more surges in Montana...
 

On Jul 9, 3:26*pm, jeff miller wrote:
wrote:
On Jul 8, 4:42 pm, jeff miller wrote:

Nationwide forest inventory data now show that a
trend decrease in the nation's aggregate forest land area has occurred
since the 1960s. From a peak of 762 million acres in 1963, total US
forest land decreased by 13 million acres by 2002. While the area of
forest land in most states remained stable during that period, or in
some cases increased, several of the Southern states, as well as the
Pacific coast states, experienced a substantial reduction in forest land
area (Smith et al. 2004).

Just a reality check, isn't that a 1.7% reduction over 40 years?
Or 0.04% per year?

Based on some of your other links (I admit to not having time
to do much more than skim most of them) it appears that most
of the forest land loss has been privately owned land being
converted from forest to agricultural use.
* * *- Ken

look closer at the number of acres being lost annually in agricultural
regions of the south...don't you think that is an awful lot?

Not to be too flippant, but why do I care if farmland in the south
gets
converted to urban land?

I don't like urban sprawl, but it's not like it's wilderness being
lost.

i agree,
it is the privately owned forests and farms being lost. the forest
service is doing a good job of reforestation and management in the nc
public lands, as are the nature conservancy groups, imo.

Going back to the original point in this, as long as it's just private
land
changing hands and the public land is being managed well, what's the
issue?
- Ken

more surges in Montana...
 

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:15:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


A couple of points to ponder: *the amount of acreage it takes to produce
a given amount of _most_ crops has also lessened through modernization,
so less land is required to grow more food. *Granted, there are
arguments against some of these techniques, such as "engineering" crops,
but some of these arguments are simply misinformed. *Second, you might
wish to look, for example, for the "deforestation" rates in, say,
Raleigh-Durham or the five boroughs of NYC in the first 100 years of
their existence. *From a pure ag management standpoint, there is no
point in having more land than is needed to grow the amount of crop the
market demands. *And I'd suspect that at least some NC land that was
previously grew tobacco is no longer needed for that crop.

IAC, the mere statement that "farm land (or forest area) in this or that
state is decreasing" or some such is meaningless when it is out of
context, even if it is literally true. *But let's assume that it is. Why
is a decrease from the 762 million forest acres in 1962, even if did
decrease by 13 million acres (interesting math, BTW- 6 + 12 + 5 = 13),
and that it further decreases another 23 million acres by 2050, in and
of itself, a bad thing? *

TC,
R

While in agreement or neutral on much of what you say here, there is
another aspect to consider. That is the observable loss of closer in,
higher quality farm lands, ie land with superior soil fertility, sub
irrigation, easier slopes etc.. I have no figures but those are the
land losses that bother me most.

Ag land is but one purpose - to produce. If X acres produces Y yield
for Z resources (land cost ((including opportunity cost or loss
thereof)), marketability costs, etc.), and another parcel costs more (or
less) in total, then numbers dictate the highest and best use of both
parcels. The fact that you may not like the fact that one or the other
parcel is the one you like better is not material.

HTH,
R

Dave

more surges in Montana...
 

On Jul 9, 8:07*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:15:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
A couple of points to ponder: *the amount of acreage it takes to produce
a given amount of _most_ crops has also lessened through modernization,
so less land is required to grow more food. *Granted, there are
arguments against some of these techniques, such as "engineering" crops,
but some of these arguments are simply misinformed. *Second, you might
wish to look, for example, for the "deforestation" rates in, say,
Raleigh-Durham or the five boroughs of NYC in the first 100 years of
their existence. *From a pure ag management standpoint, there is no
point in having more land than is needed to grow the amount of crop the
market demands. *And I'd suspect that at least some NC land that was
previously grew tobacco is no longer needed for that crop.

IAC, the mere statement that "farm land (or forest area) in this or that
state is decreasing" or some such is meaningless when it is out of
context, even if it is literally true. *But let's assume that it is. Why
is a decrease from the 762 million forest acres in 1962, even if did
decrease by 13 million acres (interesting math, BTW- 6 + 12 + 5 = 13),
and that it further decreases another 23 million acres by 2050, in and
of itself, a bad thing? *

TC,
R

While in agreement or neutral on much of what you say here, there is
another aspect to consider. That is the observable loss of closer in,
higher quality farm lands, ie land with superior soil fertility, sub
irrigation, easier slopes etc.. I have no figures but those are the
land losses that bother me most.

Ag land is but one purpose - to produce. *If X acres produces Y yield
for Z resources (land cost ((including opportunity cost or loss
thereof)), marketability costs, etc.), and another parcel costs more (or
less) in total, then numbers dictate the highest and best use of both
parcels. *The fact that you may not like the fact that one or the other
parcel is the one you like better is not material.

HTH,
R





Dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You missed the point. Some dirt is better than other dirt for growing
things. All things equal, it bothers me more when the better dirt goes
out of ag.

Dave

more surges in Montana...
 

more surges in Montana...
 

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 22:10:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 9, 8:07*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:15:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
A couple of points to ponder: *the amount of acreage it takes to produce
a given amount of _most_ crops has also lessened through modernization,
so less land is required to grow more food. *Granted, there are
arguments against some of these techniques, such as "engineering" crops,
but some of these arguments are simply misinformed. *Second, you might
wish to look, for example, for the "deforestation" rates in, say,
Raleigh-Durham or the five boroughs of NYC in the first 100 years of
their existence. *From a pure ag management standpoint, there is no
point in having more land than is needed to grow the amount of crop the
market demands. *And I'd suspect that at least some NC land that was
previously grew tobacco is no longer needed for that crop.

IAC, the mere statement that "farm land (or forest area) in this or that
state is decreasing" or some such is meaningless when it is out of
context, even if it is literally true. *But let's assume that it is. Why
is a decrease from the 762 million forest acres in 1962, even if did
decrease by 13 million acres (interesting math, BTW- 6 + 12 + 5 = 13),
and that it further decreases another 23 million acres by 2050, in and
of itself, a bad thing? *

TC,
R

While in agreement or neutral on much of what you say here, there is
another aspect to consider. That is the observable loss of closer in,
higher quality farm lands, ie land with superior soil fertility, sub
irrigation, easier slopes etc.. I have no figures but those are the
land losses that bother me most.

Ag land is but one purpose - to produce. *If X acres produces Y yield
for Z resources (land cost ((including opportunity cost or loss
thereof)), marketability costs, etc.), and another parcel costs more (or
less) in total, then numbers dictate the highest and best use of both
parcels. *The fact that you may not like the fact that one or the other
parcel is the one you like better is not material.

HTH,
R





Dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You missed the point. Some dirt is better than other dirt for growing
things. All things equal, it bothers me more when the better dirt goes
out of ag.

No, I think you missed my point. To use your words, if an ag business's
(family farm or ADM) land, parcel A, is "better dirt" for growing "Y"
crop - for whatever reason: you say so, it's located close to the
market, it's literally "better" dirt, etc. than another available parcel
B, but the profit from the sale of parcel A for a non-ag use, combined
with the lessened profit after acquiring and farming parcel B, is the
economically advantageous move, then, well, it is the economically
advantageous move. Therefore, the "best dirt" for ag use at that time
is being used for ag and the "best dirt" for whatever parcel A is being
used is being used for that purpose at that time.

TC,
R
Dave

more surges in Montana...
 

" wrote

Not to be too flippant, but why do I care if farmland in the south
gets
converted to urban land?

I don't like urban sprawl, but it's not like it's wilderness being
lost.

well, a man who doesn't think that most of the countryside in pitt
county, nc isn't wilderness simply hasn't been to either wilderness or pitt
county.

wayno

more surges in Montana...
 

On Jul 10, 4:20*am, jeff miller wrote:
wrote:
* * *- Ken
look closer at the number of acres being lost annually in agricultural
regions of the south...don't you think that is an awful lot?

Not to be too flippant, but why do I care if farmland in the south
gets
converted to urban land?

...and therein is the problem revealed.... no sense in discussing the
issue with you.

I'm being purposefully flippant. To be more honest, urban sprawl is
essentially a local problem. If you don't like your local urban
sprawl
then vote your local *******s out.

As someone who lives in an "Urban Growth Boundary", you might not
like the alternatives either. Primary problem is too many people
breeding
too many more people.


Going back to the original point in this, as long as it's just private
land
changing hands and the public land is being managed well, what's the
issue?
* *- Ken

yeah...again, i find it hard to believe you are that
narrow-minded...until now, i never suspected such. what happens when all
the "private" farmland and forests are gone to condos, parking lots,
etc? *rainforests?? *hell janik...why should you and i worry about
anything...won't be much change by the time we're dust... * anyway, i'm
leaving this morning for a trip west...and working at the great mystery
again.

I think I work with data too much. A 1.7% change over 40 years is
essentially
no change. I'm confident that the error bars in the data are larger
than that
change.
- Ken

more surges in Montana...
 

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:18:11 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jul 10, 4:20*am, jeff miller wrote:
wrote:
* * *- Ken
look closer at the number of acres being lost annually in agricultural
regions of the south...don't you think that is an awful lot?

Not to be too flippant, but why do I care if farmland in the south
gets
converted to urban land?

...and therein is the problem revealed.... no sense in discussing the
issue with you.

I'm being purposefully flippant. To be more honest, urban sprawl is
essentially a local problem. If you don't like your local urban
sprawl
then vote your local *******s out.

As someone who lives in an "Urban Growth Boundary", you might not
like the alternatives either. Primary problem is too many people
breeding
too many more people.


Going back to the original point in this, as long as it's just private
land
changing hands and the public land is being managed well, what's the
issue?
* *- Ken

yeah...again, i find it hard to believe you are that
narrow-minded...until now, i never suspected such. what happens when all
the "private" farmland and forests are gone to condos, parking lots,
etc? *rainforests?? *hell janik...why should you and i worry about
anything...won't be much change by the time we're dust... * anyway, i'm
leaving this morning for a trip west...and working at the great mystery
again.

I think I work with data too much. A 1.7% change over 40 years is
essentially
no change. I'm confident that the error bars in the data are larger
than that
change.
- Ken


The humorous thing about this whole thing is that it is not like Donald
Trump trying to cover all of Central Park with CLASSY!!!! skyscrapers
and concrete, but rather, it's like Tom Keller trying to buy Tavern on
the Green...and turning it into a restaurant...(and speaking of pearls
before swine...)

HTH,
R

more surges in Montana...
 

On Jul 10, 6:36*am, wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 22:10:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Jul 9, 8:07*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:15:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
A couple of points to ponder: *the amount of acreage it takes to produce
a given amount of _most_ crops has also lessened through modernization,
so less land is required to grow more food. *Granted, there are
arguments against some of these techniques, such as "engineering" crops,
but some of these arguments are simply misinformed. *Second, you might
wish to look, for example, for the "deforestation" rates in, say,
Raleigh-Durham or the five boroughs of NYC in the first 100 years of
their existence. *From a pure ag management standpoint, there is no
point in having more land than is needed to grow the amount of crop the
market demands. *And I'd suspect that at least some NC land that was
previously grew tobacco is no longer needed for that crop.

IAC, the mere statement that "farm land (or forest area) in this or that
state is decreasing" or some such is meaningless when it is out of
context, even if it is literally true. *But let's assume that it is. Why
is a decrease from the 762 million forest acres in 1962, even if did
decrease by 13 million acres (interesting math, BTW- 6 + 12 + 5 = 13),
and that it further decreases another 23 million acres by 2050, in and
of itself, a bad thing? *

TC,
R

While in agreement or neutral on much of what you say here, there is
another aspect to consider. That is the observable loss of closer in,
higher quality farm lands, ie land with superior soil fertility, sub
irrigation, easier slopes etc.. I have no figures but those are the
land losses that bother me most.

Ag land is but one purpose - to produce. *If X acres produces Y yield
for Z resources (land cost ((including opportunity cost or loss
thereof)), marketability costs, etc.), and another parcel costs more (or
less) in total, then numbers dictate the highest and best use of both
parcels. *The fact that you may not like the fact that one or the other
parcel is the one you like better is not material.

HTH,
R

Dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You missed the point. Some dirt is better than other dirt for growing
things. All things equal, it bothers me more when the better dirt goes
out of ag.

No, I think you missed my point. *To use your words, if an ag business's
(family farm or ADM) land, parcel A, is "better dirt" for growing "Y"
crop - for whatever reason: you say so, it's located close to the
market, it's literally "better" dirt, etc. than another available parcel
B, but the profit from the sale of parcel A for a non-ag use, combined
with the lessened profit after acquiring and farming parcel B, is the
economically advantageous move, then, well, it is the economically
advantageous move. *Therefore, the "best dirt" for ag use at that time
is being used for ag and the "best dirt" for whatever parcel A is being
used is being used for that purpose at that time.

TC,
R



Dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Boy oh boy. I can see now how little I know about farming, or
economics in spite of grad school. I really didn't understand that it
all comes down to a formula and numbers. And I had no idea that it was
so easy to project future prices, the future weather, the policies of
foreign governments, upstream flooding, the availability and prices
of futures contracts, labor availability and immigration policies, war
and peace. If I had known that it was possible to reliably predict all
these factors, plug them into a formula and out would come all the
right answers I could have shared these techniques with others. Maybe
even changed the course of history.

I see now that what I studied in Utah and saw in life as probability
and uncertainty were irrelevant. Probability just a backward Utah
thing. Damn, it all just comes down to a formula doesn't it? Why
didn't I figure this out years ago on my own? Thank you.

Dave

more surges in Montana...
 

On Jul 9, 4:21*pm, " wrote:
On Jul 9, 3:26*pm, jeff miller wrote:





wrote:
On Jul 8, 4:42 pm, jeff miller wrote:

Nationwide forest inventory data now show that a
trend decrease in the nation's aggregate forest land area has occurred
since the 1960s. From a peak of 762 million acres in 1963, total US
forest land decreased by 13 million acres by 2002. While the area of
forest land in most states remained stable during that period, or in
some cases increased, several of the Southern states, as well as the
Pacific coast states, experienced a substantial reduction in forest land
area (Smith et al. 2004).

Just a reality check, isn't that a 1.7% reduction over 40 years?
Or 0.04% per year?

Based on some of your other links (I admit to not having time
to do much more than skim most of them) it appears that most
of the forest land loss has been privately owned land being
converted from forest to agricultural use.
* * *- Ken

look closer at the number of acres being lost annually in agricultural
regions of the south...don't you think that is an awful lot?

Not to be too flippant, but why do I care if farmland in the south
gets
converted to urban land?

I don't like urban sprawl, but it's not like it's wilderness being
lost.

i agree,
*it is the privately owned forests and farms being lost. *the forest
service is doing a good job of reforestation and management in the nc
public lands, as are the nature conservancy groups, imo.

Going back to the original point in this, as long as it's just private
land
changing hands and the public land is being managed well, what's the
issue?
* *- Ken- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What if the farmland were in your part of Oregon? Do you care about
that? How about Sauve Island? Would it bother you if it were covered
with condos, Intell hives, Schlock-o-mats, and CarFarts?

Dave
Man does not live by bread alone.