I just got to wondering how much farmland got taken out of production by development as opposed to the effective loss for ethanol production.

This is not a rant, I just wonder. Yes, I realize that people have to live somewhere, but prime farmland was not really valued for a long time. A development would start up, and pretty soon the farmers would be squeezed out. The farmers had no real protection because 'best and highest use of the land' was defined as the use that produced the most tax revenue. So, if prime farmland was the easiest to develop, it got developed.

I'm also not anti developer (for the most part), but I just wonder. I wonder if we haven't taken so much land out of production that we can't support using any of what's left for things like ethanol.

When I was young ( just after dirt ws invented), we had 'food surpluses' that cost millions and maybe billions of dollars in storage. Plus, we paid farmers NOT to plant. Now, there are a lot more of us, and alot less available farmland. So, now we can't afford ethanol.

This is also not an arguement for ethanol. Just a look at another cause of vanishing farmland.

Just some food for thought,

 

You had me until you got to here. If you replace 'food' with house or parking lot I think you will have your answer. I must admit that I am part of the problem as my house sets on what was once farmland. However, all that good topsoil was hauled off to some other place. Just looking at the grass or digging another hole for the wife to plane something has been ample proof there is no topsoil here.

 

Well you hit a nerve, if the farmers would quit selling their land to developers then we would still have farmland. I would not sell my place for trillion dollars. Grant it I only have 480 acres but it is bought and paid for. Me and my family own it not the bank. So some food for thought for you!!!

 

You can buy my place for substantially less than a $trillion.

 

Government data shows the amount of land used for active farming has remained relatively steady since the 1970s.

 

I wonder if that has been at the cost of the forest? Clear cutting. Or wet lands?

I know that a huge amount of what was farmland, has been steadily claimed by development here in the DFW surrounding area since the '70s. Hell, since the 50s for that matter.

I have fond memories of my great uncle's dairy farm outside of the Denton, Texas area in the late 50s and early 60s....it is now part of an even bigger sub-division.

Even the relatively small town I live in has been impacted. Walmart, Home Depot, Albertson's Tom Thumb, Super Target...a number of schools...all sit on what was once farm land. Just in the last 22 years that I have lived here.

Interestingly enough, there is a patch of dirt between the Walmart and the next sub-division...still in hay. About 25 acres. We still see this in a few areas in my little town.

 

I actually bought my land so in time I could maybe sell it to a developer, or develop something myself out of it and make some cash of it.

 

Interesting comment Ken. It's hard to believe with the number of farms that I've seen taken out. Is that from the 'Statistical Abstract...'?

Just a minor point -- does 'land used for active farming' include land that farmers were paid not to plant? I think that they were still doing that into the 70's. ( Not sure, I was busy starting a family then. )

Thanks,