Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is California's Central Valley so effective in Almond Growing?
Because of it's unique climate! Why is it so unique, few places in the world provide ALL OF THESE:
1. Wet winters, certainly wetter than a desert climate.
2. Mild Winters, rarely does it reach freezing temps in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys.
3. An actual winter, meaning winters are cold enough so the trees go dormant in the winter. Average low temps 40-45F, not very cold by national standards, but cold enough that trees go dormant. Winter tule fog: it prevents hard cold freezes or frosts from damaging the trees.
4. Reliable Dry warm-hot months (5-6 months worth) ; fungus doesn't survive in the dry heat. Other areas of the country that could grow almond trees, are wet ALL year long, the trees need a long dry period to efficiently produce healthy almonds.
Cheeses, Chimerique. This isn't a cheerleading or popularity contest for almonds. None of your citations are confronting the damages been done by the gross expansion of the industry during crisis drought.
Are you some kind of statist? Any industry in California or elsewhere in the United States is free to sell its products globally. Almond farming is not destroying anything.
Lol. No. There are many controls on many industries and products and markets. Anything that presents health and security and economic risks is subject to regulatory oversight. From weaponry to pharmaceuticals, to energy products, chemicals, bio-engineering, and much more.
The recent explosive expansion of almond farming is destroying other crop production and collapsing aquifers, while reducing ag employment.
Quote:
Literally millions of almond trees have been planted in the county during the past decade. Stanislaus agriculture officials calculate 160,200 acres of almonds were harvested last year, which is about double the acreage harvested 15 years ago.
Thousands of additional acres of almonds are being harvested for the first time this fall.
While many of those are new trees now growing on what had been non-irrigated pastures on the county’s east side, others have replaced once-coveted fruit trees, tomato fields, vegetable farms and dairies.
The numbers tell the story.
USDA census figures show nearly a 56 percent reduction in Stanislaus acreage used to grow vegetables from 2002 to 2012. Tomato acreage declined 52 percent, peaches 64 percent, alfalfa 38 percent, lima beans 41 percent … and the list goes on.
Declining, too, are farm jobs, in part because almonds simply don’t need as many hands to tend and harvest as fruits or vegetables.
Despite an increase of more than 8 million almond trees, jobs in Stanislaus’ nut orchards rose less than 10 percent during the past decade. Meanwhile, jobs in the county’s vegetable and melon fields plummeted 28 percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Cheeses, Chimerique. This isn't a cheerleading or popularity contest for almonds. None of your citations are confronting the damages been done by the gross expansion of the industry during crisis drought.
This has been explained to her on the previous page, but I guess she ignored it. The issue is not that Almonds Are Evil. It's that growers and out-of-state investors have gotten something like Gold Rush Fever, and have over-invested in the crop to the point of irresponsibility (in some cases putting in groves on marginal land with little water supply other than sub-surface) at a time when CA doesn't have enough water for citizens and for basic food crops. Their bad, but they shouldn't be allowed to pump groundwater to feed their folly at a time when the entire ag industry in CA is struggling to survive. They should pay the price for their poor judgment, and switch to a more water-wise crop. This opportunistic over-investment in almonds is to some extent holding state water hostage.
Hey, 'Mutt, do you remember the Nut Tree restaurant, on the way to Sac'to? Whatever happened to the walnut groves, there? That's a thirsty crop, too. Just wondering.
The real issue is that we should have been building infrastructure for water. Desalinization, reservoirs , canals, etc.
Some water districts are doing that. It's already happening. I don't know where the money's coming from, though. Utility surcharges, maybe. For a statewide project that big, you'd think there oughta be a bond issue, or something. And there already are desal plants in operation, though they're considered experimental. Desal consumes a lot of fossil fuel, though, to get the job done.
This has been explained to her on the previous page, but I guess she ignored it. The issue is not that Almonds Are Evil. It's that growers and out-of-state investors have gotten something like Gold Rush Fever, and have over-invested in the crop to the point of irresponsibility (in some cases putting in groves on marginal land with little water supply other than sub-surface) at a time when CA doesn't have enough water for citizens and for basic food crops. Their bad, but they shouldn't be allowed to pump groundwater to feed their folly at a time when the entire ag industry in CA is struggling to survive. They should pay the price for their poor judgment, and switch to a more water-wise crop. This opportunistic over-investment in almonds is to some extent holding state water hostage.
Hey, 'Mutt, do you remember the Nut Tree restaurant, on the way to Sac'to? Whatever happened to the walnut groves, there? That's a thirsty crop, too. Just wondering.
Good post Ruth. Ties right in with what is / has just happened. Here's a quote from an article written just before the bust happened this winter:
Quote:
“Almonds are the Valley’s new gold,” said Gökçe Soydemir, a business economics professor at California State University, Stanislaus. “If I was a farmer, I wouldn’t produce tomatoes. I would produce almonds.”
Soydemir said Stanislaus growers currently have a “competitive value” in almonds, meaning they have the right growing conditions and production capabilities to produce higher-quality nuts at lower relative costs than about anywhere else on Earth.
Less crop diversification
The big profits now being made by almond growers, Soydemir said, are enticing more farmers to enter the market.
And there’s the danger.
“At some point, there’s going to be excess worldwide production,” Soydemir warned. “As supplies increase, the prices will come down. … Then the market will find its long-run equilibrium, and excess profits will disappear.”
It may take a while before farmers realize they’ve planted too many almonds, Soydemir said, because it takes years for those trees to grow and impact production.
“But it’s just basic economics,” Soydemir cautioned. “It’s always the same: boom, crisis and adjustment.”
Soydemir also is concerned about Stanislaus losing its agricultural diversity.
“If this (crop shift toward almonds) keeps going,” Soydemir predicted, “the price of vegetables and fruits will start going up.”
“California currently supplies three-quarters of the nation’s fruits and vegetables,” Soydemir said. But more and more of those fresh foods now are being imported from countries where labor costs are lower. “Do we want to be dependent on other countries for that?”
Soydemir said maintaining crop diversification is economically important for Stanislaus.
“It is your mom’s advice,” Soydemir said, “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.”
And now it's crashed a bit but the orchards are invested so the growers have to keep them healthy - pump them full of aquifer water - until the market regains and they can resume shipping California water - er, I mean ah monds - overseas for the big bucks again.
Cost to the state: irreplaceable aquifers destroyed. Other crops shifted to imports from Mexico and South America.
Funny how everyone feels entitled to step in and tell agriculture how to run its business.
Can you imagine how silly and heavyhanded it would sound if we were to insist that no U.S. automaker sell cars overseas....or iCrap...or any other product.
But when it comes to agricultural exports, suddenly we feel entitled to tell farmers where and where they can't sell their crops.
The free market is a foundation of the U.S. economy. One of the reasons for NAFTA and other trade pacts was to allow us to have grapes from Chile and avocados from Mexico at low cost. It flows both ways.
No one is getting rich from agriculture. It is cyclical, as has been posted. Real California farmers are in the business for the long haul and need to practice sustainable agriculture to survive. Thus has it always been.
The difference has been the unchecked growth in California's population. When California's population was 20 million, we were able to weather the last great drought. At close to 40 million, not so easy.
Urban elites care nothing about agriculture and hold it in contempt. They don't understand what a treasure California's climate, soil, etc. is for agriculture. You can't just start growing almonds or walnuts in Vermont or olives in Wisconsin.
But you can have your ugly tract homes in other states. The real issue is not what trees are in our ever-dwindling orchards, it is our insisting on paving over and building on valuable agricultural land that when it is gone, is truly gone forever.
Decisions regarding water use cannot be made by a simple vote. Urbanites will always outnumber farmers and will always think that agriculture is a lesser use for water than their own landscaping, showering, and carwashing. Farmers were once respected, but now are an accepted target for derision: they are mostly white, rural, conservative, and "un-PC". Urban elites blame them for supposed wasting of resources (untrue) and racism (by employing Latinos), among other things.
There are valid historical reasons for the way the state of California allocates water rights and usage. Agricultural must continue to be supported.
Some water districts are doing that. It's already happening. I don't know where the money's coming from, though. Utility surcharges, maybe. For a statewide project that big, you'd think there oughta be a bond issue, or something. And there already are desal plants in operation, though they're considered experimental. Desal consumes a lot of fossil fuel, though, to get the job done.
When we had stronger political leadership, and less population, we were able to push through things like the State Water Project, and fund it.
Now, we live to fight ourselves to keep from spending on infrastructure, whether that is high-speed rail, keeping up roads, keeping UC tuition affordable, or any number of other things.
California's population has become too large and fragmented in interests. We also suffer from a lack of real leadership.
Funny how everyone feels entitled to step in and tell agriculture how to run its business.
Can you imagine how silly and heavyhanded it would sound if we were to insist that no U.S. automaker sell cars overseas....or iCrap...or any other product.
But when it comes to agricultural exports, suddenly we feel entitled to tell farmers where and where they can't sell their crops.
The free market is a foundation of the U.S. economy. One of the reasons for NAFTA and other trade pacts was to allow us to have grapes from Chile and avocados from Mexico at low cost. It flows both ways.
No one is getting rich from agriculture. It is cyclical, as has been posted. Real California farmers are in the business for the long haul and need to practice sustainable agriculture to survive. Thus has it always been.
The difference has been the unchecked growth in California's population. When California's population was 20 million, we were able to weather the last great drought. At close to 40 million, not so easy.
Urban elites care nothing about agriculture and hold it in contempt. They don't understand what a treasure California's climate, soil, etc. is for agriculture. You can't just start growing almonds or walnuts in Vermont or olives in Wisconsin.
But you can have your ugly tract homes in other states. The real issue is not what trees are in our ever-dwindling orchards, it is our insisting on paving over and building on valuable agricultural land that when it is gone, is truly gone forever.
Decisions regarding water use cannot be made by a simple vote. Urbanites will always outnumber farmers and will always think that agriculture is a lesser use for water than their own landscaping, showering, and carwashing. Farmers were once respected, but now are an accepted target for derision: they are mostly white, rural, conservative, and "un-PC". Urban elites blame them for supposed wasting of resources (untrue) and racism (by employing Latinos), among other things.
There are valid historical reasons for the way the state of California allocates water rights and usage. Agricultural must continue to be supported.
You keep saying the same things over and over. We've already addressed your concerns in other posts.
But re: the "free market", this is what contributes to famine in other parts of the world; when they put most of their eggs in one export-commodity basket, sacrificing crop diversity for the domestic food market. If the price of that commodity falls, everyone's SOL, and people starve. This has happened many times in the past in developing countries. People think famine in Africa and elsewhere is due to freak weather conditions or flooding, and the international aid pours in. But in some cases, all the aid does is prop up a flawed economic model that is unstable and doesn't work.
This is a process we're seeing develop in California; it's a 3rd-world strategy, which should be an alarming sign. And as previously explained, when investment companies based in other parts of the country swoop in to take advantage of the perceived boom, in an area with insufficient water even in the best of times, that's just sophisticated gambling and stock market speculation at the expense of the water California-based growers and citizens need for their survival.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
one more burden
