On Jul 8, 7:29*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:05:17 -0400, jeff miller





wrote:
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:20:46 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:

wrote:

On Jul 7, 4:33 pm, jeff miller wrote:

i'm afraid there are simply "too many rats
in the cage". farm land and forests have been disappearing at alarming
rates for a long time now. *

Agree with the sentiment, just curious if you actually have any data
for the "farm land and forests" disappearing. *At least in the United
States I'd be surprised if there was a significant loss of farm land.
I vaguely remember increased North American forests being listed as
a reason for increased global warming.

Just curious if you have any data for your statement.
* * - Ken

it's a commonly-known and undeniable statistic in nc (my place of
experience and knowledge)...and one i have witnessed in my years in
eastern nc... *don't know how it is on the west coast (or are you in the
dakotas?). *look at these which i quickly harvested from google...

http://www.edf.org/documents/3565_NCForestry.pdf

http://www.landfortomorrow.org/page193.html*("...The state DENR
estimates that development gobbles up 100,000 acres of working farms,
forests and gamelands every year. In last decade more than one million
acres of natural and rural areas have been developed. Sadly, North
Carolina now leads the country in farm loss.")

http://www.ncwildlifefederation.org/...telandsres.htm
(...WHEREAS, NC lost more than one million acres of forestland from
1990-2002, and continues to lose 100,000 acres of forests annually,
2,000 acres lost each week; ...WHEREAS, Agricultural land statewide
declined by nearly 55.7 thousand acres annually over the most recent
reporting period (1992-1997). *Moreover prime cropland declined by an
even greater percentage, losing 33.7 thousand acres annually during the
same period. Farmland loss was greatest in urban or rapidly developing
counties where both Mecklenburg and Wake Counties averaged 21 percent
declines over the past five years, and Forsyth *County averaged 10
percent declines. *According to the American Farmland Trust, North
Carolina ranks fourth nationally in the loss of farmland; ...")

And the problem with that is, as far as the loss of ag land...? *Ag land
is "developed" insofar as man having "repurposed" it to fit whatever
need he happened to have at the time. *

TC,
R

but, the needs here are primarily subdivisions, residential use, and
small commercial development...i.e., urbanization. *no food crops...no
forest. *"repurposing"??? ...jeez, that adorable. *but the issue or
point being discussed was the loss of farm land that has a purpose in
supplying food for people, and the loss of forest lands. (of course,
some forests are converted to farm land...then urbanized. g) *i reckon
there is no problem if you don't care about the loss, or like
"repurposing" more.

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





jeff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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.

Dave