Would you agree with me that there is great and huge need to preserve lands solely for Agricultural purposes ?

Question

The purpose is to prevent conversion of land from Agricultural to other things as a counter measure against hunger and also such Agricultural lands are Environment Friendly.

Answer 1

You have a good idea in theory, but this is still the USA and we have free enterprise. You have a farmer who bought a farm and spent his whole life farming the land and paying for it while just making enough money to hang on most of the time. Now he wants to retire, none of his children are interested in farming. As farm land his farm is worth about $800/acre. There is a housing developer wanting to give him $2000/acre. I don't think the government has any right to tell him that he must sell for $800 to keep the land in farming. As much as I would hate to lose the land to farming, the man still has rights. What you are suggesting will require total government control of our farm lands. Before long we would be in a situation just like Russian's agriculture was in. The personal incentive in farming would be gone and our agriculture production would drop. We need to do all that we can to keep government out of agriculture, not invite them in.

Answer 2

As a person involved with agriculture, I agree 100%. I see good farmland being gobbled up to housing developement and cringe. However, I also agree with john h. It is difficult enough to make a living at farming or ranching, and then add in the rising cost of fuel, equipment, employees and in some areas high taxes. Add again, well meaning, but ignorant about livestock, crops and land stewardship groups who are constantly trying to push their agendas down farmers and ranchers throats, and you have a good reason for people to take the opportunity to sell and get out of agriculture.
It costs thousands of dollars just in seed alone to plant a crop, now figure in fuel to run tractors, irrigation, labor, equipment ..... I could go on for hours.
Several years ago, Suffolk county Long Island made an offer to their farmers. It was (as always should be) an option to help maintain some rural areas in a highly encroached upon place. Unfortunatly the offer was made rather late and too much farmland had already been lost.
It seems that due to the high percentage of developments, land was being taxed on its resale value. Farmers were bailing out by the gross because they could not afford the taxes. Imagine being taxed more in one year than what you earned in three and the necessity to sell becomes clear.
The county offered to purchase the building rights on the land, which would lower the tax base because the land was no longer considered buildable. The farm could be sold, but as farmland only, thus maintaining the rural aspect and food production capabilities of the land. Participation was optional, however, many farmers bought in.
That is, I am sure, only one solution and would not apply in all places. I believe that local governments should put their
heads together and come up with plans appropriate for their
areas. Maintaining the freedom to choose, a freedom our people have faught and died for, is imperitive.
Many farmers out there are just as concerned about rural values, food production etc. as you are (if not more so). They would like to see the farms and ranches for which they have sweated remain in food production but often see no other way
when it comes to retirement and/or costs and other factors.

Answer 3

Yes. Both man and animal would be better off if land would be set a side and not developed for housing, malls, and roads. Not only for the food aspect of the issue; but the plants make the Oxygen we all breath. If we do not set land aside for plant growth, we will slowly die off from a lack of Oxygen. We also need open space to let rain water soak into the soil to refill the water table as well. When I was young the Ocean provided 40% of our Oxygen, now it provides 60% of it. It sounds like an increase but it is not: we have lost that much Oxygen production from the worlds forest, and farm land that the ocean 40% rose to 60% that means we really lost 30% of the Oxygen supply from the land mass of forest and grasses.

Answer 4

Yes, I agree with you, but there is nothing that can be done about it unless the government spends a whole load of money.

Economically speaking, some farmers are poor and they are barely breaking even. In some cases, they can sell their land for hundreds of thousands of dollars or more.

With that money they could buy a house with cash in the city and never have to worry about another house payment for the rest of their lives.

People will sell until the laws of supply and demand make farming profitable because there are fewer farms.

Answer 5

Absolutely

The encroachment of urban construction on arable rural land is frightening. With the increase of the human population and urban sprawl, land that is needed for farming to feed that urban sprawl is steadily declining.
Mainland China in particular is already in crisis over this very thing. And just recently I was reading about Hong Kong where the population density is about 7000 people per square mile. WOW.
Here in Australia with the drought we are experiencing the Government is actually encouraging people to abandon their farms and move to urban areas.
Its crazy but what is the Answer!!!

Answer 6

No. Technology is something you must factor. It's likely that we will be able to produce more food on less land 100 years in the future, just as we can now produce more food on less land than 100 years ago.

Preserving too much land solely for agricultural use would end up being a waste of at least some of that land.

Answer 7

Yes strongly agree with you. May your tribe be bless!.
as you said preparing for food as the world population is fast growing, one day we will be surprised people do not have agricultural land anymore because of our greediness in money in converting agri-land to real states or to commercial sites!

Answer 8

Yes! Agriculture is the backbone of any country.

Answer 9

100% YES

Answer 10

yes