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

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

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:26:05 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


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

Boy oh boy. I can see now how little I know about farming, or
economics in spite of grad school.

Or perhaps, because of it...

I really didn't understand that it all comes down to a formula and numbers.

Oh, there's the chicken bones, cheap cigars, and rum, too...

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.

Aside from the nonsensical nonsequiturity of your comments above, I
specifically made no comments about future value and I purposefully used
the phrase "at that time" with regard to value to indicate that I was
not speaking of any value other than present value.

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.

Yeah, you'd have been a regular John Maynard G. Krebs...

I see now that what I studied in Utah and saw in life as probability
and uncertainty were irrelevant.

With certainty.

Probability just a backward Utah thing.

Probably, too...

Damn, it all just comes down to a formula doesn't it? Why
didn't I figure this out years ago on my own?

Interference from the tin foil? A vast evil Jewish conspiracy? Bad
anchovies on the pizza?

Thank you.

You're welcome.

HTH,
R

Dave