Page County EDA 2008 Strategic Plan Recap, Part 2 - Agriculture

Continuing the review of the Page County EDA’s 2008 Strategic Plan update today, focused on the topic of sustainable agriculture.

 

The updated 2008 plan summarizes the state of Page County agriculture by highlighting the declining number of farms: from 1,327 farms in 1940 to less than 400 in 2008; 5,800 acres of farmland repurposed between 1997 and 2002; and a decline in the market value of production from $115 million in 1997 to $108.7 million in 2002. As outlined here, the challenges contributing to this decline include: competition from producers elsewhere, the pressure to sell land for development, and rising costs of feed, fuel, and fertilizer.

 

Especially interesting right now is any discussion about poultry farming in the County, since there is a lot of pressure on the folks trying to make a living this way. The farmers own the land and buildings, but the poultry is owned by the large companies – Tyson, Cargill, Pilgrim’s Pride – who are beginning to make better economic decisions about where to locate their operations, with the result that Page County is often not optimal. And when I use the term “better economic decisions” I am referring to the simple fact that these large companies are acting in their own self interest to minimize their costs. The implementation often involves consolidation of farms, suppliers, and processing in close proximity to each other to minimize transportation time and costs – a decision process that does not favor Page County.

 

To be the selected location, economic theory suggests there needs to be a natural advantage, such as a major center of production for feed corn or some other input resource, or a point of intermodal transfer for transportation. Page County has none of these – and the decline of farms and farm production income is the result.

 

On the other hand, these consolidated centers of production are not operated in the most sustainable ways – I’d bet that there are a lot of challenges containing and managing waste materials, and energy use is not a top priority for management. With the Shenandoah River facing stress from other past and present sources in the watershed, there is yet another reason that Page County may not be the best location for these operations. Even so, Page County remains the second largest poultry producer in Virginia.

 

From the poultry industry, the plan turns to sustainable agriculture for two pages. For all the hustle and bustle that I see from week to week on this topic during the summer, the relative lack of importance it is given in this plan is surprising, since the plan sets up the concept of a three-legged stool for the Page County economy – tourism, agriculture, and industry.

 

The plan outlines three strategies for developing sustainable agriculture in Page County, but provides little detail on how to implement them – doesn’t even call for the first step in implementation, an assessment.

 

Here are the three strategies:

• Plant substitute crops – soybeans and hay: soybeans to tap into the bio-diesel market with the side benefit of creating animal feed as a by-product; hay to cater to the growing number of horse farms in Page County.
• Emphasize sustainable approaches – take advantage of the growing demand for local produce and the areas proximity to larger markets in Harrisonburg and Northern Virginia.
• Repurpose resources – create an agri-tourism destination; transition poultry farms to horse farms; and create non-traditional agro-enterprises such as wineries in Page County.

These strategies and sub-strategies offer an excellent summary of current American culture’s relationship with agriculture. Of seven insights, only one of them even acknowledges a connection with food production, and one other considers agricultural production as an input to industry; all seven require major capital investment; and two of them are linked to the other economic stool-leg of tourism.

 

Past blog posts here have considered the economics of hay farming, as well as the sustainable agriculture approaches listed here. I haven’t been able to get further into an assessment of these subjects to determine whether they could be relied upon for a family’s livelihood, as much as I would like to believe they offer that potential.

 

I mentioned the absence of real planning here - at least in this plan - and the absence of any kind of metrics to measure progress. What are the recommendations for developing sustainable agriculture in the 2008 Page County Economic Plan? Fine-sounding concepts, “innovation, communication, and cooperation” are emphasized and a program of forums, engagement, and even an agriculture summit are proposed, but they are given lower priority than educating Page County’s political leadership.

 

Compared to the 2004 plan, this 2008 plan is short on details and imagination. Having completed a review now of tourism and agriculture, the next step is to review the strategy and goals for industry; given the appearance of much current emphasis on that sector – Project Clover, the purchase of developable industrial land – I’m anticipating there will be more detail there. That’s a pity, because as the plan itself says, Page County agriculture is a “$108 million industry” comprised of “400 small businesses.”

 

An industry and small businesses that were not given a priority in the 2008 plan, that is.