Water Table
April 22, 2015 4:49 AM Subscribe
California's crippling drought has prompted conservation efforts, such as replacing grass lawns and minding how long you leave the tap water running. But what about the food on your plate? Agriculture uses 80% of California's water supply, and producing what you eat can require a surprising amount of water. The LA Times' Interactive Water Footprint tells you How much water is used to produce your food?
Looking for nuts?
Looking for nuts?
I don't know, here's a crazy idea: invest in desalination plants and make use of the GIANT OCEAN right next to your state.
posted by Renoroc at 5:22 AM on April 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Renoroc at 5:22 AM on April 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
They are working on that, but there are some issues with desalinization. It requires a lot of energy and the waste salt has to be very carefully reintroduced into the ocean. Also, as the link explains, if the drought ends the water might no longer be economically viable to produce.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:25 AM on April 22, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 5:25 AM on April 22, 2015 [6 favorites]
When it ends I mean. I hope.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:30 AM on April 22, 2015
posted by Drinky Die at 5:30 AM on April 22, 2015
the most simple path is to reduce the amount of meat you eat
Although the graphic seems to point at specific kinds of meat over others. Beef, lots of water. Chicken, by weight at least, is in the graphic as using less water than soy. Lentils, chickpeas, etc. also require more water by weight than several meat products (I'm guessing that's not an exact comparison, but still).
Milk shows as using a lot of water to produce compared to other beverages.
posted by gimonca at 5:59 AM on April 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
Although the graphic seems to point at specific kinds of meat over others. Beef, lots of water. Chicken, by weight at least, is in the graphic as using less water than soy. Lentils, chickpeas, etc. also require more water by weight than several meat products (I'm guessing that's not an exact comparison, but still).
Milk shows as using a lot of water to produce compared to other beverages.
posted by gimonca at 5:59 AM on April 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
I knew beef was high but I had no idea chickpeas were almost as bad. I wonder how much production there is in drought-prone regions, however, since they don't come up much in discussions of California crops.
posted by adamsc at 6:01 AM on April 22, 2015
posted by adamsc at 6:01 AM on April 22, 2015
I don't know, here's a crazy idea: invest in desalination plants and make use of the GIANT OCEAN right next to your state.
Great idea! We'll power the plants with natural gas, which definitely won't make global warming worse!
posted by Aizkolari at 6:01 AM on April 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
Great idea! We'll power the plants with natural gas, which definitely won't make global warming worse!
posted by Aizkolari at 6:01 AM on April 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
I wish they also showed the data for how much protein is actually in each food. Chickpeas come off even worse in that case; the nutrition information I'm finding says that chickpeas have about 19 g of protein per 100 g (~3.5 oz) of food, whereas chicken is around 25 g protein per 100 g.
posted by dorque at 6:04 AM on April 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by dorque at 6:04 AM on April 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
The chickpeas will have more total calories though. The total energy should be taken into account as well, not so much for America where we have an overabundance but in many parts of the world people don't have all the calories they need.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:11 AM on April 22, 2015
posted by Drinky Die at 6:11 AM on April 22, 2015
I don't know, here's a crazy idea: invest in desalination plants and make use of the GIANT OCEAN right next to your state.
In San Diego, they're currently building the largest desalination plant in the western hemisphere. It is slated to open this year.
So, yeah, it might be too late to patent that idea.
But given that it takes huge amounts of energy, which increases the demand for more fossil fuels, which heats up the atmosphere, which causes more severe droughts --- well, we might just be paving our road to extinction.
posted by vacapinta at 6:13 AM on April 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
In San Diego, they're currently building the largest desalination plant in the western hemisphere. It is slated to open this year.
So, yeah, it might be too late to patent that idea.
But given that it takes huge amounts of energy, which increases the demand for more fossil fuels, which heats up the atmosphere, which causes more severe droughts --- well, we might just be paving our road to extinction.
posted by vacapinta at 6:13 AM on April 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
I was at an agricultural education conference in California in 2008, and even back then water was the only thing anyone talked about. So many of the foods we take for granted now are grown in California that it's going to be an issue we should all be concerned about.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 6:17 AM on April 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 6:17 AM on April 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
In the recent thread on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, dialetheia compared our need for oil at all costs to a heroin addict digging around for an untapped vein. The push toward desalination plants reminds me of that too, and also of an amphetamine addict who's done all the good drugs and is now digging around under the kitchen sink looking for something to cook up.
Desalination currently has some major issues, as Drinky Die points out above.
The first problem is the immense amount of energy it requires to move seawater through the desalination membranes. Which obviously means, under our current energy regime, that in most places we'll be burning more fossil fuels in order to create potable water. A LOT more fossil fuels. And so, while drought is obviously a major consequence of climate change, desalination is also a major contributor toward climate change. Not a good cycle.
The second problem is that the byproduct is not "salt," but a lot of dense, briny water with a very high salt content. This byproduct can be poisonous to marine life and so it has to be returned to the ocean with great care; I can't say this is a challenge I expect industry to handle correctly.
The third problem is the threat it poses to biodiversity. Not only do we have the toxic brine issue mentioned above, but the seawater intake method means that, along with seawater, the plants are also sucking up billions of microscopic sea creatures and their eggs. And the devastation of these bottom-of-the-food-chain populations can have big ripple effects.
There will probably come a point when global droughts and water shortages are so severe that desalination is the only way to prevent millions or even billions of people from dying, and in that case it will be our only choice. But we should be clear that it's not a sustainable path by any means. It's more like burning the walls of our house to keep from freezing to death.
posted by the turtle's teeth at 6:52 AM on April 22, 2015 [10 favorites]
Desalination currently has some major issues, as Drinky Die points out above.
The first problem is the immense amount of energy it requires to move seawater through the desalination membranes. Which obviously means, under our current energy regime, that in most places we'll be burning more fossil fuels in order to create potable water. A LOT more fossil fuels. And so, while drought is obviously a major consequence of climate change, desalination is also a major contributor toward climate change. Not a good cycle.
The second problem is that the byproduct is not "salt," but a lot of dense, briny water with a very high salt content. This byproduct can be poisonous to marine life and so it has to be returned to the ocean with great care; I can't say this is a challenge I expect industry to handle correctly.
The third problem is the threat it poses to biodiversity. Not only do we have the toxic brine issue mentioned above, but the seawater intake method means that, along with seawater, the plants are also sucking up billions of microscopic sea creatures and their eggs. And the devastation of these bottom-of-the-food-chain populations can have big ripple effects.
There will probably come a point when global droughts and water shortages are so severe that desalination is the only way to prevent millions or even billions of people from dying, and in that case it will be our only choice. But we should be clear that it's not a sustainable path by any means. It's more like burning the walls of our house to keep from freezing to death.
posted by the turtle's teeth at 6:52 AM on April 22, 2015 [10 favorites]
Desalinization is massively expensive and environmentally not so great. Water Recycling or Reclamation however, is safe, much more affordable and just good sense. Even if people in the San Jouaquin Valley were squeamish about directly drinking old sewer water, it could be pumped back into aquifers and further cleaned before reaching the wells they depend on for drinking water. If the State and Federal Gov'ts could be persuaded to make money available then a few well written grants and bond initiatives for retrofitting sewage treatment plants for Reclamation could go a long way toward saving a lot of Central Valley towns, which are some of the poorest in the nation by the way, that depend on Agriculture as large parts of their economies. California feeds the nation. It's not just Beef or Almonds, it's practically every green thing you eat.
Farmers should get subsidies to let their land lay fallow for a few years, or better yet! My longstanding fantasy idea is that Government should buy up a large part of the land in the old Tulare Lake basin and let all historic water sources flow to the lake for a few years and recharge the Valleys ground water.
posted by Conrad-Casserole at 6:56 AM on April 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
Farmers should get subsidies to let their land lay fallow for a few years, or better yet! My longstanding fantasy idea is that Government should buy up a large part of the land in the old Tulare Lake basin and let all historic water sources flow to the lake for a few years and recharge the Valleys ground water.
posted by Conrad-Casserole at 6:56 AM on April 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
the most simple path is to reduce the amount of meat you eat
This is true, but the advice is constrained somewhat to where you live and where get your meat. I live in Pennsylvania and if I buy grass-fed beef from a farmer who lives five miles out of town, my actions are not impacting the available water supply in California. That's the thing about water -- it's to some degree localized. Where I can run into trouble is purchasing nuts and fruits that are not grown here, but are grown nearly exclusively in California. There are no almond farmers in town; none in Pennsylvania; I doubt any east of the Mississippi. And if you buy "free range" meat or whatever it's labeled at the grocery store and notice that it was packaged in California, then yeah, don't do that.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:04 AM on April 22, 2015 [6 favorites]
This is true, but the advice is constrained somewhat to where you live and where get your meat. I live in Pennsylvania and if I buy grass-fed beef from a farmer who lives five miles out of town, my actions are not impacting the available water supply in California. That's the thing about water -- it's to some degree localized. Where I can run into trouble is purchasing nuts and fruits that are not grown here, but are grown nearly exclusively in California. There are no almond farmers in town; none in Pennsylvania; I doubt any east of the Mississippi. And if you buy "free range" meat or whatever it's labeled at the grocery store and notice that it was packaged in California, then yeah, don't do that.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:04 AM on April 22, 2015 [6 favorites]
This water commodity approach is only useful to price the other items, not to eliminate them from the imagined rationing list. Areas grow things better than others, or the water is more abundant, yet it is being compared to scarce water somewhere else, simply because California actually moves water from one watershed to another with this type of thinking. For example, beef in America is often raised from hillsides where farming is difficult, supplemented with dry farmed hay, and it displaces other animals, not other crops. Another problem to the water chart approach is that water is being dispersed on fields, and creating rain by leaves transpiring water, and by absorbing water into the ground water below, a form of storage. Yet another problem to the water chart approach is the billions of gallons immediately channeled out to sea by way of streets and canals in California, simply to avoid flooding, which was nature's way of grabbing water.
posted by Brian B. at 7:21 AM on April 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Brian B. at 7:21 AM on April 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
I find it frustrating that we've devoted so much good land that could be used to grow many kinds of produce to nothing but corn and soy. The southeastern US is admittedly not quite as predictable weather-wise as California's Central Valley, but it is warm, and droughts usually aren't much of a problem.
Also, getting my sweet potatoes from California rather than Mississippi (as is right and proper) makes me grumpy.
posted by asperity at 7:59 AM on April 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
Also, getting my sweet potatoes from California rather than Mississippi (as is right and proper) makes me grumpy.
posted by asperity at 7:59 AM on April 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
My home state of Western Australia has been coming to grips with the changing climate and resulting lack of stream inflow over the last decade. They've seen the shallow groundwater tables start to fall as the natural replenishment has become more and more inadequate.
They opened two desalination plants as part of the strategy. Both the plants are powered with wind energy constructed specifically for the purpose which also feeds back into the grid as the desal plants use less energy than the farm puts out. They use a massive intake running at a very low speed to minimize the effect on marine life. The intakes are also much further offshore taking in water from 300m out instead of near-shore which dramatically decreases the amount of marine life effected. There's also a velocity cap which changes the water intake direction to horizontal giving fish a better chance of escaping the intake. The diffusers also maintain very low elevations of salinity at release sites. There's no noticeable difference in salinity within 50m of the release sites and plenty of marine life setting up on the diffusers themselves.
Desal need not be the environmental disaster people make it out to be.
posted by Talez at 8:55 AM on April 22, 2015 [12 favorites]
They opened two desalination plants as part of the strategy. Both the plants are powered with wind energy constructed specifically for the purpose which also feeds back into the grid as the desal plants use less energy than the farm puts out. They use a massive intake running at a very low speed to minimize the effect on marine life. The intakes are also much further offshore taking in water from 300m out instead of near-shore which dramatically decreases the amount of marine life effected. There's also a velocity cap which changes the water intake direction to horizontal giving fish a better chance of escaping the intake. The diffusers also maintain very low elevations of salinity at release sites. There's no noticeable difference in salinity within 50m of the release sites and plenty of marine life setting up on the diffusers themselves.
Desal need not be the environmental disaster people make it out to be.
posted by Talez at 8:55 AM on April 22, 2015 [12 favorites]
In San Diego, they're currently building the largest desalination plant in the western hemisphere. It is slated to open this year.
They'll have enough salt to last for ever!
posted by Ickster at 9:15 AM on April 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
They'll have enough salt to last for ever!
posted by Ickster at 9:15 AM on April 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
Has anyone crunched numbers and come up with gallons/calorie, so there's a sense of how efficient the water use is. i mean eggs use a lot of water, but they are an efficiently good source of calories relative to say, almonds.
posted by OHenryPacey at 9:17 AM on April 22, 2015
posted by OHenryPacey at 9:17 AM on April 22, 2015
We have 6 quadrillion gallons of fresh water in the Great Lakes. I wish the U.S. and Canada could transfer a trillion to California.
posted by clavdivs at 9:57 AM on April 22, 2015
posted by clavdivs at 9:57 AM on April 22, 2015
Communities, states, and provinces along the Great Lakes manage water access pretty tightly. Moving 1/6 of the water out would have profound, dramatic, and expensive side effects.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:30 AM on April 22, 2015
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:30 AM on April 22, 2015
Water is misallocated, for sure. But instead of trying to fix it with shaming or quotas set by a bureaucracy (how well did that work for the Soviet Union?), we should just price water to account for the environmental impact. California farmers are smart business people and would switch to the crops that make the best return on their water bills.
Many farmers have large investments, like almond trees, made during the old water quota system. Make a generous one-time payment to them and then let them compete without subsidies, like any other business. We can afford it, as agriculture is only 2% of California's economy. And in the end we will have an economy that uses water sustainably.
posted by Triplanetary at 10:44 AM on April 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
Many farmers have large investments, like almond trees, made during the old water quota system. Make a generous one-time payment to them and then let them compete without subsidies, like any other business. We can afford it, as agriculture is only 2% of California's economy. And in the end we will have an economy that uses water sustainably.
posted by Triplanetary at 10:44 AM on April 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
6000 trillion gallons-1 trillion=5999 trillion.
Hardly one-sixth. But your right, won't happen.
posted by clavdivs at 10:53 AM on April 22, 2015
Hardly one-sixth. But your right, won't happen.
posted by clavdivs at 10:53 AM on April 22, 2015
I live in a heavily agricultural area, and just within a 10 mile radius of me, there are probably 20 new almond orchards that were put in just this winter, well past the point when it was obvious that the snowpack situation was dire. The orchards are freaking huge, too. I clocked one driving past one time, and it was 3/4 mile from the first row of trees to the last.
It seems to me that farmers wouldn't be putting those orchards in unless they were somehow certain that there would be water available to them now and for the five years before the trees even start to produce. I have no idea where that certainty comes from, but either the allocation system or the groundwater available to them must give them some confidence. Either that, or they're counting on the fact that the state won't let a $4 billion (and growing) industry fail.
I also heard on the radio recently that a lot of the new orchards being put in are owned by big investment companies who just plan to hold on to the land for a few years and then sell it at a profit. If that's true, thanks a lot, jackasses. You're as big of a problem as the snowpack is.
posted by mudpuppie at 10:55 AM on April 22, 2015
It seems to me that farmers wouldn't be putting those orchards in unless they were somehow certain that there would be water available to them now and for the five years before the trees even start to produce. I have no idea where that certainty comes from, but either the allocation system or the groundwater available to them must give them some confidence. Either that, or they're counting on the fact that the state won't let a $4 billion (and growing) industry fail.
I also heard on the radio recently that a lot of the new orchards being put in are owned by big investment companies who just plan to hold on to the land for a few years and then sell it at a profit. If that's true, thanks a lot, jackasses. You're as big of a problem as the snowpack is.
posted by mudpuppie at 10:55 AM on April 22, 2015
Water is misallocated, for sure. But instead of trying to fix it with shaming or quotas set by a bureaucracy (how well did that work for the Soviet Union?), we should just price water to account for the environmental impact.
It seems like that just got much harder to do:
It seems like that just got much harder to do:
In a ruling with major implications for California's water conservation efforts during the historic drought, a state appeals court on Monday ruled that a tiered water rate structure used by the city of San Juan Capistrano to encourage saving was unconstitutional.posted by jaguar at 11:21 AM on April 22, 2015
The Orange County city used a rate structure that charged customers who used small amounts of water a lower rate than customers who used larger amounts.
But the 4th District Court of Appeal struck down San Juan Capistrano's fee plan, saying it violated voter-approved Proposition 218, which prohibits government agencies from charging more for a service than it costs to provide it.
The Proposition system: Destroying California since 1911!
posted by Justinian at 12:38 PM on April 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 12:38 PM on April 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
If someone can explain to me the net benefit of corn subsidy, I'll be deeply greatful. Seems to me that it's linked to a myriad set problems from gas prices to obesity.
There's breathtaking amount of arable land dedicated to corn which seems to make very little sense from any perpsective... or maybe I just don't know enough.
posted by savitarka at 2:31 PM on April 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
There's breathtaking amount of arable land dedicated to corn which seems to make very little sense from any perpsective... or maybe I just don't know enough.
posted by savitarka at 2:31 PM on April 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
The benefit is that it helps politicians become popular in Iowa.
posted by Justinian at 2:34 PM on April 22, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:34 PM on April 22, 2015 [5 favorites]
The benefit is that it helps politicians become popular in Iowa.
Making Iowa vote last in the primary season would likely produce a steep drop in at least some crop subsidies. The pandering every four years is sickening.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:27 PM on April 22, 2015
Making Iowa vote last in the primary season would likely produce a steep drop in at least some crop subsidies. The pandering every four years is sickening.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:27 PM on April 22, 2015
Corn reduces our reliance on foreign oil which, politically, is a very good thing. I'm not sure what else we would grow on the same land, another grain product with similar overall impact I expect. We aren't turning the land into zucchini farms or something.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:37 PM on April 22, 2015
posted by Drinky Die at 7:37 PM on April 22, 2015
Corn ethanol is of no use (Forbes). Proposes that maybe algae should replace it.
posted by Brian B. at 7:54 PM on April 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Brian B. at 7:54 PM on April 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
I like Conca and he is definitely correct that going Nuclear is by far our best environmental option but again the corn thing is about politics more than energy. Even if it isn't very efficient, filling our tanks even partially via Iowa instead of Saudi Arabia is important. We waste a ton of our national resources in defense spending to secure overseas energy sources and it is a huge mess.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:03 PM on April 22, 2015
posted by Drinky Die at 8:03 PM on April 22, 2015
Drinky Die: We aren't turning the land into zucchini farms or something.
Did you know, while California has the highest-productivity farmland (per acre) in the U.S., Iowa is number 2, and has three times as much cropland despite being a much smaller state? And that, while there are certainly some types of produce they couldn't grow (citrus fruits for one) historically they produced their share of fruits and vegetables until things changed and those crops moved to California, and Iowa switched to corn/soybean everywhere? Including zucchinis. The big reason for the switch to California isn't that produce doesn't grow in the midwest, it's that it doesn't grow there in the winter.
clavdivs: We have 6 quadrillion gallons of fresh water in the Great Lakes. I wish the U.S. and Canada could transfer a trillion to California.
Most of that is fossil water, left over from the melting glaciers after the last ice age. If noticeable amounts of water were transferred to California new inflow wouldn't restore that water for generations. Both environmentalists and the shipping industry would have a fit—that's robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Triplanetary: But instead of trying to fix it with shaming or quotas set by a bureaucracy (how well did that work for the Soviet Union?), we should just price water to account for the environmental impact
I basically agree with you, except that solution isn't “just” anything, it's hard and complicated and has just as much bureaucracy. I mean, what's the environmental-impact cost of 200 miner's inches taken from the American River just upstream of Todd Creek in June during drought condition D2?
Moving to Montana was an education in how water scarcity, economics, human rights, environmentalism and all that stuff works out in practice, and surprisingly every western state except California has managed to work that out reasonably well. But it means constitutional amendments, water courts, constant lawsuits, government patrollers looking for “water rustlers” (cutting locks on flow-control gates to irrigate their fields with stolen water) and perpetually trying to figure out what “first in time, first in right” means, or whether this underground aquifer is hydrologically connected to that surface stream (which affects whether a landowner can sink a well there or not).
California needed to have sorted all that out 50 years ago when the other western states were biting that bullet. Now they still do, but it's going to hurt more.
posted by traveler_ at 10:32 PM on April 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
Did you know, while California has the highest-productivity farmland (per acre) in the U.S., Iowa is number 2, and has three times as much cropland despite being a much smaller state? And that, while there are certainly some types of produce they couldn't grow (citrus fruits for one) historically they produced their share of fruits and vegetables until things changed and those crops moved to California, and Iowa switched to corn/soybean everywhere? Including zucchinis. The big reason for the switch to California isn't that produce doesn't grow in the midwest, it's that it doesn't grow there in the winter.
clavdivs: We have 6 quadrillion gallons of fresh water in the Great Lakes. I wish the U.S. and Canada could transfer a trillion to California.
Most of that is fossil water, left over from the melting glaciers after the last ice age. If noticeable amounts of water were transferred to California new inflow wouldn't restore that water for generations. Both environmentalists and the shipping industry would have a fit—that's robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Triplanetary: But instead of trying to fix it with shaming or quotas set by a bureaucracy (how well did that work for the Soviet Union?), we should just price water to account for the environmental impact
I basically agree with you, except that solution isn't “just” anything, it's hard and complicated and has just as much bureaucracy. I mean, what's the environmental-impact cost of 200 miner's inches taken from the American River just upstream of Todd Creek in June during drought condition D2?
Moving to Montana was an education in how water scarcity, economics, human rights, environmentalism and all that stuff works out in practice, and surprisingly every western state except California has managed to work that out reasonably well. But it means constitutional amendments, water courts, constant lawsuits, government patrollers looking for “water rustlers” (cutting locks on flow-control gates to irrigate their fields with stolen water) and perpetually trying to figure out what “first in time, first in right” means, or whether this underground aquifer is hydrologically connected to that surface stream (which affects whether a landowner can sink a well there or not).
California needed to have sorted all that out 50 years ago when the other western states were biting that bullet. Now they still do, but it's going to hurt more.
posted by traveler_ at 10:32 PM on April 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
Metafilter: Yes, I knew all that.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 4:33 AM on April 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 4:33 AM on April 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
Lentils, chickpeas, etc. also require more water by weight
Frankly I'm not sure how much to believe this numbers.
My father in law grows lentils (among other things) in NE Montana where he doesn't use irrigation. We get about half a bushel directly from the farm every year.
I'd be surprised if he used much more than 1000 gallons per acre let alone per pound.
That area is actually pretty dry in the scheme of things, but wet enough to grow certain crops like wheat and peas.
I guess if the majority of lentils are grown in total desert that might explain this statistic, but even then it seems larger than I'd expect.
posted by All Out of Lulz at 6:38 AM on April 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Frankly I'm not sure how much to believe this numbers.
My father in law grows lentils (among other things) in NE Montana where he doesn't use irrigation. We get about half a bushel directly from the farm every year.
I'd be surprised if he used much more than 1000 gallons per acre let alone per pound.
That area is actually pretty dry in the scheme of things, but wet enough to grow certain crops like wheat and peas.
I guess if the majority of lentils are grown in total desert that might explain this statistic, but even then it seems larger than I'd expect.
posted by All Out of Lulz at 6:38 AM on April 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Digging into the data, it appears that it's combining irrigation and naturally occurring rain as water needed to grow crops. That's not totally invalid, but depends greatly on the situation.
It also will make crops grown in California which rely heavily on irrigation appear to have a similar "footprint" to place that don't. I consider that pretty misleading.
posted by All Out of Lulz at 6:03 PM on April 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
It also will make crops grown in California which rely heavily on irrigation appear to have a similar "footprint" to place that don't. I consider that pretty misleading.
posted by All Out of Lulz at 6:03 PM on April 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
My father in law grows lentils (among other things) in NE Montana where he doesn't use irrigation. We get about half a bushel directly from the farm every year.
Garbanzos grow just fine as dryland crops, assuming you get enough rain. From memory I want to say it is about 19" of rain, but I could be way off on that, and searching just brings up the inches of water needed to cook the stupid things.
But I also see them grown as irrigated crops. They are frequently grown in rotation with wheat, and I think the water needs are similar per acre, though not necessarily per pound (or bushel) of harvested crop.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:09 PM on April 23, 2015
Garbanzos grow just fine as dryland crops, assuming you get enough rain. From memory I want to say it is about 19" of rain, but I could be way off on that, and searching just brings up the inches of water needed to cook the stupid things.
But I also see them grown as irrigated crops. They are frequently grown in rotation with wheat, and I think the water needs are similar per acre, though not necessarily per pound (or bushel) of harvested crop.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:09 PM on April 23, 2015
And I agree about the "misleading" statement -- the issues are underpricing of water and the mismatch of crops and environment, not some simplistic measurement of a specific crop's goodness.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:11 PM on April 23, 2015
posted by Dip Flash at 6:11 PM on April 23, 2015
I noticed that I never heard about the drought in Israel any more, but I just presumed they were getting more rain:
Recycling toilet waste and four other Israeli answers to California’s drought
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:34 PM on April 23, 2015
Recycling toilet waste and four other Israeli answers to California’s drought
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:34 PM on April 23, 2015
Kim Stanley Robinson: " I still think California is a science fictional place. The desert has been terraformed."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:19 PM on May 7, 2015
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:19 PM on May 7, 2015
« Older Their fire has gone out of the universe | Bibbity-bee Bitey Bibbity-bee Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Drinky Die at 5:21 AM on April 22, 2015 [7 favorites]