4 months of Texas summers versus 4 months of Midwest/Northeast winters (El Paso: agricultural, moving)

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by ScrappyJoe

There are way more crops and plants need warm enough weather to survive compared to those needing colder weather. Matter of fact, even the cold-loving crops don't need the freezing cold of the North, only a bit of upper 30s to low 40s chilliness. As a result, Texas and Southern states can grow all the cold loving crops along with exclusive species that won't survive up North. The only handicap for Southern states with agriculture come from how much the land is tied up to private ownership, along with suburban sprawl constructs - otherwise, Iowa and the Midwest are essentially replaceable.

You can't grow all the cold-loving crops in the South, not well at least.

You sound like someone who knows absolutely nothing about agriculture.

There are lots of agricultural plants that don't grow well in the south. If that wasn't the case you would see cheery orchards in Texas, but you don't.

You prob don't garden. I do. My Dad back in Idaho can grow a wider variety of things in his garden than I can in North Texas. He can grow anything I can, but I can't grow everything he can, or not as well.

I know because I've grown the same things in both places.

If I was in the RGV it would be different. Citrus would make up the gap, but you can't grow that in 90% of Texas.

Originally Posted by ScrappyJoe

So, there's no doubt that cold weather has its fans, along with some reasonable benefits. But as per ecological and historic-settlement patterns, it's pretty clear that cold just naturally isn't as sustaining and valuable as warm climates.

So how do you explain how the industrial North absolutely destroyed the agricultural south in the Civil War??

Globally, countries that are cold are much more productive than the hot ones.

How do you explain the global trend of industrialized societies being in the global north? How do you explain how northern, cold and industrial Italy drags the southern part of the country along with it? Explain to me why the Northern European Countries pay the bills for the southern ones.

Sure there are prosperous areas in the global south: Singapore, Hong Kong etc. But the majority of the industrialised world is in the global north.

I'm not saying being northern is the cause of their success, it is far more complicated than that, but it sure didn't hurt it.

Your "South is inherently better than north" just doesn't seem to hold up, historically speaking.

You keep saying Southern land is more "Valuable" but the land is litterally less valuable than the upper mid west for agg, so no, it is not more valuable.


Thats fine if you like the warm weather better, both have their pros and cons, but you don't need to make up facts about it to justify it as inharently "Better"

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

I hate to state the obvious, and I don't mean "If you don't like it here, why don't you move?" but honestly - if a person doesn't like long, hot summers, maybe they should consider living somewhere other than Texas. Most of Texas has long, hot summers and mild winters. It just IS that way. No amount of liking or disliking it is going to change a weather pattern.

May as well live where you love to live. Life is short - enjoy it!

I mean you can like where you live and not love everything about it.

I'm sure that if they were being honest 90% of people in Texas would rather have California Weather. That doesn't mean they would rather live in California.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92

You can't grow all the cold-loving crops in the South, not well at least.

You sound like someone who knows absolutely nothing about agriculture.

There are lots of agricultural plants that don't grow well in the south. If that wasn't the case you would see cheery orchards in Texas, but you don't.

You prob don't garden. I do. My Dad back in Idaho can grow a wider variety of things in his garden than I can in North Texas. He can grow anything I can, but I can't grow everything he can, or not as well.

I know because I've grown the same things in both places.

If I was in the RGV it would be different. Citrus would make up the gap, but you can't grow that in 90% of Texas.




So how do you explain how the industrial North absolutely destroyed the agricultural south in the Civil War??

Globally, countries that are cold are much more productive than the hot ones.

How do you explain the global trend of industrialized societies being in the global north? How do you explain how northern, cold and industrial Italy drags the southern part of the country along with it? Explain to me why the Northern European Countries pay the bills for the southern ones.

Sure there are prosperous areas in the global south: Singapore, Hong Kong etc. But the majority of the industrialised world is in the global north.

I'm not saying being northern is the cause of their success, it is far more complicated than that, but it sure didn't hurt it.

Your "South is inherently better than north" just doesn't seem to hold up, historically speaking.

You keep saying Southern land is more "Valuable" but the land is litterally less valuable than the upper mid west for agg, so no, it is not more valuable.


Thats fine if you like the warm weather better, both have their pros and cons, but you don't need to make up facts about it to justify it as inharently "Better"

Ancient civilization started in hot climates: Egypt, Greece, Rome

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by cBach

Ancient civilization started in hot climates: Egypt, Greece, Rome

The industrial revolutions happened in Cool Climates: Northern/Western Europe.

Also, Greece and Rome are temperate climates. I've lived in Rome without AC in the summer before and it was warm, but ok. That would be miserable in Texas.

I mean that is silly. It's like saying SoCal, Florida, and Texas are similar climates because they don't get snow like Buffalo, NY

In 3000 B.C. What made the Nile Tick was the river flooding every year. In modern Egypt they built the Aswan damn to prevent this very thing from happening. Should we go back to the old way?

Maybe we should just let Houston flood every year so we can be subsistence farmers and grow crops on it and forget everything we know about technologies like crop rotation that allowed us to farm in areas that aren't flood zones.

People have thrived in all sorts of environments over time.

The thesis of our friend is that Southern, hot and wet land is inherently superior to northern farm land.

If that is the case why, in the modern world is northern farmland more productive and worth more than southern farmland? Why is the most productive farmland in the world in the Midwest instead of the South? Why hasn't farm production share been increasing in the south instead of decreasing? I mean it supposedly offers so many advantages.

[Frustratedintelligence]

Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92

If that is the case why, in the modern world is northern farmland more productive and worth more than southern farmland? Why is the most productive farmland in the world in the Midwest instead of the South? Why hasn't farm production share been increasing in the south instead of decreasing?

That's kind of what I tried to ask you earlier. Do you have a link of that ranking you referenced?

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by Frustratedintelligence

That's kind of what I tried to ask you earlier. Do you have a link of that ranking you referenced?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_farmland

https://www.fb.org/market-intel/land...-in-some-areas

https://databasin.org/datasets/1999d...033c328f3f9f74

https://beef2live.com/story-states-p...value-0-107252

https://www.agweb.com/blog/Farmland_...vestment_18490

https://www.ers.usda.gov/faqs/#Q1

https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/assets/4565275/crop_value.png

[Frustratedintelligence]

Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_farmland

https://www.fb.org/market-intel/land...-in-some-areas

https://databasin.org/datasets/1999d...033c328f3f9f74

https://beef2live.com/story-states-p...value-0-107252

https://www.agweb.com/blog/Farmland_...vestment_18490

https://www.ers.usda.gov/faqs/#Q1

https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/assets/4565275/crop_value.png

Thanks. I didn't dig too deep into them, but one thing that did stand out in that first link is that the concentration of prime land appeared to correspond with the Mississippi River basin. Must be something particular about the soil regardless of how far north or south it's located.

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by Frustratedintelligence

Thanks. I didn't dig too deep into them, but one thing that did stand out in that first link is that the concentration of prime land appeared to correspond with the Mississippi River basin. Must be something particular about the soil regardless of how far north or south it's located.

Well yes but for different reasons.

The nothern parts are in the Mississippi drainage, but not always adjacent to it. I mean unless you count the whole state of Iowa as adjacent because it sits between the missouri and mississippi rivers. That are is very fertile because it has high quality top soil that runs very deep because it was the great plains for a long long time.


The further south you go the closer the prime farm land is to the river and is a result of being a historic flood zone and gettting nutrients from further north.

[LilLisa83]

Originally Posted by An0nym0us88

What would you rather pick? I know summer is only 3 months and winter is 3 months also, but both of these places basically have these type of weather for period of time.

Think about it... Texas with 90 degrees consistently from late May to early September in most of Texas, while Northeast and Midwest usually get under 32 F high, normally from these months. Don't forget that they do get blizzards, here and there, but not all the time.

Also don't you forget that Texas gets very cold too. It was in the 30s last night!

[cBach]

Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92

The industrial revolutions happened in Cool Climates: Northern/Western Europe.

Also, Greece and Rome are temperate climates. I've lived in Rome without AC in the summer before and it was warm, but ok. That would be miserable in Texas.

I mean that is silly. It's like saying SoCal, Florida, and Texas are similar climates because they don't get snow like Buffalo, NY

In 3000 B.C. What made the Nile Tick was the river flooding every year. In modern Egypt they built the Aswan damn to prevent this very thing from happening. Should we go back to the old way?

Maybe we should just let Houston flood every year so we can be subsistence farmers and grow crops on it and forget everything we know about technologies like crop rotation that allowed us to farm in areas that aren't flood zones.

People have thrived in all sorts of environments over time.

The thesis of our friend is that Southern, hot and wet land is inherently superior to northern farm land.

If that is the case why, in the modern world is northern farmland more productive and worth more than southern farmland? Why is the most productive farmland in the world in the Midwest instead of the South? Why hasn't farm production share been increasing in the south instead of decreasing? I mean it supposedly offers so many advantages.

The most productive farmland is in Southeast Asia where most of the world's rice is grown. Rice has more calories per acre than wheat, potatoes, or other cold crops.

Also, the sugarcane fields of Brazil are among the most productive farming regions of the world and produce more sugar per acre than the sugar beet fields in the Midwest, which suffered a horrible combination of late freezes and spring flooding this year and we're having to buy sugar from Mexico and other "hot" countries:

https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/art...upply-forecast

Also, the Central Valley of California (summers in the 100's to 110's) is where the bulk of the produce we all eat comes from. Midwestern corn is usually just fed to cattle for the most part. Value per acre is higher in California.

https://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/c...al-valley.html

"Using fewer than 1% of U.S. farmland, the Central Valley supplies 8% of U.S. agricultural output (by value) and produces 1/4 of the Nation's food, including 40% of the Nation's fruits, nuts, and other table foods."

I lived in CA and used to drive through the Central Valley quite a bit. It was amazing to see all the garlic, onions, tomatoes, grapes, almonds, artichokes, lettuce, oranges, and other crops grown. Most of these could not be grown in cold climates.