California energy policies force company out of CA

[TV and credit cards]

Meat producer hutting shop and leaving California;

Meat-packing giant Smithfield Foods said Friday it will close its only California plant next year, citing the escalating cost of doing business in the state. The Farmer John meat-packing plant in Vernon, an industrial suburb south of Los Angeles, will shut down in February, with its 1,800 employees receiving severance and job placement support along with bonuses for those who choose to stay on the job until the closure, said Jim Monroe, vice president of corporate affairs. The company also said it is exploring ways to exit its farms in California and Arizona. Monroe said operating costs in California are much higher than in other areas of the country, including taxes and the price of water, electricity and natural gas. “Our utility costs in California are 3 1/2 times higher per head than our other locations where they do the same type of work,” he said.

News

Pleasing to some people I suppose.

Thinking more off-topic as this is a gasoline price thread.

TSwizzle, you should start a "Rants - California Bitchin'" thread instead of trying to shoehorn your various gripes, grumbles and bellyaches into various existing threads.

Looking at the place on a map, I don't think it will stay vacant long.
Look at all that roof space. Shoulda went solar.

 

[TSwizzle]

Meat producer shutting shop and leaving California;

Meat-packing giant Smithfield Foods said Friday it will close its only California plant next year, citing the escalating cost of doing business in the state. The Farmer John meat-packing plant in Vernon, an industrial suburb south of Los Angeles, will shut down in February, with its 1,800 employees receiving severance and job placement support along with bonuses for those who choose to stay on the job until the closure, said Jim Monroe, vice president of corporate affairs. The company also said it is exploring ways to exit its farms in California and Arizona. Monroe said operating costs in California are much higher than in other areas of the country, including taxes and the price of water, electricity and natural gas. “Our utility costs in California are 3 1/2 times higher per head than our other locations where they do the same type of work,” he said.

News

Pleasing to some people I suppose.

 

[ZiprHead]

They should ban almond milk production. It takes 920 gallons of water to make a gallon of almond milk. That's a shit-ton of water from an area that has been in drought condition for years now.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It doesn't say what utilities--I suspect water is the problem. California is short of it. This isn't a government policy issue, this is a reality issue.

 

[Politesse]

Define "force".

 

[Politesse]

UPDATE: Union Representing Meatpackers in Vernon Farmer John Plant Reaches 'Fair Agreement' to Compensate Workers Until 2023

Smithfields Foods Inc is citing the "escalating costs" of doing business in California. Their local worker union is working to secure a benefits package that "respects and compensates workers for their years of service in case the plant closes."

www.lataco.com

A more balanced look on the company and its complicated history with Vernon.

Small, family-owned agrarian powerhouse gets snatched up and pimped out by one major corporation after another, which pollutes the community, then bows out when things get tough without ever calling us again. Or maybe it’s more like… enterprising, starry-eyed conglomerate comes to L.A. feels misunderstood among its liberal neighbors. Unable to stomach the steep costs of rent, gas, and a living wage any longer, hightails it back to Virginia with a farm animal under its arm.

Either way, we think we’ve heard this story before.

 

[Harry Bosch]

They should ban almond milk production. It takes 920 gallons of water to make a gallon of almond milk. That's a shit-ton of water from an area that has been in drought condition for years now.

I'd love to. But I'm allergic to dairy. Don't like oat milk. I'd drink Soy Milk as it's very high in protein and tastes good, but very hard to find consistently in my local store. So, I drink almond milk in my smoothies until soy milk distribution gets better (damn supply chain).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They should ban almond milk production. It takes 920 gallons of water to make a gallon of almond milk. That's a shit-ton of water from an area that has been in drought condition for years now.

Here is some knock you in the head footprint stuff. Almond milk by far uses more water! But it has a smaller CO2 footprint than Soy milk, the whole tree thing both helps with carbon absorption and smaller footprint. But nominally so over Soy.

 

[Politesse]

There is plenty of soy production in California, it's a common crop in the south Valley. It can't take the early freezes, though, so it wouldn't be good pick for almond country. I've never heard of anyone raising soy in any quantity north of a certain latitude. But there are plenty of other crops and other farm products that can be grown, and indeed are grown, in almond country. Most of the nation's supply of broccoli, artichokes, certain legumes, plums, and pistachios, for instance, and all manner of livestock and poultry. Most of those industries have to be subsidized heavily, though; the goverment for all intents and purposes pays farmers to grow food crops, because they would not otherwise be able to afford to due to competition with other nations. Whereas almonds are profitable, and punch well above their water weight in terms of contributing back to the economy that maintains all that irrigation infrastructure. The evil effects of almond cultivation are more a meme than a reality - growers have every reason to try and reduce the amount of water they use - though I do have many objections to specific practices almond growers engage in, some of which have been intensifying lately intentionally to goad liberal politicians. I know of several cases where almond growers intentionally destroyed vernal pools or drove entire species extinct. Out of spite, not need. That makes me see red. Their hypocritical positions on immigration, railing against it while happily exploiting the workforce it provides them, that makes me upset.

That said, it seems like people really pick and choose what agricultural products to villify. Almond cultivation pales in comparison to marijuana cultivation in terms of water use, for instance, but the same people who decry the almond industry are often vocal supporters of pot legalization and even subsidy. Do we dislike almonds due to careful study of agricultural process, or because almonds are regarded as a luxury product? Are almonds despised as an ecological agent or by social association?

 

[Toni]

They should ban almond milk production. It takes 920 gallons of water to make a gallon of almond milk. That's a shit-ton of water from an area that has been in drought condition for years now.

Here is some knock you in the head footprint stuff. Almond milk by far uses more water! But it has a smaller CO2 footprint than Soy milk, the whole tree thing both helps with carbon absorption and smaller footprint. But nominally so over Soy.

Soybeans are legumes which help fix nitrogen in the soil. Nitrogen is necessary for plant growth. Atmospheric carbon isn’t all that counts.

 

[Toni]

There is plenty of soy production in California, it's a common crop in the south Valley. It can't take the early freezes, though, so it wouldn't be good pick for almond country. I've never heard of anyone raising soy in any quantity north of a certain latitude. But there are plenty of other crops and other farm products that can be grown, and indeed are grown, in almond country. Most of the nation's supply of broccoli, artichokes, certain legumes, plums, and pistachios, for instance, and all manner of livestock and poultry. Most of those industries have to be subsidized heavily, though; the goverment for all intents and purposes pays farmers to grow food crops, because they would not otherwise be able to afford to due to competition with other nations. Whereas almonds are profitable, and punch well above their water weight in terms of contributing back to the economy that maintains all that irrigation infrastructure. The evil effects of almond cultivation are more a meme than a reality - growers have every reason to try and reduce the amount of water they use - though I do have many objections to specific practices almond growers engage in, some of which have been intensifying lately intentionally to goad liberal politicians. I know of several cases where almond growers intentionally destroyed vernal pools or drove entire species extinct. Out of spite, not need. That makes me see red. Their hypocritical positions on immigration, railing against it while happily exploiting the workforce it provides them, that makes me upset.

That said, it seems like people really pick and choose what agricultural products to villify. Almond cultivation pales in comparison to marijuana cultivation in terms of water use, for instance, but the same people who decry the almond industry are often vocal supporters of pot legalization and even subsidy. Do we dislike almonds due to careful study of agricultural process, or because almonds are regarded as a luxury product? Are almonds despised as an ecological agent or by social association?

Don’t know what latitude you are talking but soybeans are grown throughout most of the Midwest. At least as high as the 45th parallel.

 

[ZiprHead]

There's a lot of soybean farms in Michigan.

 

[Politesse]

There is plenty of soy production in California, it's a common crop in the south Valley. It can't take the early freezes, though, so it wouldn't be good pick for almond country. I've never heard of anyone raising soy in any quantity north of a certain latitude. But there are plenty of other crops and other farm products that can be grown, and indeed are grown, in almond country. Most of the nation's supply of broccoli, artichokes, certain legumes, plums, and pistachios, for instance, and all manner of livestock and poultry. Most of those industries have to be subsidized heavily, though; the goverment for all intents and purposes pays farmers to grow food crops, because they would not otherwise be able to afford to due to competition with other nations. Whereas almonds are profitable, and punch well above their water weight in terms of contributing back to the economy that maintains all that irrigation infrastructure. The evil effects of almond cultivation are more a meme than a reality - growers have every reason to try and reduce the amount of water they use - though I do have many objections to specific practices almond growers engage in, some of which have been intensifying lately intentionally to goad liberal politicians. I know of several cases where almond growers intentionally destroyed vernal pools or drove entire species extinct. Out of spite, not need. That makes me see red. Their hypocritical positions on immigration, railing against it while happily exploiting the workforce it provides them, that makes me upset.

That said, it seems like people really pick and choose what agricultural products to villify. Almond cultivation pales in comparison to marijuana cultivation in terms of water use, for instance, but the same people who decry the almond industry are often vocal supporters of pot legalization and even subsidy. Do we dislike almonds due to careful study of agricultural process, or because almonds are regarded as a luxury product? Are almonds despised as an ecological agent or by social association?

Don’t know what latitude you are talking but soybeans are grown throughout most of the Midwest. At least as high as the 45th parallel.

In California, I meant. Soybean fields are common down south but rare above the midvalley, where most of the almonds are. I've been told this was because the plants don't care for freezes when they're young, but if they're growing them up at the 45th, it may just be a question of profitability.

 

[Toni]

There is plenty of soy production in California, it's a common crop in the south Valley. It can't take the early freezes, though, so it wouldn't be good pick for almond country. I've never heard of anyone raising soy in any quantity north of a certain latitude. But there are plenty of other crops and other farm products that can be grown, and indeed are grown, in almond country. Most of the nation's supply of broccoli, artichokes, certain legumes, plums, and pistachios, for instance, and all manner of livestock and poultry. Most of those industries have to be subsidized heavily, though; the goverment for all intents and purposes pays farmers to grow food crops, because they would not otherwise be able to afford to due to competition with other nations. Whereas almonds are profitable, and punch well above their water weight in terms of contributing back to the economy that maintains all that irrigation infrastructure. The evil effects of almond cultivation are more a meme than a reality - growers have every reason to try and reduce the amount of water they use - though I do have many objections to specific practices almond growers engage in, some of which have been intensifying lately intentionally to goad liberal politicians. I know of several cases where almond growers intentionally destroyed vernal pools or drove entire species extinct. Out of spite, not need. That makes me see red. Their hypocritical positions on immigration, railing against it while happily exploiting the workforce it provides them, that makes me upset.

That said, it seems like people really pick and choose what agricultural products to villify. Almond cultivation pales in comparison to marijuana cultivation in terms of water use, for instance, but the same people who decry the almond industry are often vocal supporters of pot legalization and even subsidy. Do we dislike almonds due to careful study of agricultural process, or because almonds are regarded as a luxury product? Are almonds despised as an ecological agent or by social association?

Don’t know what latitude you are talking but soybeans are grown throughout most of the Midwest. At least as high as the 45th parallel.

In California, I meant. Soybean fields are common down south but rare above the midvalley, where most of the almonds are. I've been told this was because the plants don't care for freezes when they're young, but if they're growing them up at the 45th, it may just be a question of profitability.

I think it’s more likely a question of varieties grown. I absolutely guarantee that we have freezes later in the spring and earlier in the fall than any place in California. Here, only crops that can grow between last and first frosts are worth growing.