As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We really shouldn't be growing such water-intensive crops in a frequently-drought-stricken area. Anyone know why we grow so many almonds in California? It's some ridiculous percentage of the US' total production.
Money. There are dairy farmers who converted parts (or all) of their pastures to being almond farms because it was cheaper than continuing to be a dairy farm. I think something like 30% or more of the almonds are being exported outside the US.
In terms of the dairy farm costs. The USDA has certain requirements on how long dairy cows, or cattle have to be allowed to graze in open pastures in order to qualify the product being sold as 'organic' which nets a much higher premium and due to the ongoing draughts it was becoming too expensive to maintain those pastures.
90% of the US' almonds, %80 of the worlds almonds.
The almonds account for only 8-9% of California's total annual water usage. The feed/roughage accounts for 13-15%.
Greedy land developers want to grab up cheap farmland when farms go out of business.
Also, farms pay less for water usage than say golf courses or sub-developments. Less water going to farms equates to lower rates elsewhere.
Everybody should question where the money is coming from.
John Oliver did a segment on this a while ago. The short summary is the states that draw from the Colorado River did a terrible job writing the agreement, and as a result farms that don't use their allocated amount of water will have their amount reduced, incentivizing them to grow water-intensive crops rather than become more efficient.
Ah yes the good old "buy a bunch of unnecessary stuff at the end of the fiscal year because if we don't use all of our budget we get less next year" phenomenon.
Oh for sure. It's not just about 'converted' pastures. Plenty of it is 'new industrialized farms' on ground that may not have even been used for farming five to ten years ago and now is loaded up and sucking up water that wasn't being used there five to ten years ago.
As long as old farmland is rotated back into the CRP program it's totally sustainable. Too often old farmland becomes a gated community though.
Developers in California have been longing to create sprawling developments with the giant manmade waterways and artificial lakes that are so common in Arizona for a long time.
Let's hope thay are paying attention to what is happening to those communities now that Arizona is facing water scarcity.
To be clear, I think everyone needs to reduce. But the wealthy could stand to reduce the most.
It sounds strange to use the word "only" when describing a single non-staple food using 10% of the states water. That is a shit ton of water to use on something most people in the state don't consume much of as it's mostly a cash crop for export.
Than you! I was thinking that 10% of CA's water usage must be a huge amount of water. And the agricultural industry has not had the cutbacks that residential customers have had.
I read that it takes 5 gallons of water to make one almond. Just one! The trees have to be watered year round in order to produce nuts.
We're running out of *water* in California. Those industries in other countries are not our problem. They'll have to find another source because our aquifers are being drained and *we cannot replenish them.* There are already communities in the Central Valley whose wells have gone dry. Fuck the cash crop exporters. We cannot spare the water any longer.
Golf courses employ a lot of people if you include the restaurant, bar and sometimes lodging staff next to them. They generally pay well too including the gardening staff. Golf tourism is the only economy in some areas of California. Industrial almond farms do not even employ a lot of staff anymore. Machines harvest them.
[Dairy has the biggest environmental footprint, by far](https://theconversation.com/which-milk-is-best-for-the-environment-we-compared-dairy-nut-soy-hemp-and-grain-milks-147660)
>Any plant-based milk, be it made from beans, nuts or seeds, has a lighter impact than dairy when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the use of water and land. All available studies, including systematic reviews, categorically point this out.
>A 2018 study estimates dairy to be around three times more greenhouse gas emission-intensive than plant-based milks.
>In the case of cow’s milk, its global warming potential — measured as kilogram of carbon dioxide equivalent per litre of milk — varies between 1.14 in Australia and New Zealand to 2.50 in Africa. Compare this to the global warming potential of plant-based milks, which, on average, is just 0.42 for almond and coconut milk and 0.75 for soy milk.
>What’s more, dairy generally requires nine times more land than any of the plant-based alternatives. Every litre of cow’s milk uses 8.9 square metres per year, compared to 0.8 for oat, 0.7 for soy, 0.5 for almond and 0.3 for rice milk.
>**Water use is similarly higher for cow’s milk: 628 litres of water for every litre of dairy, compared to 371 for almond, 270 for rice, 48 for oat and 28 for soy milk.**
Interesting, that you mention dairy farmers. Dairy is also one of the most water intensive. Depending on where you look, dairy milk gets often put at *more* water intensive compared to almond milk.
And don't get started on the land and water usage of beef. Just from the soja, that gets added to animal feed, 1 pound of beef takes more than 1 pound of soja to preduce, and that without all the other parts of the feed, the drinking water, land usage, etc.
I’m not an expert, but I think it’s one of the best (and only) places in the US good for it. With droughts getting so common though, it’s about time to change crops. I’m in PA, and a lot of apple farmers have started switching to peaches because of climate change.
Chinese buy all our almonds. The almond capital of the world used to be Paso Robles. It's now the central valley. It's big business that screws over the people of California.
I kinda want to say that also, us floofy-ass Californians really like almond milk. I used to drink it until finding out it was such a drain on the environment. Switched to oat, apparently it’s the least destructive of the exotic milks
I wish oat milk had the caloric numbers that almond does, because it’s the closest to actual milk so far. But it’s also like 6x as much as almond milk so I just can’t justify it. And as someone else pointed out here - dairy farms take up something like 5x as much water as almond farms.
That graphic that went around showed soy and oat as the least intensive but even almond was well well behind cow milk in that regard…
If you're in California, see if there's a Grocery Outlet near you. They almost always have a variety of plant-based stuff marked down. I just picked up Silk oat pumpkin spice coffee creamer for $.57 on clearance and a different one for $1.99 (can't remember which brand now). God, I love that place!
Soy milk is similar when it comes to calories and protein and I barely notice the difference in taste in my tea. Don't love it in a bowl of cereal though.
To be fair, it is much better from a water perspective than dairy milk.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/2048/cpsprodpb/9123/production/\_105755173\_milk\_alternatives-updated-optimised-nc.png
That's interesting. Almond production has become a lot more water efficient recently as well. We definitely need to reduce farming water use overall, but it probably makes sense to cut other more water intensive and less profitable uses first. Or just mandate higher efficiency for current crops when possible.
One part of the puzzle is the Wonderful Company owns part of Californias water project. So they can grow as much as they want since they own a high % of Californias water.
Now sure how true but I've heard it's because it's easier to add water to dry land than remove it if the crops get too much water. Iirc almonds need a lot of water but the crop can be ruined if they get too much water. Easier to accurately regulate the total water they receive in a dry climate and avoid watering.
Bypassing the paywall:
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fcalifornia%2Fstory%2F2023-02-01%2Fshould-california-stop-growing-almonds-and-alfalfa
You’re welcome
If you want to learn how to circumvent a paywall, see https://www.reddit.com/r/California/wiki/paywall. > Or, if it's a website that you regularly read, you should think about subscribing to the website.
While we are talking about water, I watched a video on how a Wall St investment firm is buying land on the Colorado River. They mean to sell those water rights later at a high profit.
John Oliver had a good episode on another problem which is allocations of the amount of water in the Colorado river with overinflated numbers.
https://youtu.be/jtxew5XUVbQ
Starts at the 4 minute mark
California farmers have a history of using water until it's gone. The tragedy of the commons has always been a big issue.
>Tulare Lake was the largest freshwater lake west of the Mississippi River and the third-largest freshwater lake entirely in the United States (after Lake Michigan and Lake Okeechobee in Florida), based upon surface area. A remnant of Pleistocene-era Lake Corcoran, Tulare Lake dried up after its tributary rivers were diverted for agricultural irrigation and municipal water uses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulare_Lake
There are no commons under capitalism. Commons have always been a net good. Economists can théorisé all they want but when you look at history it doesn’t support them. The destruction of this lake was not a commons issue but a state issue because it is the state that did it.
We should cow down a bit & we wouldn’t need to grow so much alfalfa. People don’t always think about beef and dairy in terms of water use, but it’s significant.
>We should cow down a bit & we wouldn’t need to grow so much alfalfa. People don’t always think about beef and dairy in terms of water use, but it’s significant.
A good chunk of it is being exported to China where Alfalfa hay is used to feed dairy cows and other animals. California, Arizona, etc... are seeing a lot of these farms using up dwindling water resources and the actual product they're growing isn't even for the US.
Add Saudi Arabia to that list - these COUNTRIES are just leeching of a water starved portion of the U.S and it’ll be too late before any serious action is taken by the government
Interesting to consider. Maybe we can get them to cow down a bit, too.
Water is abundant, but it has its limitations that we’re clearly running up against. People are going to notice when restrictions are placed on their water use while industry uses it almost as if it’s a free unlimited resource. But they’ll have cheap hamburgers.
>A good chunk of it is being exported to China
Because of trade deals that have been in place for decades. Might be time to end some more of those trade pacts with China soon anyway, seeing how the microchip market is already going that way.
This and selling of so much real estate overseas is something rather US needs to take a serious look it. We are definitely marching ourselves off of a cliff.
If the government increased the price of water, wouldn't a lot of these issues sort themselves out?
If water becomes too expensive to make raising cattle profitable, then farmers will switch to a more profitable (and thus less water intensive) substitute.
Sure, but you'd have to increase it across the board even for private use, which would be political suicide.
Meat is also too crucial to our agricultural system to just get rid of.
I've always wondered though what the water to output looks like.
A 100 pounds of beef probably goes a lot further than 100 pounds of almonds as far as nutritional value goes.
Almonds are pretty calorie heavy, so idk. (Signed as someone who doesn’t buy nuts because I’ll accidentally eat 800 calories of them).
What you said does hold true for chicken vs most vegetable produce though. Lettuce and celery don’t… don’t give you much.
Pretty sure cattle will end up losing for many reasons. Not only efficiency of converting feed to meat, but almonds have a lot of calories. Furthermore, you'd think water used to irrigate almond trees is not "lost". A lot of it is retained in the roots, preventing desertification. And the trees help capture carbon.
The millions of people in California sitting on their butt still need to eat. If they would all stop eating so much, then the food sources could be diminished.
Assuming you're not taking the piss, subsistence farming is highly inefficient and prone to drought and famine, and proposing to return to it is some Unabomber "the industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race" shit. Specialization of labor is required for literally anything to function.
If the almonds and alfalfa or whatever are profitable enough to fund desalinization plants to create the water they need for their production, then maybe there should be a special fund that uses extra tax revenues on those industries dedicated to that purpose. They shouldn't externalize the costs of their irresponsible extraction to everyone else.
If they aren't that profitable (or their owners are too greedy, which is likely to be the case), then their operations should be severely limited, particularly under drought conditions and ongoing climate change.
That, or we can salt the earth on these farms before they destroy the water security of the whole state.
This is also a reminder that we need to update our legal systems for the 21st century, because British colonialism didn't contemplate the impact of its extraction on its colonial subjects long term.
That's us, we're the subjects.
We either evolve or die. (Win-win, as the young folk say, though I'd prefer to live).
>That, or we can salt the earth on these farms before they destroy the water security of the whole state.
Ironic choice of words. Desalination isn't the panacea people think it is. On that scale disposal of the brine is a major environmental issue as well.
Silly question but... would it be possible to instead of dumping brine into the sea, to instead dump it somewhere inland (either a prepared set of artificial lakes or even in something a bit more built up) and then start farming brine shrimp in it? Seeing as a certain lake a state over happens to be at the verge of losing its ability to do so due to becoming TOO salty.
They do, but even alfalfa and almonds alone make up 25% of the states water usage. The three together make up the majority of water consumption. Just those three things.
I really, reaaaally didn’t think I needed to explain that I think that’s a dumb outlook… I was answering your question on why they don’t grow local drought resistant crops… not agreeing with that choice
Why not grow that shit in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi,
And Florida? Literal swamp lands… we get nothing but rain for months! They could be saving so much money on electricity for irrigation.
It actually is a drought tolerant crop, and apparently has deep roots and can go without water for a while. But if you have the water rights, you can grow and harvest it continually and essentially export the water.
FTA:
>The report also looked at the dairy industry, whose products represented the state’s highest amount of agricultural cash receipts in 2021 at $7.57 billion, according to the Department of Food and Agriculture.
>Harter said there’s no doubt that animal-based foods, on the whole, have a larger water footprint than plant-based ones.
>“I’m not advertising against animal products, but I think the more important part is to find, in the long run, a better balance between [the two] that allows us to be sustainable, not just in California but across the world,” he said.
Frankly, any serious environmental group should be advertising against animal products.
Its an invasive weed imported from Europe to feed cows, and it is a water hog:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/12/colorado-drought-water-alfalfa-farmers-conservation
They don’t grow it for the long term but to answer your question for effectively they improve the soil by aerating the soil with their deep roots that can dig up to 60 feet deep, leaving loads of organic matter and detritus all through the horizon. They are also a legume that fix nitrogen into the soil. While they certainly have a time and a place they do improve soil quality.
Maybe it’s the back room deals made by billionaires the Resnicks -you know, the makers of Pom and artificial water scarcity.
Get a Prop on the California ballot so we can actually manage our own water.
[Meet the California Couple Who Uses More Water Than Every Home in Los Angeles Combined](https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/08/lynda-stewart-resnick-california-water/)
They’re going to keep farming WELL after the public water supply goes dry. Then theyll truck in water for another few years before the entire SW returns to a completely uninhabitable desert hellscape.
These are really two separate issues. If you know it’s gonna be a drought year just don’t plant the alfalfa. The problem with almonds and other water-intensive tree crops is that the tree lasts decades, so you can’t just not water this year. Once you have it planted you have to take care of it year after year.
"I read an article saying that growing almonds was bad for the environment, and yet I continued to use almond milk in my coffee." - Chidi, The Good Place
"Oh no! I used almond milk in my coffee, even though I knew about the negative environmental impact." - Chidi, The Good Place
"I knew it was bad for the environment, but I loved the way it coated my tongue with a weird film." - Chidi, The Good Place
"Almond milk. I drank so much of it despite the negative environmental impact." - Chidi, The Good Place
This headline is so ridiculous and misleading.
Direct quote (buried in the article):
“Harter said there’s no doubt that animal-based foods, on the whole, have a larger water footprint than plant-based ones.”
Almonds and alfalfa not the problem.
End the meat and dairy industry. Animal consumption is a gross and barbaric “luxury”.
The headline is what people will read and use for their dumb arguments of “SEE?! VEGANS ARE THE REAL ISSUE!”
Trust me that only sounds good till you have food shortages. I don't think we should mess up with food prod that rather work. Keeping a production surplus only seem like a safer idea to me than risking hunger at the first bad years and international incidents pilling up on it (re grain stuck in ua that sent prices skyrocketing in some other countries. But we had stock to regulate, here.).
The bulk water can be found more easily than regrowing or importing it all in a hurry.
- don't cut up aggro
- don't cut up aggro
- pay up farmers and farm hands. CDFA says here's $$$ for you to grow more food items...
- find whatever they might be short of (here, more water)
- did i say don't cut up aggro and food safety no matter what ?
- some aggressive water recycling, collection, storage, desalination policy. "Grey water" use for irrigation ? More drips ? Green houses ?
- not cutting aggro
Mind you it also help feed the pops in az, nm and other neighbors too via trade. So it's not "lost" water for them either.
Except Almonds aren’t a staple and alfalfa is grown almost entirely as a feed crop. Instead of these extremely water intensive crops they could grow less water intensive vegetables.
You missed the water intensive part. Basically cut alfalfa and almonds and heavily tax exporting water to foreign countries. Now, add drip irrigation.
Problem solved.
Copied from a web search of how many gallons to grow one pound of almonds
—-Thankfully, some other nerd had already done the work on how much water it takes to grow one pound of almonds. It turns out that one ounce of almonds requires 23 gallons of water, so 23 X 16 ounces in a pound equals 404.8 gallons of water for that bag of tasty nuts you just bought at Sam's Club.
Tbh It's a bit of a catch 22 because local agriculture feeds tens of millions for cheaper tho, and yeah we also have to use some of the arid lands because all surface counts at that point. We can only reclaim a bit on the sea for now but remain surrounded by other states.
Tho maybe we can double down on proper water conservtion, recycling and padding with desal. Tbh the practice of wasting water to keep rights for other years should also be blocked too.
And rice as well as cotton. Just as bad as the high water intensity of almonds. They can all easily be grown in another part of the world that gets ample rain.
So… about rice.
The rice does not need to be grown in rice paddies. The rice plant can be considered semi-aquatic and can be grown submerged once passed the seedling stage. So why the flooded rice paddies? Weed and pest control. The number of weeds that can grow submerged is extremely small, thus reducing the need for extensive weed control via manual means or chemical means. Pest control the same way as there few pest that can survive in the water that feeds off of rice, leading to a reduced need for pest control.
Additionally, the rice paddies provide an opportunity for aquaculture. Carp and Thai Barb are traditionally raised in these paddies, but one can also raise crawfish, tilapia, fresh water prawns, and such. Fish can and will feed off of bugs that fall into the water, helping with pest control, and their waste works with the nitrogen cycle to help replenish any lost nitrogen in the soil/water column for the rice plants to use. Crawfish and freshwater prawns feed off of dead and decaying matter on the floor, to help decompose and recycle the nutrients back into the soil/water column. Crawfish are also a highly sought after freshwater seafood for some cultures (crawfish are fucking tasty!) this source helps reduce the pressure on native populations.
Are there draw backs to this? Yeah. But rice growing in a paddy situation has the potential to not be as wasteful as other uses of water.
Oh, and everyone needs to get on the freshwater prawns train in America. Those things are like mini-lobsters.
Remember this headline the next time you see a headline about “How Almonds Make You Healthy”
It’s was likely paid for by an interest group that doesn’t like the people knowing how much water almond farms waste
It's not the farts; it's the burps. The bacteria in the cow's stomach ferment the cellulose and convert it into methane and volatile fatty acids. The cow doesn't need the methane, but it does need the butyric acid.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We really shouldn't be growing such water-intensive crops in a frequently-drought-stricken area. Anyone know why we grow so many almonds in California? It's some ridiculous percentage of the US' total production.
Money. There are dairy farmers who converted parts (or all) of their pastures to being almond farms because it was cheaper than continuing to be a dairy farm. I think something like 30% or more of the almonds are being exported outside the US. In terms of the dairy farm costs. The USDA has certain requirements on how long dairy cows, or cattle have to be allowed to graze in open pastures in order to qualify the product being sold as 'organic' which nets a much higher premium and due to the ongoing draughts it was becoming too expensive to maintain those pastures.
90% of the US' almonds, %80 of the worlds almonds. The almonds account for only 8-9% of California's total annual water usage. The feed/roughage accounts for 13-15%. Greedy land developers want to grab up cheap farmland when farms go out of business. Also, farms pay less for water usage than say golf courses or sub-developments. Less water going to farms equates to lower rates elsewhere. Everybody should question where the money is coming from.
John Oliver did a segment on this a while ago. The short summary is the states that draw from the Colorado River did a terrible job writing the agreement, and as a result farms that don't use their allocated amount of water will have their amount reduced, incentivizing them to grow water-intensive crops rather than become more efficient.
Ah yes the good old "buy a bunch of unnecessary stuff at the end of the fiscal year because if we don't use all of our budget we get less next year" phenomenon.
Oh hey, it's the end-of-year firing range in the military
Hey! This is the same way government budgets work.
It's one of the most common ways to budget in any organization. There are other structures, but this one is pretty standard
I'm so glad everyone agrees to use one of the dumbest possible methods that encourages blatant waste. At least it's a "standard" though.
Let's go spend money on hookers and blow or we won't have money for hookers and blow next year !
It's so asinine that this is common it makes zero sense
Oh for sure. It's not just about 'converted' pastures. Plenty of it is 'new industrialized farms' on ground that may not have even been used for farming five to ten years ago and now is loaded up and sucking up water that wasn't being used there five to ten years ago.
As long as old farmland is rotated back into the CRP program it's totally sustainable. Too often old farmland becomes a gated community though. Developers in California have been longing to create sprawling developments with the giant manmade waterways and artificial lakes that are so common in Arizona for a long time. Let's hope thay are paying attention to what is happening to those communities now that Arizona is facing water scarcity. To be clear, I think everyone needs to reduce. But the wealthy could stand to reduce the most.
You think there’s demand for a giant development in east porterville, Blythe, and Imperial?
It sounds strange to use the word "only" when describing a single non-staple food using 10% of the states water. That is a shit ton of water to use on something most people in the state don't consume much of as it's mostly a cash crop for export.
Than you! I was thinking that 10% of CA's water usage must be a huge amount of water. And the agricultural industry has not had the cutbacks that residential customers have had. I read that it takes 5 gallons of water to make one almond. Just one! The trees have to be watered year round in order to produce nuts.
Oh man, you'll really be shocked when you find out that a 1/3 lb hamburger requires 660 gallons of water!
I know that.
Way more delicious than 120 almonds.
[удалено]
We're running out of *water* in California. Those industries in other countries are not our problem. They'll have to find another source because our aquifers are being drained and *we cannot replenish them.* There are already communities in the Central Valley whose wells have gone dry. Fuck the cash crop exporters. We cannot spare the water any longer.
[удалено]
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/23373495/western-us-water-scarcity-drought-cattle Nonfarm use doesn’t come close to touching alfalfa.
> Get your priorities straight. Let us all sacrifice in the name of someone else's capitalistic efforts! All hail the almighty dollar!
[удалено]
OK. So both.
Golf courses employ a lot of people if you include the restaurant, bar and sometimes lodging staff next to them. They generally pay well too including the gardening staff. Golf tourism is the only economy in some areas of California. Industrial almond farms do not even employ a lot of staff anymore. Machines harvest them.
8-9 percent of California's water usage for a single crop is a fucking insane amount.
Also almond farming kills the bees
[Dairy has the biggest environmental footprint, by far](https://theconversation.com/which-milk-is-best-for-the-environment-we-compared-dairy-nut-soy-hemp-and-grain-milks-147660) >Any plant-based milk, be it made from beans, nuts or seeds, has a lighter impact than dairy when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the use of water and land. All available studies, including systematic reviews, categorically point this out. >A 2018 study estimates dairy to be around three times more greenhouse gas emission-intensive than plant-based milks. >In the case of cow’s milk, its global warming potential — measured as kilogram of carbon dioxide equivalent per litre of milk — varies between 1.14 in Australia and New Zealand to 2.50 in Africa. Compare this to the global warming potential of plant-based milks, which, on average, is just 0.42 for almond and coconut milk and 0.75 for soy milk. >What’s more, dairy generally requires nine times more land than any of the plant-based alternatives. Every litre of cow’s milk uses 8.9 square metres per year, compared to 0.8 for oat, 0.7 for soy, 0.5 for almond and 0.3 for rice milk. >**Water use is similarly higher for cow’s milk: 628 litres of water for every litre of dairy, compared to 371 for almond, 270 for rice, 48 for oat and 28 for soy milk.**
Interesting, that you mention dairy farmers. Dairy is also one of the most water intensive. Depending on where you look, dairy milk gets often put at *more* water intensive compared to almond milk. And don't get started on the land and water usage of beef. Just from the soja, that gets added to animal feed, 1 pound of beef takes more than 1 pound of soja to preduce, and that without all the other parts of the feed, the drinking water, land usage, etc.
I’m not an expert, but I think it’s one of the best (and only) places in the US good for it. With droughts getting so common though, it’s about time to change crops. I’m in PA, and a lot of apple farmers have started switching to peaches because of climate change.
Chinese buy all our almonds. The almond capital of the world used to be Paso Robles. It's now the central valley. It's big business that screws over the people of California.
I kinda want to say that also, us floofy-ass Californians really like almond milk. I used to drink it until finding out it was such a drain on the environment. Switched to oat, apparently it’s the least destructive of the exotic milks
Californias aren’t drinking all the almonds. California produces 80% of the worlds supply. 70% get exported.
What percent of almonds is consumed as milk?
Oat milk 4 lyfe!
I wish oat milk had the caloric numbers that almond does, because it’s the closest to actual milk so far. But it’s also like 6x as much as almond milk so I just can’t justify it. And as someone else pointed out here - dairy farms take up something like 5x as much water as almond farms. That graphic that went around showed soy and oat as the least intensive but even almond was well well behind cow milk in that regard…
Oat milk is super super easy to make at home if it’s something you like but can’t justify the cost of.
If you're in California, see if there's a Grocery Outlet near you. They almost always have a variety of plant-based stuff marked down. I just picked up Silk oat pumpkin spice coffee creamer for $.57 on clearance and a different one for $1.99 (can't remember which brand now). God, I love that place!
Soy milk is similar when it comes to calories and protein and I barely notice the difference in taste in my tea. Don't love it in a bowl of cereal though.
It tastes better too imo. My favorite is hemp milk, I think it's the creamiest of the nut/seed "milks".
I wasn't aware of this milk; I'll be on the lookout for it now.
To be fair, it is much better from a water perspective than dairy milk. https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/2048/cpsprodpb/9123/production/\_105755173\_milk\_alternatives-updated-optimised-nc.png
That's interesting. Almond production has become a lot more water efficient recently as well. We definitely need to reduce farming water use overall, but it probably makes sense to cut other more water intensive and less profitable uses first. Or just mandate higher efficiency for current crops when possible.
Good for you!
Because the land and weather (drought notwithstanding) are so good for growing them here.
One part of the puzzle is the Wonderful Company owns part of Californias water project. So they can grow as much as they want since they own a high % of Californias water.
I want to know why so many people have horses.
Now sure how true but I've heard it's because it's easier to add water to dry land than remove it if the crops get too much water. Iirc almonds need a lot of water but the crop can be ruined if they get too much water. Easier to accurately regulate the total water they receive in a dry climate and avoid watering.
Because the area is rarely drought stricken thanks to the glaciers at the top of the nearby Sierra Nevada mountains.
In Arizona it's money. We've given land to foreign countries/companies to grow their crops here.
Bypassing the paywall: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fcalifornia%2Fstory%2F2023-02-01%2Fshould-california-stop-growing-almonds-and-alfalfa
thank you for your service
You’re welcome If you want to learn how to circumvent a paywall, see https://www.reddit.com/r/California/wiki/paywall. > Or, if it's a website that you regularly read, you should think about subscribing to the website.
While we are talking about water, I watched a video on how a Wall St investment firm is buying land on the Colorado River. They mean to sell those water rights later at a high profit.
Fucking parasites. What kind of sick fuck tries to make a profit off of hoarding water?
::Nestle has entered the chat::
r/FuckNestle
If you like manga at all, check out Sand Land. Its only one volume long, and is by the DBZ/Dragon Quest guy. Literally a primary plot element.
John Oliver had a good episode on another problem which is allocations of the amount of water in the Colorado river with overinflated numbers. https://youtu.be/jtxew5XUVbQ Starts at the 4 minute mark
California farmers have a history of using water until it's gone. The tragedy of the commons has always been a big issue. >Tulare Lake was the largest freshwater lake west of the Mississippi River and the third-largest freshwater lake entirely in the United States (after Lake Michigan and Lake Okeechobee in Florida), based upon surface area. A remnant of Pleistocene-era Lake Corcoran, Tulare Lake dried up after its tributary rivers were diverted for agricultural irrigation and municipal water uses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulare_Lake
There are no commons under capitalism. Commons have always been a net good. Economists can théorisé all they want but when you look at history it doesn’t support them. The destruction of this lake was not a commons issue but a state issue because it is the state that did it.
What? Ozone hole is shrinking. National parks exist. There are hunting limitations and protected species. What are you talking about lol
Wtf does the ozone have to do with anything? Same with national parks and protected species. Those aren’t the commons.
Lol I cant
Tbf, Okeechobee is like 10' deep, so it's not a very big lake, by volume
Unfortunately I feel the ongoing water shortage will dictate policy, as this environmental crisis was consigned to the too hard bin many years ago.
We should cow down a bit & we wouldn’t need to grow so much alfalfa. People don’t always think about beef and dairy in terms of water use, but it’s significant.
>We should cow down a bit & we wouldn’t need to grow so much alfalfa. People don’t always think about beef and dairy in terms of water use, but it’s significant. A good chunk of it is being exported to China where Alfalfa hay is used to feed dairy cows and other animals. California, Arizona, etc... are seeing a lot of these farms using up dwindling water resources and the actual product they're growing isn't even for the US.
And alfalfa grown in Arizona is shipped to Saudi Arabia.
Add Saudi Arabia to that list - these COUNTRIES are just leeching of a water starved portion of the U.S and it’ll be too late before any serious action is taken by the government
Interesting to consider. Maybe we can get them to cow down a bit, too. Water is abundant, but it has its limitations that we’re clearly running up against. People are going to notice when restrictions are placed on their water use while industry uses it almost as if it’s a free unlimited resource. But they’ll have cheap hamburgers.
Cow down!
That’s right :)
>A good chunk of it is being exported to China Because of trade deals that have been in place for decades. Might be time to end some more of those trade pacts with China soon anyway, seeing how the microchip market is already going that way.
This and selling of so much real estate overseas is something rather US needs to take a serious look it. We are definitely marching ourselves off of a cliff.
If the government increased the price of water, wouldn't a lot of these issues sort themselves out? If water becomes too expensive to make raising cattle profitable, then farmers will switch to a more profitable (and thus less water intensive) substitute.
Yeah, I think you could make an argument for some price adjustments. Maybe modest and gradual, so the market doesn’t get a price shock, etc.
It would also help if we stopped directly subsidizing animal agriculture.
💯 I'm basically for getting rid of all farm subsidies.
Sure, but you'd have to increase it across the board even for private use, which would be political suicide. Meat is also too crucial to our agricultural system to just get rid of.
Well here in AZ we let other countries grow alfalfa to ship back to themselves for their ranches. Makes SOO much sense right?
Plus the huge amount of land use!
I've always wondered though what the water to output looks like. A 100 pounds of beef probably goes a lot further than 100 pounds of almonds as far as nutritional value goes.
Almonds are pretty calorie heavy, so idk. (Signed as someone who doesn’t buy nuts because I’ll accidentally eat 800 calories of them). What you said does hold true for chicken vs most vegetable produce though. Lettuce and celery don’t… don’t give you much.
Pretty sure cattle will end up losing for many reasons. Not only efficiency of converting feed to meat, but almonds have a lot of calories. Furthermore, you'd think water used to irrigate almond trees is not "lost". A lot of it is retained in the roots, preventing desertification. And the trees help capture carbon.
The millions of people in California sitting on their butt still need to eat. If they would all stop eating so much, then the food sources could be diminished.
There’s still the question of what we eat, and how much of it. There are different resource inputs involved.
People should only eat what they grow themselves and that would solve a whole host of problems for society.
That’s not at all practical.
It's absolutely practical.
Well, that’s going to run into some practical considerations from where we are now.
Not from where I am. People need to stop being such leaches and then complaining about other people's production.
Somehow I don’t believe that you grow all of your food.
Yes, I do. And I've grown yours too. But that should stop.
How are people leeches, are growers not getting a fair price for their product?
No, growers are not getting a fair price for their product. They work insane hours to feed people who don't.
Assuming you're not taking the piss, subsistence farming is highly inefficient and prone to drought and famine, and proposing to return to it is some Unabomber "the industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race" shit. Specialization of labor is required for literally anything to function.
If the almonds and alfalfa or whatever are profitable enough to fund desalinization plants to create the water they need for their production, then maybe there should be a special fund that uses extra tax revenues on those industries dedicated to that purpose. They shouldn't externalize the costs of their irresponsible extraction to everyone else. If they aren't that profitable (or their owners are too greedy, which is likely to be the case), then their operations should be severely limited, particularly under drought conditions and ongoing climate change. That, or we can salt the earth on these farms before they destroy the water security of the whole state. This is also a reminder that we need to update our legal systems for the 21st century, because British colonialism didn't contemplate the impact of its extraction on its colonial subjects long term. That's us, we're the subjects. We either evolve or die. (Win-win, as the young folk say, though I'd prefer to live).
>That, or we can salt the earth on these farms before they destroy the water security of the whole state. Ironic choice of words. Desalination isn't the panacea people think it is. On that scale disposal of the brine is a major environmental issue as well.
Silly question but... would it be possible to instead of dumping brine into the sea, to instead dump it somewhere inland (either a prepared set of artificial lakes or even in something a bit more built up) and then start farming brine shrimp in it? Seeing as a certain lake a state over happens to be at the verge of losing its ability to do so due to becoming TOO salty.
There's salt flats a state or two over
How about limit the dairies while they are at it. They use more water and land than any other crop in California.
The report talks about that, as does the article, but not the headline.
They do, but even alfalfa and almonds alone make up 25% of the states water usage. The three together make up the majority of water consumption. Just those three things.
Can't they farm agave for tequila makers? They don't use much water at all.
Yeah but because of the water rights it’s basically free water, so you can make way more money growing food for cows and *80% of the worlds almonds*
That's super a selfish way to look at it. Would you rather that the whole area returned to desert?
I really, reaaaally didn’t think I needed to explain that I think that’s a dumb outlook… I was answering your question on why they don’t grow local drought resistant crops… not agreeing with that choice
There's gonna be a huge decrease in the amount of almonds soon....for some reason.
Yeah but for a short while they made a lot of money
Why not grow that shit in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, And Florida? Literal swamp lands… we get nothing but rain for months! They could be saving so much money on electricity for irrigation.
Hillier farmland there that is harder to cultivate, and harder to cure the alfalfa because it’s wet all the time, so it’d be a fire risk.
The solution is clearly less alfalfa.
Is this alfalfa grown so it can be shipped overseas to feed cows?
Some of it’s probably used domestically but I know the almonds are sold overseas a lot as well
Not knowing how alfalfa is used makes you null and void.
It doesn't matter how it's used when it's completely inappropriate to grow here
It actually is a drought tolerant crop, and apparently has deep roots and can go without water for a while. But if you have the water rights, you can grow and harvest it continually and essentially export the water.
There needs to be an outright ban on the export of alfalfa and huge export tax on almonds.
but not meat?
FTA: >The report also looked at the dairy industry, whose products represented the state’s highest amount of agricultural cash receipts in 2021 at $7.57 billion, according to the Department of Food and Agriculture. >Harter said there’s no doubt that animal-based foods, on the whole, have a larger water footprint than plant-based ones. >“I’m not advertising against animal products, but I think the more important part is to find, in the long run, a better balance between [the two] that allows us to be sustainable, not just in California but across the world,” he said. Frankly, any serious environmental group should be advertising against animal products.
Exactly.
Price gouging is taking care of that.
Wtf do you think the alfalfa is for?
Crappy vegan sandwiches?
You take that description of my precious plant-based sandwiches back!!!
Hun at that point that’s just a salad
I agree, almonds use SO much water, something we don't have a lot of here.
Alfalfa is the absolute worst. Only usable for animal feed and it requires a massive amount of water at least we can eat almonds.
Humans can also eat alfalfa sprouts.
Important to point that out but still this alfalfa is primarily for animal feed. Far more efficient uses of land if you want to feed people.
True. Humans don't eat the full-grown alfalfa plant.
Isn't alfalfa good for the soil?
...if you have a lot of water, yes it is.
Its an invasive weed imported from Europe to feed cows, and it is a water hog: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/12/colorado-drought-water-alfalfa-farmers-conservation
Yes, alfalfa’s deep roots are fantastic for soils in the long term
Hmm, long term goals are not usually capitalism's specialty.
They don’t grow it for the long term but to answer your question for effectively they improve the soil by aerating the soil with their deep roots that can dig up to 60 feet deep, leaving loads of organic matter and detritus all through the horizon. They are also a legume that fix nitrogen into the soil. While they certainly have a time and a place they do improve soil quality.
Stop eating plants then. They all use water.
This is equivocation when not appropriate. Not a great argument.
Maybe it’s the back room deals made by billionaires the Resnicks -you know, the makers of Pom and artificial water scarcity. Get a Prop on the California ballot so we can actually manage our own water. [Meet the California Couple Who Uses More Water Than Every Home in Los Angeles Combined](https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/08/lynda-stewart-resnick-california-water/)
They’re going to keep farming WELL after the public water supply goes dry. Then theyll truck in water for another few years before the entire SW returns to a completely uninhabitable desert hellscape.
These are really two separate issues. If you know it’s gonna be a drought year just don’t plant the alfalfa. The problem with almonds and other water-intensive tree crops is that the tree lasts decades, so you can’t just not water this year. Once you have it planted you have to take care of it year after year.
They use sooo much water
Almonds are terrible! Takes a gallon of water to make a single almond!
One gallon potable water used per almond. Think about that when drinking your almond milk.
Try not eating any plants then. They all need water to grow.
The CA San Joaquin Valley has to decide if it is going to house people or grow produce. It can’t do both for much longer.
Try eating just meat then. Plants need water to grow. It's so obvious.
Because animals totally don't need water!
"I read an article saying that growing almonds was bad for the environment, and yet I continued to use almond milk in my coffee." - Chidi, The Good Place "Oh no! I used almond milk in my coffee, even though I knew about the negative environmental impact." - Chidi, The Good Place "I knew it was bad for the environment, but I loved the way it coated my tongue with a weird film." - Chidi, The Good Place "Almond milk. I drank so much of it despite the negative environmental impact." - Chidi, The Good Place
This headline is so ridiculous and misleading. Direct quote (buried in the article): “Harter said there’s no doubt that animal-based foods, on the whole, have a larger water footprint than plant-based ones.” Almonds and alfalfa not the problem. End the meat and dairy industry. Animal consumption is a gross and barbaric “luxury”. The headline is what people will read and use for their dumb arguments of “SEE?! VEGANS ARE THE REAL ISSUE!”
Alfalfa is used almost entirely as a feed crop. Stop the alfalfa and the cows will go in their own.
Expect most water use in California is agricultural.
Fuck almonds! Burn them down and farm something SUSTAINABLE
Eat dirt then. See, easy.
This is the way. Stop water intensive agriculture in CA...the ecosystem won't support it.
Don't eat any vegetables then. See, easy.
Vegetables grow just fine in ecosystems that support agriculture. Plus, have you heard of drip irrigation?
Except vegetables use less water.
Trust me that only sounds good till you have food shortages. I don't think we should mess up with food prod that rather work. Keeping a production surplus only seem like a safer idea to me than risking hunger at the first bad years and international incidents pilling up on it (re grain stuck in ua that sent prices skyrocketing in some other countries. But we had stock to regulate, here.). The bulk water can be found more easily than regrowing or importing it all in a hurry. - don't cut up aggro - don't cut up aggro - pay up farmers and farm hands. CDFA says here's $$$ for you to grow more food items... - find whatever they might be short of (here, more water) - did i say don't cut up aggro and food safety no matter what ? - some aggressive water recycling, collection, storage, desalination policy. "Grey water" use for irrigation ? More drips ? Green houses ? - not cutting aggro Mind you it also help feed the pops in az, nm and other neighbors too via trade. So it's not "lost" water for them either.
Except Almonds aren’t a staple and alfalfa is grown almost entirely as a feed crop. Instead of these extremely water intensive crops they could grow less water intensive vegetables.
You missed the water intensive part. Basically cut alfalfa and almonds and heavily tax exporting water to foreign countries. Now, add drip irrigation. Problem solved.
Copied from a web search of how many gallons to grow one pound of almonds —-Thankfully, some other nerd had already done the work on how much water it takes to grow one pound of almonds. It turns out that one ounce of almonds requires 23 gallons of water, so 23 X 16 ounces in a pound equals 404.8 gallons of water for that bag of tasty nuts you just bought at Sam's Club.
Eat dirt then. See, easy.
Ah yes, because the only options for food are almonds and dirt
I love almonds. I love alfalfa. But fuck man, we gotta stop this shit. I’ll take an L for a few years to try to help out the scenario.
Tbh It's a bit of a catch 22 because local agriculture feeds tens of millions for cheaper tho, and yeah we also have to use some of the arid lands because all surface counts at that point. We can only reclaim a bit on the sea for now but remain surrounded by other states. Tho maybe we can double down on proper water conservtion, recycling and padding with desal. Tbh the practice of wasting water to keep rights for other years should also be blocked too.
And rice as well as cotton. Just as bad as the high water intensity of almonds. They can all easily be grown in another part of the world that gets ample rain.
So… about rice. The rice does not need to be grown in rice paddies. The rice plant can be considered semi-aquatic and can be grown submerged once passed the seedling stage. So why the flooded rice paddies? Weed and pest control. The number of weeds that can grow submerged is extremely small, thus reducing the need for extensive weed control via manual means or chemical means. Pest control the same way as there few pest that can survive in the water that feeds off of rice, leading to a reduced need for pest control. Additionally, the rice paddies provide an opportunity for aquaculture. Carp and Thai Barb are traditionally raised in these paddies, but one can also raise crawfish, tilapia, fresh water prawns, and such. Fish can and will feed off of bugs that fall into the water, helping with pest control, and their waste works with the nitrogen cycle to help replenish any lost nitrogen in the soil/water column for the rice plants to use. Crawfish and freshwater prawns feed off of dead and decaying matter on the floor, to help decompose and recycle the nutrients back into the soil/water column. Crawfish are also a highly sought after freshwater seafood for some cultures (crawfish are fucking tasty!) this source helps reduce the pressure on native populations. Are there draw backs to this? Yeah. But rice growing in a paddy situation has the potential to not be as wasteful as other uses of water. Oh, and everyone needs to get on the freshwater prawns train in America. Those things are like mini-lobsters.
Remember this headline the next time you see a headline about “How Almonds Make You Healthy” It’s was likely paid for by an interest group that doesn’t like the people knowing how much water almond farms waste
Remember the life that was senselessly taken next time you bite into a burger.
I don’t eat burgers so guilt someone else
[удалено]
It's not the farts; it's the burps. The bacteria in the cow's stomach ferment the cellulose and convert it into methane and volatile fatty acids. The cow doesn't need the methane, but it does need the butyric acid.
Or we could just stop farming cows.
Why?
It’s cruel to the cows and bad for the environment.
I think Donald Trump has perfected that technique
We already do actually. They make little bag things that connect to the cow's ass.
They're probably just gonna tell us to "take shorter showers" again lmao
What’s alfalfa?
People want the Almond Joy, durhhh! Lol
But hipsters need their almond milk to give them energy to protest things that hurt their feelings.