Awww - poor almond producers feeling the pinch: “ “It’s all about money,” (homes, to live)

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

My cousins who converted their entire farm to almonds aren't an evil REIT, either. That was just an example.

It's not really an example, it's a hypothetical. An example would be "take for instance this *actual* farm here in someplaceville, CA that is a REIT".

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by joosoon

It's not really an example, it's a hypothetical. An example would be "take for instance this *actual* farm here in someplaceville, CA that is a REIT".

No, it's not hypothetical. The fact that REIT's have bought up land in CA and planted almond groves has been documented. The question is: is that a good thing, given CA's water scarcity, not "do REIT-owned almond groves exist in CA". The latter is not a question. It's a long-established fact at this point. Sorry you didn't get the memo.

[saibot]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

No, it's not hypothetical. The fact that REIT's have bought up land in CA and planted almond groves has been documented. The question is: is that a good thing, given CA's water scarcity, not "do REIT-owned almond groves exist in CA". The latter is not a question. It's a long-established fact at this point. Sorry you didn't get the memo.

There are very few places in the world which have an ideal climate for almonds. Central California is one of them. What would you prefer to plant that would be a better use of that land--in terms of water usage, nutritional value, profit for the farmers and landowners (which is also a significant factor)?

Or do you believe that if water is scarce, we just shouldn't be trying to grow anything at all in the Central Valley?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Well, I didn't say it was silly to ruminate on the subject on the internet. That's fine and I wouldn't be here if I didn't think it was worth discussing.



But do we really want to go down that rabbit hole though (i.e. making regulations in that manner)? That's a pretty slick slope to navigate. How would lawmakers even come up with a standard to measure production worth for any resources pumped into consumer products?



Even sticking to just agriculture, would it be something like making sure all food stuffs meet a certain number of calories per growth energy? I'm asking because I can't think of a good way to quantify this. And then how is it enforced? If you're a farmer making decent profit on product X, and the all-knowing government comes along and says, "look, instead of doing what you're doing, you now need to use all your land, water resources, labor, etc. to grow this low profit crop that we can turn into gruel for Unicef to distribute around the world", would you be ok with that? If it were me, I'd subdivide all the farm land and get out of the business.


More to the point of this thread, banning almond growers doesn't solve the multi-faceted water issue. Also, as has been pointed out in every one of these threads, the so-called water footprint for meat is much higher but for some reason the irrational blame always comes back on nut growers. And once more, the idea that almonds are somehow unique in the world of agriculture because they are exported in such high numbers is wrong. We simply grow the majority of the world's almonds here which is why that is.

I haven’t offered any solutions … nor said I believed there are any. It’s a sticky wicket for sure. This dilemma is another example of the limits of free-enterprise as a system. But you seemed to be attacking the notion that these concerns have any merit. They sure do.

And all the arguments proposing that certain other foods use more water ignore the reality that almonds - while very healthy and versatile - are not anywhere considered a staple, they are a dietary luxury, and particularly that something like 80% (IIRC) are exported luxury.

Do we get to define what’s acceptable in those terms? Obviously not in our “free” market society. But pointing out the pure insanity of this isn’t - um, well, nuts.

By the way, personal admission here: almonds ARE a staple of my diet. And, I love ‘em.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by saibot

There are very few places in the world which have an ideal climate for almonds. Central California is one of them. What would you prefer to plant that would be a better use of that land--in terms of water usage, nutritional value, profit for the farmers and landowners (which is also a significant factor)?

Or do you believe that if water is scarce, we just shouldn't be trying to grow anything at all in the Central Valley?

Yeah, I don’t see how that makes any difference to the concerns discussed.

Nor has anyone proposed the Central Valley be left fallow.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

No, it's not hypothetical. The fact that REIT's have bought up land in CA and planted almond groves has been documented.

Ok. So name one.
That's all I'm saying. Insisting that something is a fact without providing any verification isn't very fact-y. So give me a real world example of what you're talking about and I'll have something tangible to address/answer your question by.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I haven’t offered any solutions … nor said I believed there are any. It’s a sticky wicket for sure. This dilemma is another example of the limits of free-enterprise as a system. But you seemed to be attacking the notion that these concerns have any merit. They sure do.

If by concerns you mean drought, I'm more than confident I've not attacked the merits of the issue. But what I said is true. Almonds aren't the driving force behind a decades (century?) in the making water crisis.

And all the arguments proposing that certain other foods use more water ignore the reality that almonds - while very healthy and versatile - are not anywhere considered a staple, they are a dietary luxury, and particularly that something like 80% (IIRC) are exported luxury.

Well, people will say the same thing about meat which I'll continue to point out has a higher water footprint.

Do we get to define what’s acceptable in those terms? Obviously not in our “free” market society. But pointing out the pure insanity of this isn’t - um, well, nuts.

By the way, personal admission here: almonds ARE a staple of my diet. And, I love ‘em.

But you are defining the terms at least in the form of a rough draft. You just said almonds aren't a staple and most are meant for export. That implies two specific criteria for determining legitimacy of ag products, at least for you personally. If we were to ever impose such minimum standards though, we would all be eating highly nutritious gruel. We don't eat everything we grow in the country. Almonds aren't some unique product when it comes to how this works.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Yeah, I don’t see how that makes any difference to the concerns discussed.

Nor has anyone proposed the Central Valley be left fallow.

But your thread takes a swipe at the industry in a pretty mocking tone. And the gist of that article in the first post is really about a supply chain issue that's ongoing since the pandemic. We wouldn't be the 5th largest economy in the world if all our exports rotted on the docks. We also wouldn't be the 5th largest economy in the world if ag had to adhere to rules which imposed penalties for getting the most profit from their investment (water, land, labor, etc.)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by joosoon

If by concerns you mean drought, I'm more than confident I've not attacked the merits of the issue. But what I said is true. Almonds aren't the driving force behind a decades (century?) in the making water crisis.


Well, people will say the same thing about meat which I'll continue to point out has a higher water footprint.


But you are defining the terms at least in the form of a rough draft. You just said almonds aren't a staple and most are meant for export. That implies two specific criteria for determining legitimacy of ag products, at least for you personally. If we were to ever impose such minimum standards though, we would all be eating highly nutritious gruel. We don't eat everything we grow in the country. Almonds aren't some unique product when it comes to how this works.

Originally Posted by joosoon

But your thread takes a swipe at the industry in a pretty mocking tone. And the gist of that article in the first post is really about a supply chain issue that's ongoing since the pandemic. We wouldn't be the 5th largest economy in the world if all our exports rotted on the docks. We also wouldn't be the 5th largest economy in the world if ag had to adhere to rules which imposed penalties for getting the most profit from their investment (water, land, labor, etc.)

Lol. You are being possibly even more obtuse here than a number of posters frequently accuse me of being. None of what you drone on about here changes the observations of why almonds are a poster child for the absurdity of free-market extremism. Whether other products also qualify or not.

And, by the way, no one said almonds were “the driving force behind … [the California] water crisis”. It is [rightfully] pointed out that they are a glaring example of absurdity: Californians are being asked to drastically cut their residential water use while almond growers profit enormously by flooding (so to speak) the international market with a luxury item using amazingly copious quantities of California’s dwindling water supply.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

And, by the way, no one said almonds were “the driving force behind … [the California] water crisis”.

On these forums? Man, it's constantly framed that way. This thread is no exception.

You're even doing it right now you just don't realize it. ↓↓↓

It is [rightfully] pointed out that they are a glaring example of absurdity: Californians are being asked to drastically cut their residential water use while almond growers profit enormously by flooding (so to speak) the international market with a luxury item using amazingly copious quantities of California’s dwindling water supply.

You see it as absurdity. I see it as business as normal and precisely what to expect given the way our economy works.


Agriculture is a water heavy industry (duh). The same thing happened with citrus. There's a reason why what used to be nothing but groves is now all housing where I'm at. Once it became too expensive to grow citrus fruits, particularly because of the water costs and cheap imports, farming simply went away... and the properties were subdivided and housing went in on top of what was once a thriving industry. But nobody with any business sense is going to engage in an endeavor that loses money. You see a moral issue where in reality, it's just a big actuary table. Farming isn't going to suddenly shift to native species plants with no marketability. Farming, like any other business, is going to seek the best bang for its investment buck. And before you claim that's "absurdity", you should look a little deeper into the environmental movement behind all this. You think I'm kidding about being reduced to eating low-grade gruel.