Yes, my feeling is also that the forecast range for the US crop (2 - 2.3 billion pounds) looks a little overly optimistic, although my reason for thinking so is a bit different.
Apart from the potential disruption to pollination, in almond growing regions high precipitation at the start of a year tends to open up a Pandora's box of potential problems further down the track.
Wet weather provides an ideal environment for fungi, some of which are harmful to orchard crops such as almonds. Some of these fungal infections can take months to become apparent: at the moment, this seems to be a major
concern for Growers in some parts of California.
Likewise, insect pests often flourish in the wet conditions, and with all the waterlogged orchards it might be difficult for farmers to keep them under control.
The high precipitation at the start of the year also dumped a lot of snow on the Sierras, so one other potential problem is that runoff from the melting Sierra snow pack could result in another round of flooding, a risk which would be increased if we see above average rainfall across California in April and May.
It is hard to say if any of these will become a serious issue this year, but any one of them has the potential to reduce the eventual Californian crop.
Getting back on topic, one thing I found interesting in that presentation was the data on the bloom statistics in the three almond growing areas of California.
This February was the second wettest Californian February so far this century, hence the concerns around the pollination.
The wettest was that of 2010, with rainfall in 2009 and 2004 only being a little lower than 2017.
The bloom period kicks off about mid February, so a wet February might imply a disrupted pollination. Given this, it is interesting that the years with a very wet February seem to have a lower yield per acre than the drier preceding years.
In the table below, I've listed the yield per acre data for each of the three regions in two of the years which had a rainy February ('09 and 2010), as well as that of the two preceding year.
Assuming all the data is correct, it would appear from this that a wet February might indicate a below average yield/acre.
The exception would seem to be 2010 in the south: the yield for this year is a little higher than the first two years listed. This could be explained by the fact that the south of California is warmer, and tends to get less rainfall than the other areas of the state, which would mean the risk of a disrupted pollination is lower in the southern areas of the state.
|
Year |
Yield/acre |
Yield/acre |
Yield/acre |
| 1 |
|
Southern |
Central |
Northern |
| 2 |
2007 |
2,514 |
2,065 |
1,746 |
| 3 |
2008 |
2,661 |
2,133 |
1,763 |
| 4 |
2009 |
2,165 |
1,711 |
1,597 |
| 5 |
2010 |
2,653 |
1,792 |
1,656 |
Same thing with the other year which had a wet February, 2004: In all three regions the per-acre yields were lower in 2004 than in 2002 or 2003.
(20min delay)