Fuck these idiots. In the first few minutes the talking heads only talked about almonds, cotton and rice.
It took forever for the mainstream media to actually recognize agriculture as the main water consumer. None of these articles explain the basic breakdown of use, animal feed for meat and dairy is overwhelmingly the largest consumer. The drought is about anima feed, not almonds you idiots at Vice.
They also ignored trade policy reasons that drive things like rice growing (we send most of it to Japan where it sits in warehouses to go to North Korea or crackers/animal feed...ask yourself why).
Rodents of Unusual Size
they ignored fracking, too, but I submitted it particularly for the fact that the nut growers are paying off politicians left and right.
I mean, fuck, we cannot afford to be pumping water into fucking rice paddies at this point. Or water parks. Or fracking. Or swimming pools. Or lawns.
The entire state is fucked unless drastic measures are taken.
Ugh, your stupid rant about cows made me 5 star a vice video. I hope you're happy!
gmol is right. Almonds eat 10% of the water in california, animal feed, especially alfalfa, takes up half. Almonds, however, are extremely profitable, and also a very efficient form of delivering protein.
Eastern Asia has essentially outsourced their droughts to us. Nobody wants to grow this shit. It's a planet destroyer. It's cheaper to ship alfalfa to China than it is to ship it across the state.
The source is right below the title SolRo. Google "California water blog" and get some learnin in ya.
Baleen, nuts are not water efficient source of protein but oil seeds are. We ship out a lot of water as almonds and rice and get PlayStation and watches in return. The percentage changes every year but we don't ship out too much alfalfa.
I said a source, not a link to a picture that doesn't even tell you the date of the data.
" Resnick told the Paramount Farms conference that the acreage devoted to pistachios had grown by 118 percent over the last 10 years; for almonds and walnuts the growth rates were 47 and 30 percent, respectively."
Nice try on being the data source police and then citing a daily beast article. As you increase you familiarity with doing research, try the tracing through sources e.g. follow the link in the graph to here:
you can then figure out that the numbers come from here:
Any luck with getting a basic understanding of proteins and amino acids yet?
anyhow your overall thesis is idiotic.
that we should stop paying attention to nut crops all together and focus on animal farming...which seems to be a line the various vegan blogs are now trying to push...and instead understand that -all-water intensive agriculture needs to be severely cut back or restricted while prohibiting expansion. (ie, doesn't make a difference if you make farming 50% more water efficient and then expand the growth acreage by 300%)
Jesus fucking Christ, I show your lazy ass the link to the god damn numbers and you respond with "we should magically improve water efficiency for everything". You need a basic understanding of energy and resource flow through trophic levels. The fact that meat is and always will be a resource inefficient method of food production comes from a basic understanding of chemistry and biology
Really, gmol? you're going to wave your dick around like some statistical expert while referencing data that's 5 years old?
Great, so finally we get your vegan stupidity leaking through.
*buries head in hands*
Did you stop for a second and ask yourself why prominent expert hydrologists/economists with extensive publication records on the drought that are behind the California Water Blog would reference such data?
Could it be because survey data takes a long time to accumulate and validate? Could it be because that is the best data we have and believe that it is representative of what is happening right now?
Using 5 year old data completely ignores the rapid growth rate of the extremely profitable nut industry, thus severely impacting your stupid 'cows are the only thing causing the drought' rant.
At best, you're just being manipulated by idiotic vegan bloggers, who themselves are being manipulated by nut industry spokespeople.
You can guide a SolRo to water...
best I can tell, you're a nut sucking, rice gorging vegan with a nice lawn.
and those things consume no water, while the horrible meat industry is ruining everything?
Sol, all food production consumes water. Some foods provide calories fat and protein with far less energy and resource efficiency than others. Meat and dairy generally ranks extremely poorly compared to a basket of plant products. There is no vegan conspiracy here, just a basic understanding of agriculture. The graphs that I've linked to support this view clearly, nothing in the last 5 years changes that big picture. Feel free to provide a chart with your "data" that you think is more recent. You'll have a hard time finding sources that are more authoritative than mine (the California government).
considering almonds take more water to produce per pound than beef, I'd say you're full of it.
But I'd actually like you to reference a real scientific study of gallons of water per gram of whatever...because all I see is vegan bloggers trying to extrapolate numbers by guessing how many almonds are in a pound and then applying an incorrect Gallons Per Almond figure to it. (it's incorrect because almond water use varies by region and the average is 0.2 higher than what the bloggers typically use [and that average may also be wrong since it's not based on production but rather the average of 3 regions without consideration of the output of each region])
Go to waterfootprint.org to find water efficiency estimates and lots and lots of studies by Hoekstra. You can keep hurling insults at me but you lack a basic understanding here.
give me a link to a specific study or chart from a linked study that shows the water per weight.
until then you're just some ranting idiot that says "oh yeah, go google it!" as every response.
G "Hoekstra water meat dairy" first link.
not this "go find it somewhere on this site somewhere" or "here's a picture on my tumblr"
Im the only one here that has been citing studies. Your pretend impatience doesn't cover your ignorance. I gave you the exact instructions to find the study above google those words and click the first link "ffs". I can't copy paste the link without all the google cheap on itm
You haven't supplied a single link to back up your ranting about water use for growing animals being worse than nuts.
And don't rant about me being lazy when you're too lazy to even copy/paste a link.
"Baleen, nuts are not water efficient source of protein but oil seeds are. We ship out a lot of water as almonds and rice and get PlayStation and watches in return. The percentage changes every year but we don't ship out too much alfalfa." Not arguing about water efficiency, but what the original intent of the topic was, i.e. your original intent (which has since gone in SolRo land) which is that Vice tells the wrong story about who wastes the water and why.
I must disagree with you. As "half of all shipping containers going back to China return empty," farmers have found it easy money to fill them with alfalfa. China is hungry for feed for their exploding dairy and meat sectors.
It's just an easy dollar. Exports of alfalfa to China have ballooned to 575 kilotons, and as I said, alfalfa is California's worst and most inefficient water waster.
Oh SolRo, you've won me over with your clever trolling...from the journal page:https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/af/abstracts/2/2 /anfront_2_2_002
Baleen it may sound like a lot but 2013 exports were 21 percent of production, it is significantly lower for 2014 due to the strong dollar remember it took water to make whatever we were getting from China....I suspect your actual concern is the opaque process by which trade policy is set (which is what is really governing why we send things like almonds, rice and alfalfa to Asia) and if it is actually rational or beneficial. No argument from me there.
And SolRo I've always said nuts are pretty crappy in terms of water efficiency (but probably have much lower carbon footprints since they don't need cold storage). The first graph sjows you that we are putting much more water into feed than almonds
"This article requires a subscription. Please login to access your subscription."
Real helpful that.
The first picture you link doesn't show anything, because it's unreferenced...I don't know if it's from an actual study or from some blogger or agribusiness shill cherry picking numbers from around the web. (for example, estimates on beef production -in actual papers- vary from 400 gpp to 20,000 gpp).
Also finding it weird that you're going to argue with baleen about recent trends in alfalfa exports while you reference 5 year old data and dismiss any almond industry growth since then.
ffs solro google the god damn title and find the free print on water footprint. What I've been asking you to do for a few msgs. I've traced the links for you explicitly for the first graph I can't help you if you haven't developed the ability to find credible sources.You clearly have no idea how people collect and use this sort of data. Please don't come back until you've read the Hoekstra summary paper, that's a homework assignment for you.
also dairy isn't as wasteful with water as you're trying to fear-monger.
anyhow, the biggest issue is that you're a ranting vegan trying to equate all animal farming with beef production.
dairy, poultry, eggs, and other animal meats are much more efficient than beef.
that's how you give a link, you lumbering veg-tard
We are talking about CA. All that alfalfa ain't for chickens and pigs. If you do your homework assignment you will see that pigs and chickens are more water efficient than beef, but this isn't really what we are talking about in CA.
alfalfa is also used for much more efficient dairy production too, again, negating your rabid veggy ranting about all alfalfa being used only to grow beef.
get off your stupid high horse and realize that.
(ps; oil crops can also be water wasteful; one of the favorites of vegan hippies, olive oil, takes almost as much water as beef to produce...and I doubt you're all going to be happy chugging corn oil)
Solro, another assignment for you: go and find the fat water footprints for olive oil and for chickens pigs and beef and milk. Hoekstra has them all...report back with your findings. Add in soy and corn oil for reference.
you go find it.
learn to post a link while you're at it.
I love meat, SolRo. You should know that, since I've eaten you up and shat you out of me for the past however many years.
so that's what's going on in a delusional little hipsters head.
on the other hand baleen, I haven't given a shit about you over all these years.
Evilhomer in a bigger (though still insignificant) spec on my radar than you.
Oooh, I feel bad now. I don't want to come between you guys!
I'm happy to hear that you value me as a friend, SolRo, but please don't let that stop you from being friends with baleen. You two have a very long history together, and nothing should ever diminish that!
The state is fine, but water for animal feed will eventually be economically the unsustainable with the current trend. Tracking is not a significant consumer relative to agriculture.
No, the state isn't fine.
Lawns and rice having nothing to do with the main issue.
Rodents of Unusual Size
Yeah, using as much water as you want has nothing to do with the fact that the groundwater levels have been depleted and the Central Valley has sunk like a hundred feet or so over the last century.
Come back with the numbers for lawns and tracking, what do you see?
Lawns are insignificant, but do contribute to the problem.
Rice contributes even more.
Rodents of Unusual Size
Why are you so upset that SolRo and I have both stipulated that all of these things are problems. Yes, some of them are more problematic than others but they are all incredibly bad for the environment. The problem is, as stated in the report, that people think water is infinite and it's not. The usage of water for almonds is just as troubling as lawns, rice, fracking, alfalfa, animal feed, etc. Because all of those things are getting water because SOMEONE is getting rich off of them, whether it is the creators of lawns, the gas companies, or the various farm commissions whose only goal is to sell their given crop regardless of the impact upon the environment and the future water supply.
|Void 71 |
The effects of the drought would be significantly minimized if California, and the countries around the world it supplies with food, had less mouths to feed. With the global population predicted to grow by as much as 50% in the next 35 years, the future looks bleak. Drought or no drought, until the brakes are put on population growth, the cost of food will continue to outpace inflation until meat and water-intensive crops become delicacies that only the very wealthy will have access to.
As far as Vice videos and presenters go, this one and this lady are among the least insufferable.
|Two Jar Slave |
Two Jar Slave
Damn, I messed up my useless regurgitation of an Onion joke.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|