ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
Yeah, I saw that episode. Scary.
Yeah, I saw that episode. Scary.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
- Thread starter FreshFish
- Start date
- Status
St. Clown
Ideas Posted are Likely Not My Own
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
NPR had a water/ag expert on from California, a professor at one of the schools there. Blueberries, which largely come from CA, take 45 gallons per berry. I thought I misheard him, and the show's host asked him to confirm, and that's the figure he repeated.
NPR had a water/ag expert on from California, a professor at one of the schools there. Blueberries, which largely come from CA, take 45 gallons per berry. I thought I misheard him, and the show's host asked him to confirm, and that's the figure he repeated.
me, neither. Cranberries, perhaps, since they grow in bogs, but not blueberries. Sounds like someone just made up a meme to see if it would travel.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
Berries certainly have a lot of water content to them. 45 gallons per berry seems a bit excessive. Per bush is believeable.
Berries certainly have a lot of water content to them. 45 gallons per berry seems a bit excessive. Per bush is believeable.
St. Clown
Ideas Posted are Likely Not My Own
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
I decided to research it a little - slow day in the office - and this is the closest thing I could find to how much water growing blueberries requires.
43 gallons still seems high, but given that it's a shallow-rooted plant that does require a fair amount of moisture, you might have to lay down 43 gallons of water (again, seems high), but it's not all going into the plant.
I decided to research it a little - slow day in the office - and this is the closest thing I could find to how much water growing blueberries requires.
43 gallons still seems high, but given that it's a shallow-rooted plant that does require a fair amount of moisture, you might have to lay down 43 gallons of water (again, seems high), but it's not all going into the plant.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
It may not have been just made up out of thin air. It may be the result you get when you divide the amount of water used in cultivation of blueberries by the number blueberries you get back. The 45 gallons may then be the "cost" of a blueberry but they didn't actually all go to the one blueberry -- most was probably wasted.
I'm sure the numbers get huge when you start trying to calculate the externalities of most products. The lesson I'd take from that is that producers who are able to pawn off such large resource costs on the community are welfare queens. Your lesson is likely different.
It may not have been just made up out of thin air. It may be the result you get when you divide the amount of water used in cultivation of blueberries by the number blueberries you get back. The 45 gallons may then be the "cost" of a blueberry but they didn't actually all go to the one blueberry -- most was probably wasted.
I'm sure the numbers get huge when you start trying to calculate the externalities of most products. The lesson I'd take from that is that producers who are able to pawn off such large resource costs on the community are welfare queens. Your lesson is likely different.
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
My lesson is to check the math...
564.4M lbs of blueberries produced in the US / 6 lbs/ gal = 94M gal. Average blueberry diameter of 10 mm with a close-spherical packing factor of 0.74 means 2675 blueberries/gal, for a total of 252B blueberries. At 45 gal per berry, that would be 11,300T gallons of water needed.
Total US water usage in a year is estimated at 400T gallons, about 30x less than the above calculation shows would be needed just to produce blueberries.
tl;dr: Not. Even. Freaking. Close.
I'm not citing my references, but feel free to check - nearly all came from USDA and other government sources.
My lesson is to check the math...
564.4M lbs of blueberries produced in the US / 6 lbs/ gal = 94M gal. Average blueberry diameter of 10 mm with a close-spherical packing factor of 0.74 means 2675 blueberries/gal, for a total of 252B blueberries. At 45 gal per berry, that would be 11,300T gallons of water needed.
Total US water usage in a year is estimated at 400T gallons, about 30x less than the above calculation shows would be needed just to produce blueberries.
tl;dr: Not. Even. Freaking. Close.
I'm not citing my references, but feel free to check - nearly all came from USDA and other government sources.
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
I wonder how big a difference it would make if they used soaker hoses instead of sprinklers in agriculture (unless they already do, what do I know?)
In our 200 sq ft garden, we switched to soaker hoses several years ago and the difference is substantial: only the beds get watered, not the path; and there is no evaporation off the leaves. Running the hose for a shorter period of time leaves the ground around the roots wetter.
Of course, to get them to switch from sprinklers to hoses on those giant fields they have, you'd need a substantial economic incentive, which means that if you charged market prices for water, you'd have a strong incentive to reduce usage, making the systems pay for themselves pretty quickly. Absent market prices for water, why bother: lobbyists are cheaper in the long run.
I wonder how big a difference it would make if they used soaker hoses instead of sprinklers in agriculture (unless they already do, what do I know?)
In our 200 sq ft garden, we switched to soaker hoses several years ago and the difference is substantial: only the beds get watered, not the path; and there is no evaporation off the leaves. Running the hose for a shorter period of time leaves the ground around the roots wetter.
Of course, to get them to switch from sprinklers to hoses on those giant fields they have, you'd need a substantial economic incentive, which means that if you charged market prices for water, you'd have a strong incentive to reduce usage, making the systems pay for themselves pretty quickly. Absent market prices for water, why bother: lobbyists are cheaper in the long run.
Last edited:
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
I've heard a pound of steak requires over 1,000 gallons of water to produce. Screw taking shorter showers, if you want to conserve water cut your meat consumption.
While they don't have enough water in California I have so much ground water it is gushing out the top of my well non-stop. I wonder how much would come out if I took the cap off. In the summer it only comes out after a rainstorm. In the spring it's a constant stream from around the well cap.
I've heard a pound of steak requires over 1,000 gallons of water to produce. Screw taking shorter showers, if you want to conserve water cut your meat consumption.
While they don't have enough water in California I have so much ground water it is gushing out the top of my well non-stop. I wonder how much would come out if I took the cap off. In the summer it only comes out after a rainstorm. In the spring it's a constant stream from around the well cap.
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
And it's probably 46 gallons per POUND of blueberries, which would put it in line with a lot of other fruit.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5952862
And it's probably 46 gallons per POUND of blueberries, which would put it in line with a lot of other fruit.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5952862
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
Ban fruit! Real 'Muricans don't eat that rabbit food anyway.
Ban fruit! Real 'Muricans don't eat that rabbit food anyway.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
So, Infowars is reporting that the UCFW stated that the Wal-mart shutdowns due to "plumbing", or at least one of them, are actually because of labour issues. http://www.infowars.com/mysterious-walmart-store-closings-due-to-labor-activism/
For those that require an "approved news source": http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/business/laid-off-walmart-workers-head-to-labor-board.html?_r=0
Welcome to employment at will, and its slippery slope. Wal-mart doesn't sign union contracts, so there isn't much you can really do. It's amazing how these complainers will still work there, too.
So, Infowars is reporting that the UCFW stated that the Wal-mart shutdowns due to "plumbing", or at least one of them, are actually because of labour issues. http://www.infowars.com/mysterious-walmart-store-closings-due-to-labor-activism/
For those that require an "approved news source": http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/business/laid-off-walmart-workers-head-to-labor-board.html?_r=0
Welcome to employment at will, and its slippery slope. Wal-mart doesn't sign union contracts, so there isn't much you can really do. It's amazing how these complainers will still work there, too.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
Minnesota is an at-will state and one of the most labor-friendly states. I don't see a problem with it. I thought you'd be all for this kind of thing. You know, deregulation and everything.
Minnesota is an at-will state and one of the most labor-friendly states. I don't see a problem with it. I thought you'd be all for this kind of thing. You know, deregulation and everything.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
Does Minnesota recognize the Taft-Hartley Act? That's one reason businesses are moving over to Wisconsin.
Does Minnesota recognize the Taft-Hartley Act? That's one reason businesses are moving over to Wisconsin.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
Taft-Hartley placed restrictions on union power. Flag probably meant to get a case of the vapors over the NLR/Wagner Act.
Taft-Hartley placed restrictions on union power. Flag probably meant to get a case of the vapors over the NLR/Wagner Act.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
No, I meant the Taft-Hartley Act. The act that does not require an employee to join a union. Especially necessary for the public sector. Want to require that privately? Your prerogative.
No, I meant the Taft-Hartley Act. The act that does not require an employee to join a union. Especially necessary for the public sector. Want to require that privately? Your prerogative.
- Status