alfalfa isn't used for just cattle, you know. Also, do you have a source for that number? I'm having trouble finding one from a U.S. or California government source (USGS, USDA, CDFA, etc.), but at least one article [0] pins that number at closer to 15% (and almonds at 10%). > Also, just cutting out beef can make a huge dent. It's water usage is truly wtf level A citation is also needed here. According to the USGS's 2010 data (which admittedly is likely outdated), livestock as a whole (beef, chicken, pork, you name it) takes up around 0.5% of California's water [1]. Whether or not this includes alfalfa is unclear, but if the previous figure is correct, I'd suggest that cattle water usage is nowhere near the "WTF" level. That figure makes a lot of sense to me, having grown up raising angus cattle (I'm not sure whether or not dairy cattle have higher water requirements due to milk production being their emphasis). Alfalfa was certainly a big part of their feed, but grass hay and grazing were just as important to their diet. Larger commercial operations might have different methods, but I'd reckon that most ranches aren't high-scale commercial operations. [0]: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/_10_percent_of_california_s_water_goes_to_almond_farming.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/0... [1]: http://ca.water.usgs.gov/water_use/2010-california-water-use.html http://ca.water.usgs.gov/water_use/2010-california-water-use...
- sbov 11y ago
  Then the nation needs to view it as a national problem rather than a Californian problem. People don't though, instead they point and laugh as they eat our state dry.

jkyle 11y ago

The point is watering your lawn is a drop in the giant reservoir. If only 20% of the water is being used by residents (in reality, it's a bit less) and you pass super aggressive water conservation laws targeting residential use such that it's reduced by 50% then you've conserved a whopping..... 10% In contrast, a mere 12% increase in agriculture efficiency gets you the same win. Targeting residents to curb the water crisis in CA is like targeting SNAP benefits as a solution to the deficit. It just plain won't work.

mentat 11y ago
Well said. Thank you for arguing with facts and numbers.
WillPostForFood 11y ago
Sure, but you were touting GDP as the way to target water reduction, which doesn't make sense. I agree water should be priced based on supply, which would bring more efficiency to use in farming, lawns, or whatever.
- jkyle 11y ago
  You misunderstood me. I updated with an edit to clarify in the original post. GDP is mentioned to show that increased cost of production for agriculture will not have a catastrophic effect on our economy....if you ask most Californians (or others), they often think agriculture is a huge proportion of our economy and requiring water efficiency would have a huge negative impact on our bottom line. Lost jobs, revenue, etc.
mindslight 11y ago
While this is true for the big picture, it's still fucked up that the status quo is for most everyone to have a well-watered lawn. And the response of "cities" like Los Angeles is to subsidize people's servants completely redoing their yards! Implementing water restrictions is incredibly easy - you declare "no outdoor water usage except on these two days of the week after 5pm" and issue fines to people who don't comply. But it is incompatible with Californian entitlement, because gasp the grass might get a little brown.

CydeWeys 11y ago

Most water used by cities isn't used for watering lawns. This is a red herring fallacy anyway because no one is proposing loosening up restrictions on lawn watering at the expense of waterin crops.

iwwr 11y ago

Homeowner's Association rules or even town planning/zoning may actually prohibit someone from using arid-friendly grasses or perhaps replacements like artificial turf or pavement.

jkyle 11y ago
There's a decent movement going to make restrictions like that from HOA's null and void if they conflict with state conservation interests.
yellowapple 11y ago
Then HOAs need to die off already, simple as that.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>The primary contribution of agriculture is feeding people, not GDP. Feeding people can be done in many areas. Why should one area sacrifice a limited resource when another area can do the same but with more of that resource? If they aren't compensated for the sacrifice of that resource, there is no reason for that resource to be sacrificed. Charity to big business will lead to being left destitute.

zaroth 11y ago

GDP is simply a measure of the value of this product which is "feeding people". Similarly, parks and landscaping, the cost of upkeep and the resulting increase in property values, are also accounted for in the notion of GDP.

slavik81 11y ago

Is it? A significant proportion of that agriculture consists of luxury crops for export. Nobody's going to starve if the price of water-intensive foods like avocado and almonds increase a little. If you care about feeding the poor, give them money to buy their food. Don't wreck the environment and distort the market with supply-side meddling.

PerfectElement 11y ago
Why avocados? It takes 74.1 gallons to produce 1 pound. Much less than most calorie-dense foods.
emp 11y ago
Don't forget raising animals for meat, growing food to feed animals, and growing food for export to feed animals. This accounts for more water than almonds that seem to always be the scapegoat.
- jkyle 11y ago
  Another interesting fact about almonds. They're actually the most cost effective use of water from the volume to profit ratio. So, yes, it takes more water the produce a bushel of almonds then it does to produce a bushel of <whatever>. However, that bushel of almonds earns more profit per gallon. What does this mean? It means if you start charging farmers for water usage (rather than access) then almonds are a more attractive crop then others crops from a profit perspective. Counter to what most believe, restricting farmer's water access or charging more for water might actually increase the shift to certain water intensive luxury crops like almonds.
yellowapple 11y ago
> If you care about feeding the poor, give them money to buy their food. Yep. Let's make the poor people dependent on the rich people for basic sustenance instead of allowing food to actually be affordable. Let's also marginalize the people who are just barely not poor enough to qualify for such a thing, because "well, sorry that you're barely keeping your family above the poverty line, but you know, gotta blame the farmers for being inconvenient to the cityfolk, and you're not quite as poor as this family over here so why should we care about your problems?". Any system that depends on the arbitrarily-defined concept of "poverty" v. "not-poverty" is a non-answer to many lower and lower-middle class households.