When they start tearing out parking lots to plant corn, then we'll know agriculture's day has come! This act, if it ever comes to pass, won't be the result of wisdom; it will be an act of desperation and will mark the end our expansionist mindset.

There is great speculation about the number of acres that will be planted to corn, soybeans and wheat this year. Never have the incentives been higher with all three crops at three times their historical value. Bakers gathered in Washington, D.C., to ask for relief and protection from high flour prices and short supplies. Many are criticizing the U.S. Department of Agriculture for not releasing land from the Conservation Reserve Program as the price and availability of raw agricultural inputs has thrown agri-industry out of kilter.

Consider this: The acreage in the CRP that could be brought back into crop production is around 4 million acres. In the 10-year period from 1982 to 1992, more than 4 million acres of farmland were lost to development, according to the Biodiversity Project based in Madison, Wis. The conversion continues, as an estimated 50 acres per hour moves from crop or pasture land into non-agricultural uses.

In the panic of the moment, we may be startled at what has been done in the name of progress. Farms have become shopping malls, housing additions, manufacturing plants and parking lots. The land that could now increase production of valuable food and livestock feed is buried under asphalt and concrete. It has no chance to return to its formerly productive state. Current and prior owners may be wealthy but is the nation better off to continue to let only the marketplace decide the fate of productive land?

We have to realize that agricultural production is the lowest valued use of land. Profitability from farming has only been accomplished by efficient use of large acreage. When any land was desired for development, the value was always greater than its agricultural productivity. It was assumed this would be the case forever, but in a very short period of time, we have gone from burdensome surpluses to runaway prices due to shortage and strong demand.

We would have arrived at this point 30 years ago if science, technology and production management had not figured out ways to grow more on shrinking acreage. The growth of agricultural production is one of the greatest success stories of all times. From university and industry scientists in the United States to Dr. Norman Bourlaug's green revolution in the developing world, we have kept the peace far better with production of food than with military might.

We still have great promise for increasing production per acre of farm land, but to do so, it takes expensive inputs that make the underlying costs much higher than in the past. We also realize that others are counting on our productivity as demand is worldwide and our imports of oil, fertilizer and manufactured goods are giving other countries greater wealth to buy our farm products, especially with a cheap dollar.

In the 1970s, there was talk of "Land Use Planning" as some began to realize there could be a link between cities gobbling up farmland and the availability of affordable food. It has taken almost 40 years for the first hint of such a connection to come forth. The scare may not last as agriculture has always seen prices turn downward within three years, but a prolonged period of high food prices could cause policy makers to rethink the value of farmland. Here are two statistics to consider:

--More than 56 percent of our food comes from rapidly developing counties on the edge of urban centers.

--Currently, 70 percent of prime farmland is threatened by sprawl.

(credit: www.biodiversityproject.org)

What's wrong with saying "No factories on farmland" or "No malls on meadows?" The answer is property rights and the willingness of private owners to sell at a value established by the marketplace. But some county and state governments have worked out permanent easements to maintain "greenbelts" and "right to farm" areas. It is the opposite of condemning land and it requires both parties to sign a contract that forbids development in perpetuity. The difficulty is finding the money to pay the landowner the difference between agricultural value and development value.

The amount of money necessary to buy up all land around an urban area would be astronomical. So how about offering incentives to developers to go back into the city core to develop multistory urban lofts and apartments rather than converting farms into housing additions? I'm attracted to retirement living in a community where I can walk to every business and sit on my balcony and watch the world go by.

There are many areas where cities have overbuilt. Wouldn't it be remarkable to see agricultural interests take over defunct malls and put them back into crop or livestock production? I see all kinds of pitfalls but those parking lots could make a nice feedlot base or be chewed up and used on some of our sinking farm to market roads.

Once again, we show our inability to predict the future. We are still like amoebas and follow the path of least resistance. In a country with an abundance of farmland and a population of 3 billion, it seems like a fantasy to ever need land for production more than we need it for industry, urban expansion and suburban sprawl. The sharp increase in value of farmland has brought it closer to the value for other uses. We may never raise farm prices enough to challenge developers but supply and demand works in all sectors and may, in itself, slow the assault on our farms and ranches.