a plan for agricultural business in the greater lansing region

A Plan for Agricultural Business in the Greater Lansing Region

October 2011

of 24

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties, in cooperation with Tri-‐County Regional Planning Commission and with support from a Michigan State University Project GREEEN grant led the development of this plan to enhance agricultural economic development in the Greater Lansing region. Those directly involved in the project include:

Project Partners John Czarnecki, Clinton County Economic Alliance, Retired Claudine Hannold, Eaton County Community Development

Sandra Gower, Ingham County Economic Development Corporation Ed Reed, Delta Township Economic Development Corporation

Stacy Byers, Ingham County Farmland and Open Space Preservation Board and Clinton County Agricultural Preservation Board

Susan Pigg, Christine Hnatiw and Harmony Gmazel, Tri-‐County Regional Planning Commission

Steven Miller, Center for Economic Analysis, Michigan State University Mary Beth Graebert, Melissa Gibson, Tyler Borowy, Ryan Soucy and Mark Jones, Land

Policy Institute, Michigan State University

Advisory Committee John Forell, Eaton County Commissioner and farmer

David Roberts, Eaton County Farmland Preservation Board Chair Steve Thelen, Clinton County farmer

David Pohl, Clinton County Commissioner Jake Wambaugh, Ingham County Farmland and Open Space Preservation Board Laurie Koelling, Tanebaum Farms and Ingham County Farmland and Open Space

Preservation Board Dallas Henney, Leslie Township Supervisor, farmer, and Ingham County Farmland and

Open Space Preservation Board

Prepared by Kuntzsch Business Services, Inc. Rachel Kuntzsch, President

Meredith Johnson, Program and Policy Coordinator

Study Participants The research for this plan was made possible with the cooperation of farmers, agribusiness owners, elected officials, economic developers, planners, and landowners who attended forums, provided valuable input, and completed surveys.

of 24

A. Table of Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 4 Why Agriculture is Important to the Greater Lansing Region ................................. 5 The Economic Impact of Agriculture in the Greater Lansing Region ..................... 6 Our Planning Process ............................................................................................................. 8 Challenges to Agricultural Economic Development in Our Region ........................ 9 Opportunities for Agricultural Economic Development in Our Region ............. 14 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 17 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 22 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... 24

of 24

Introduction In the Greater Lansing counties of Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham, agriculture contributes approximately $450 million each year to our local economy and more than 5,000 jobs to our residents. Despite its importance to our region’s prosperity, local economic development planners often neglect to include the agricultural industry in their planning efforts. Economic development planning on a regional level that views the agricultural sector as an asset and supports agriculture industries will help our communities ensure their prosperity. This plan provides guidance for harnessing our local agriculture industry’s potential to drive future economic development for the region. The greater-‐metropolitan area of Lansing includes The City of East Lansing, Delta Charter Township, Delhi Charter Township and Meridian Charter Township. Other municipalities within the region include St. Johns, DeWitt, Charlotte, Eaton Rapids, Grand Ledge, Mason and Williamston. Our urban and suburban population provides substantial demand for fresh, local foods, while the significant amount of farmland can meet this demand. And while the total number of farms in the region has decreased over the last ten years, the total farm acreage has increased.1 The region continues to maintain and build upon its rich history in agriculture production. Despite the substantial job loss in the auto industry, the Lansing area has the unique opportunity to capitalize on its agricultural assets by planning for agricultural business. In order to grow as a viable industry, local farmers must adapt to changes by developing new markets, products, ways of doing business, and partnerships; and local economic developers should assist them in doing so. A hypothetical 5% increase in agricultural sales would create an additional $3.4 million in labor income, $5.7 million in property-‐type income, 259 new jobs and $22 million in economic output.2 This plan provides recommendations for improving the viability of agriculture and related industries, creating job opportunities, encouraging agricultural entrepreneurship, and driving economic prosperity. Specifically, these recommendations will help our agricultural community take innovative measures to 1 Michigan State University Land Policy Institute. (2011). Tri-County Agriculture: The Status, Conditions and Economic Impacts. East Lansing, MI. 2 Michigan State University Land Policy Institute. (2011). Tri-‐County Agriculture: The Status, Conditions and Economic Impacts. East Lansing, MI.

of 24

increase the profitability of their farm businesses. They will also help local economic development professionals and land use planners recognize opportunities provided by agriculture-‐based businesses and link these businesses to critical incentives and opportunities.

Why Agriculture is Important to the Greater Lansing Region Agriculture in the Greater Lansing area provides significant economic support to the region while contributing to our unique cultural, environmental and social qualities. Farmers Produce and Market Locally Grown Foods Farmers in the Greater Lansing area have taken advantage of opportunities for marketing food to local consumers. Local farms provide a unique opportunity for residents to enjoy locally grown food, support the region’s farming heritage and economy and improve our quality of life. The Greater Lansing region hosts a multitude of farmers’ markets and roadside stands, providing fresh, healthy food to residents in rural, suburban, and urban areas. Our Region is an Agri-‐Tourism Destination Agri-‐tourism is a way of life for many in our area. In the fall, cider mills, pumpkin patches, and corn mazes draw thousands of visitors from the region’s population centers. Bed and Breakfasts located near farms attract visitors who are seeking to escape their busy lives to be nearer to open spaces. Increasingly, we look to agriculture as an entertainment source – visiting local farms to harvest Christmas trees or pick fruits and vegetables. Farms Contribute to our Unique Rural Character Many of us enjoy living in close proximity to open spaces and take advantage of the provisions and recreation that small towns supporting nearby farms provide. Charlotte, Grand Ledge, Williamston, DeWitt and St. Johns, which support the farming industry through infrastructure and marketing opportunities, each have unique, historic identities with which residents feel a special connection. These small towns and the surrounding rural areas also provide the opportunity for city dwellers in Lansing and surrounding suburbs to enjoy open lands without traveling great distances.

of 24

Farms Limit Sprawl and Reduce Service Requirements for Local Governments Farmland provides another economic benefit to our region by lowering the level of services that local governments must provide. Agricultural lands do not demand sewer, utility, educational, and social services from local governments. Sustaining agriculture in the Greater Lansing region also helps to limit development pressure, while encouraging development in existing cities and villages where government services already exist. Our Farms Help Preserve the Natural Environment Agriculture allows for large expanses of land that help to preserve our region’s

natural environment. Farms help to minimize erosion, recharge groundwater, and sequester carbon, contributing to the health of the region’s residents while enhancing the quality of life that is attractive to new residents. Farms provide land suitable for many animal species, making hunting a sustainable economic activity in the region.

The Economic Impact of Agriculture in the Greater Lansing Region

Agriculture is a Significant Part of Our Economy Today In the Greater Lansing area, agriculture provides for 5,182 jobs3, which is more than the 4000 jobs that the local information technology sector provides,4 and $437 million in economic output, which is more than the $427 million that the local supply chain and logistics sector provides (see Figure 1).5 6 The region’s total agricultural sales are $320 million, but also add about $117 million in indirect and induced economic impact.7 However, the level of production in our region is not reflective of the amount of land engaged in farming practices, indicating a lower level of productivity compared to other regions of the state. The Greater Lansing region’s 3,409 farms and 679,982

3 Number includes direct, indirect and induced jobs (i.e. supply chain businesses and those contributing to the agriculture sector). 4 “Information Technology.” LeapInc. LeapInc. n.d. Web. 6 July 2011. 5 “Supply Chain Management and Logistics.” LeapInc. LeapInc. n.d. Web. 6 July 2011. 6 Michigan State University Land Policy Institute. (2011). Tri-County Agriculture: The Status, Conditions and Economic Impacts. East Lansing, MI. 7 United States Department of Agriculture. (2007). Census of Agriculture. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

of 24

farmland acres comprise 6.8% of Michigan’s land base and 6.1% of Michigan’s total number of farms but contribute only 5.6% of Michigan’s total agricultural sales.

Figure 1: Current Contribution of Agriculture to the Greater Lansing Region’s Economy8 Regardless, agriculture has an economic impact that extends beyond crop production. Many non-‐agricultural businesses in our region supply the needs of farmers with farming equipment, electricity, petroleum, hired farm labor, and feed. After foods are harvested, they are stored, packed, shipped, and sold – creating a demand for jobs and putting more money into the economy. In order to sustain their businesses, agricultural producers must invest in real estate, capital and livestock, requiring loans and interest paid on those loans. Acreage and Production have not Changed in Recent Years Between 1997 and 2007, the number of farms in the region decreased but acreage and production remained relatively the same. Our region’s portion of the state’s farms, acreage and total sales of agricultural products (see Figure 2) have remained virtually unchanged from 1997 to 2007. The majority of regional sales are from crops, which were reported to be nearly $145 million in 2007 (adjusted to year 2000 dollars). Apart from regional sales figures, Clinton County’s greatest sales were from milk and other dairy products, and Ingham and Eaton County’s highest sales were from grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas. During the 10-‐year period between 1997 and 2007, agricultural sales were fairly evenly distributed between crops and livestock, with sales from crops exceeding those of livestock products by $23.6 million in 2007. More than 83% of crop sales came from grains, oilseeds, dry beans and dry peas in 2007 with corn and soybean 8 Table created by Land Policy Research at the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2011. Data from IMPLAN and the United States Department of Agriculture. (2007). Census of Agriculture. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office

Impact Category Direct Indirect Induced TotalLabor Income $35,649,535 $20,197,015 $12,461,951 $68,308,501Property-Type Income $82,409,608 $24,078,052 $7,900,661 $114,388,320Employment (People) 4,281 527 373 5,182Value of Output $320,788,996 $77,966,081 $38,283,211 $437,038,288

Figure 2: Tri-‐County Sales Compared to State Sales

of 24

sales accounting for 50% and 39% of sales, respectively. Seven percent of total crop sales came from the sale of nursery, greenhouse, floriculture and sod products. Among livestock sales, more than 75% came from milk and other dairy products from cows, and roughly 15% of livestock sales came from cattle and calves. Clinton County represents 41% of the total cropland in the region, which is highest among the three counties. Regionally, it ranked first in total agricultural sales, with a value of $137.4 million in 2007 (adjusted to 2000 dollar values). Of the three counties, Clinton County has shown the most agricultural growth in recent years. It is ranked #1 in the state for milk production, and most dairy farmers in the county grow their own feed, providing stability for milk production and creating cost savings for the farmers. Clinton County is also known for its production of soybeans, corn, and unique crops like spearmint and peppermint, which grow well in the county’s rich, black soil.9 Ingham County had the second largest volume of sales in the region, at $70.2 million during 2007 (adjusted to 2000 values), while Eaton County had $58.6 million in total sales.

Greater Lansing Region Greater Lansing

Percentage of State Total

1997 2002 2007 1997 2002 2007

Crops $126,804,630 $111,760,320 $144,932,110 5.10% 4.90% 5.20% Livestock, poultry and their products $94,071,190 $83,159,040 $121,322,760 6.40% 6.10% 6.00% Total sales $220,875,820 $194,918,400 $266,255,700 5.60% 5.40% 5.60% Figure 3: Tri-‐County Agriculture Sales by Product10

Our Planning Process This plan is the result of collaboration amongst core staff members of each of the three counties’ economic development agencies, agriculture preservation boards, and the Tri-‐County Regional Planning Commission to assess the needs of the entire agricultural community. Together, these stakeholders applied for a grant through Project GREEEN, Michigan’s plant agriculture initiative based at Michigan State University, as well as other grants. After the team was awarded the Project GREEEN grant, it assembled an advisory group representing agricultural business and policy interests in the Greater Lansing area. The planning process consisted of several steps intended to provide a well-‐rounded picture of the region’s agricultural strengths and weaknesses and identify

9 “Clinton County Michigan.” Clinton County Economic Alliance. Clinton County Economic Alliance. n.d. web 6 July 2011. 10 Table created by Land Policy Research at the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2011. Data from IMPLAN and the United States Department of Agriculture. (2007). Census of Agriculture. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office

of 24

opportunities for change. Early on, the project partners commissioned the Land Policy Institute at Michigan State University (MSU-‐LPI) to develop a methodology to gather and analyze data on agricultural production, which they shared at stakeholder meetings. To develop a plan for growing the viability of agriculture in the Greater Lansing region, it was critical to examine the region’s current agricultural profile and benchmark the sector’s economic impact. To that end, the project partners engaged MSU-‐LPI to develop a report, previously referenced – Tri-‐County Agriculture: The Status, Conditions, and Economic Impacts, which examines the Greater Lansing region’s agriculture makeup. The Report, contained in the appendices, highlights county-‐level statistics on agricultural production and sales, examines changes that occurred between 1997 and 2007, and estimates the agricultural sector’s impact on the economy. In order to get an “on the ground” assessment of the relationship between agriculture and economic development and establish goals for improving agricultural economic development in the region, a survey was distributed to farmers throughout the region with the assistance of Clinton, Eaton and Ingham County Farm Bureaus. The responses were used to develop the challenges and opportunities section of this plan and to identify recommendations for improving the region’s agricultural economy. The survey results, included in the appendices, can continue to be used to shape future agricultural economic development decisions. Farmers were asked to join local and regional planning officials, economic developers, agribusiness owners, and policy makers at the discussion forums. At these forums, participants, through small groups, responded to questions about challenges and opportunities impacting the region and determined. These discussions also helped inform this plan’s recommendations.

Challenges to Agricultural Economic Development in Our Region While agriculture has a significant impact on our region, there are challenges that hinder its growth. Part of our planning process was to seek out and identify these challenges. The following highlights primary challenges identified by regional stakeholders including farmers, economic developers, planners, agribusiness owners, and other community leaders who responded to a survey or attended a discussion forum. The survey and discussion forums, along with the Report

of 24

referenced above, provided evidence that agriculture in the Greater Lansing region is fairly strong but faces some challenges, including conflict between agriculture and non-‐agriculture communities, and balancing environmental and quality of life values with the need to retain agriculture. A Lack of Processing Facilities Hinders Our Farmers Currently, there are no meat processing plants in the Greater Lansing area. ADM, Cargill and Tyson are the only three plants in the state, and they are located outside of the region. Because farmers are required to ship their raw goods to these locations, transportation costs are high and it becomes less likely that farmers will sell their products locally. According to the survey and the discussion forums, the Greater Lansing region lacks critical infrastructure for effective marketing of agricultural products. In addition to heightened transportation costs for getting products to processing facilities, there are few inexpensive options for farmers to transport their goods to market both within the region and to consumers outside the region. Zoning Regulations May Not Recognize Innovative Practices Participants in the discussion forums noted that zoning may limit agricultural use, particularly that which goes beyond traditional farming. Zoning regulations may not support new, innovative business opportunities (e.g. roadside farm stands, u-‐pick farms, biofuel production). Local ordinances may inadvertently stifle entrepreneurship through property maintenance codes or signage limitations. At the same time, as more residential development occurs in rural farming areas, incompatible uses between residents and the agricultural community become apparent, which could further limit innovative practices. Agriculture Lacks Support from Policymakers Some survey respondents and forum participants contend that policymakers do not provide adequate leadership for developing pro-‐farming policies and resist supporting the region’s agricultural economy as compared to its manufacturing economy. Studies support these observations -‐ government investment in food and agriculture in Michigan falls behind most other states.11 11 Cocciarelli, S., Smalley, S. and Hamm, M. (2011). Farm Viability and Development: Michigan Good Food Work Group Report No. 4 of 5. K. Colasanti (ed.) East Lansing, MI.

of 24

Inactive Farmers Networks or Cooperatives Farmers Networks and Cooperatives can reduce costs by helping farmers market goods while reducing the amount of time farmers must spend away from their farms. Without the support of networks and cooperatives, farmers spend precious time attempting to market their own goods or have little choice over who buys their goods. This reduces the capacity for farmers to explore other revenue-‐building activities, like producing new varieties of specialty crops or starting an agribusiness enterprise on their farm. Lack of Access to Capital Many individuals who have the interest and knowledge to farm, including young farmers, have difficulty acquiring the necessary capital for starting a new agricultural business. According to the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank, Michigan farmland value has increased by better than ten percent, in contrast to a continuing decline in residential property value.12 This makes costs related to purchasing agricultural land relatively high in comparison to other opportunities. Farmers in our region may have difficulty accessing capital because they lack personal equity, are unable to convey farm production knowledge or establish a personal credit plan, and/or they lack a business plan or the ability to project a realistic cash flow.13 In addition there are few institutions in the region other than Greenstone Farm Credit Services that support agriculture, leaving farmers few options for lending sources. Farmers who wish to start new farm-‐based business start-‐ups, such as u-‐picks and cheese processing operations, face challenges in acquiring loans for these new projects. The lack of capital for expanded operation caps agricultural growth and prevents the production of local products. High Costs and Land Unavailability Limit Farmers’ Profitability Forum participants contend that there is not enough land available for purchase in our region, and even those who have access to land are faced with high fuel, fertilizer, processing and transportation costs. These factors create a barrier for

12 Wittenberg, E. and Hanson, S. (2009). Farmland Values Climb, Farm Earnings Soften. Michigan Farm News, February 15, 2009. 13 Cocciarelli, S., Smalley, S. and Hamm, M. (2011). Farm Viability and Development: Michigan Good Food Work Group Report No. 4 of 5. K. Colasanti (ed.) East Lansing, MI.

of 24

younger generations of farming families who wish to continue farming operations as well as those who wish to start new businesses. Even for those who have an operating farm, it is not a given that the farm will generate sufficient revenue to cover farming expenses. More than half of the farmers surveyed either cannot cover expenses or cannot receive a meaningful income from farming (See Figure 4). This encourages some current farmers to sell their land and discontinue farming, and may act as a deterrent to young, qualified entrepreneurs who have the potential to enter the agriculture business.

According to the survey, larger farms tend to be more profitable. Two-‐thirds of farmers whose farm is their primary source of income operated more than 501 acres. Approximately 43% of farmers who indicated their farm is their secondary source of income, operated between 161 and 500 acres. As farm size decreases, more and more respondents answered that revenues do not contribute to total income nor do they cover expenses. In other words, respondents operating larger farms tended to be more financially viable. The average size of farms in the region is 200 acres and 40% of the region’s farms are 10 to 49 acres, which means most farms in our region are probably not profitable or covering costs.14 14 United States Department of Agriculture. (2007). Census of Agriculture. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Figure 4: Farmer Revenue Generation

of 24

Farmers Encounter Development Pressure Even though pressure on local farms to convert to non-‐agricultural uses has slowed somewhat in recent years due to the sluggish economy, 78% of farmers surveyed still feel development pressure is high. The promise of large buy-‐outs and comfortable retirements can be enticing to farmers who face volatile agricultural prices and inconsistent incomes.15 Furthermore, land that is suitable for agricultural production also tends to be desirable land for residential development. 16 If agricultural land is not profitable, it could transition out of agricultural use to residential use. Consumers Lack Knowledge about Farming According to the individuals that participated in the discussion forums, consumers in the Greater Lansing region lack knowledge of the benefits of supporting local agriculture (and the impact of not doing so). Many consumers believe that locally grown specialty items are too expensive for everyday consumption, but know little about the economic and nutritional benefits to consuming locally grown products, or how production of these local foods helps boost local job growth – not just directly on farms, but also at related businesses, such as farm implement dealers. Producers Need Greater Access to Information Based on comments from the discussion forums, producers may lack information about new crop types that can be successful in the region, partly due to limited access to the latest research or market trends. Most farmers surveyed indicated they were sticking to the production they know well rather than diversifying. Skilled Farm Labor is Difficult to Find and Retain Historically, farmers have relied on big families to provide labor for their farming operations. With smaller families becoming the norm and more children going on to college and professional careers outside of farming, the number of capable laborers has dropped significantly. The aging population of the farming sector may create a labor problem, as well. Among farmers responding to the survey, 76% are 50 years old or older, while only 18% are 40 years old or younger (See Figure 5). As farmers age and are no longer able to continue farming operations, there will be fewer young farmers to carry on where they left off.

15 Michigan State University Land Policy Institute. (2011). Tri-County Agriculture: The Status, Conditions and Economic Impacts. East Lansing, MI. 16 Cocciarelli, S., Smalley, S. and Hamm, M. (2011). Farm Viability and Development: Michigan Good Food Work Group Report No. 4 of 5. K. Colasanti (ed.) East Lansing, MI.

of 24

Figure 5: Age Range of Survey Respondents

Opportunities for Agricultural Economic Development in Our Region

While there are challenges that hinder the growth of the community, there are countless opportunities to build our agricultural economy. The following highlights opportunities identified by those who responded to a survey or attended a discussion forum. Farmer Commitment to Keeping Farms in the Family Based on the survey responses, farmers in the region are committed to keeping their land in the family. Responding to the survey, 64% of farmers indicated they would not sell their land if offered a fair market value (See Figure 6) and 82% said they would give, sell, or will their land to a family member after they retire. This may indicate a

18-‐29 10%

30-‐39 8% 40-‐49 6%

50-‐59 28%

60+ 48%

Age range of Farmer Survey respondents

Figure 6: Farmer Motivation to Sell Land

of 24

desire for farmers to continue to use their land for farming and to pass on agriculture skills to family members. Consumer Interest in Locally Grown Food The region has seen growth in interest for locally grown food and the benefits they provide. Currently, there are many farmers’ markets, food co-‐ops, community gardens and community-‐supported agriculture groups operating in the three counties, with distribution occurring in rural and suburban areas as well as the urban neighborhoods of Lansing. It is estimated farmers’ market sales result in an additional 50 cents in indirect or induced sales for every $1 of personal income earned.17 The Greater Lansing region boasts large production of specialty crops, which are conducive to supplying the demand for local foods. In fact, 44% of farmers responding to the survey grow specialty crops. Furthermore, farmers themselves believe that the public interest in locally grown food can benefit their businesses. Of farmers surveyed, 60% agreed or strongly agreed local efforts that support the “local food” movement will enhance their businesses. Government Programs Supporting Agriculture There are several state and federal government programs, which support our region’s agricultural base. Michigan’s Farmland and Open Space Preservation Program enables farmers to enter into development rights agreements with the state, promising to keep the land in agricultural use for a term of years in exchange for income tax benefits and exemptions from special assessments. Also, in recent years, the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs and the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) have provided increased support to agricultural businesses, including grants for farmers’ markets and

hoophouses (greenhouses with plastic roofs that can be used year-‐round for growing produce), and the formation of agricultural alliances in Southeast and Northwest Michigan.18 The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) provides support to agricultural businesses, including grant opportunities, a website of resources for agricultural business development, and training for food

17 Cocciarelli, S., Smalley, S. and Hamm, M. (2011). Farm Viability and Development: Michigan Good Food Work Group Report No. 4 of 5. K. Colasanti (ed.) East Lansing, MI. 18 Cocciarelli, S., Smalley, S. and Hamm, M. (2011). Farm Viability and Development: Michigan Good Food Work Group Report No. 4 of 5. K. Colasanti (ed.) East Lansing, MI.

of 24

safety and pest management, among others. Our three counties also collaborate with MDARD to provide purchase of development rights opportunities for local farmers. The Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP) helps farms minimize agricultural pollution risks in a cost-‐effective way.19 Sixty-‐six percent of farmers surveyed indicated that the Michigan Right to Farm Act, which protects farmers from nuisance lawsuits, is important to the success of their businesses. The Michigan Right to Farm Act authorizes the Michigan Commission of Agriculture to develop and adopt Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs), which promote environmental stewardship and help maintain a farmer’s right to farm.20 Federal government subsidies and assistance are also available for area farmers. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is a voluntary land retirement program that helps agricultural producers protect environmentally sensitive land, restore wildlife habitat, and safeguard ground and surface water while receiving financial incentives.21 The federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP) provides matching funds to help purchase development rights to keep productive farms in active agricultural use.22 Entrepreneurial Farmers Some area farmers make added income by using farmlands for business opportunities other than crop production and livestock. These farmers engage in agri-‐tourism practices such as wineries, u-‐pick orchards, and restaurants that sell prepared food sourced from the farm. More farms are providing opportunities for sport hunting, which brings in revenue. In some places, agricultural zoning provides a community with balance by designating land for farming and other agricultural activities including farmstands and agri-‐tourism. The ability to provide services and products directly to consumers brings opportunity for business growth and continued farming while meeting needs of local citizens.23

19 http://www.maeap.org/maeap 20 http://www.michigan.gov/mdard/0,1607,7-125-1567_1599_47930---,00.html 21 http://www.apfo.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=cep 22 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/frpp/ 23 Agricultural Tourism Local Zoning Guidebook and Zoning Ordinance Provisions, Michigan Agricultural Tourism Advisory Commission, 2007, p. 4.

of 24

Access to Research and Other Resources Michigan State University (MSU), the nation’s first land grant institution and a leader in agricultural research and education, is located at the heart of the Greater Lansing region. The proximity of farms and local agricultural businesses to MSU provides unique access to research on agricultural best practices, technology advances, and a newly educated farm labor source. MSU Extension works with farmers to increase the success of their business and reach new markets through research and training.

Recommendations The following recommendations address the region’s challenges while capitalizing upon our agricultural opportunities. When implemented, these recommendations will help to drive economic prosperity by improving the viability of our region’s agriculture and related industries, creating job opportunities, and encouraging entrepreneurship. Economic development professionals can implement these proposed recommendations by including them as part of their local government’s economic development plans. Local government boards and officials may pass resolutions adopting the recommendations. Farmers may also advocate for the adoption of these recommendations. Include Agriculture in Economic Development Planning Economic development professionals should connect agriculture-‐based businesses with resources that can support agricultural economic development in the region. For example, economic development professionals should be aware of various state and federal funding opportunities for agriculture, as well as financing options, which can assist in the expansion of their businesses. In addition, strategies to support agriculture-‐based businesses should be included in economic development plans throughout the region. Currently, 10 out of 24 master plans in our region include language pertaining to the improvement or maintenance of the viability of the local agricultural economy. Fifty-‐seven percent of local zoning jurisdictions have single agricultural districts for general agricultural activities (farming, raising livestock, etc.); ten out of forty-‐two have additional agricultural districts specifically for preservation of prime farmland, and thirty-‐one jurisdictions allow for agricultural activity in districts not zoned for agriculture. Develop Zoning that Supports Innovative Farming Activities Local agencies can be of great assistance to farmers trying to engage in new agribusiness activities by working with farmers to develop zoning regulations that

of 24

recognize new and innovative farming and agribusiness practices. By working collaboratively, farmers and local agencies can proactively develop zoning that is supportive of business growth. This may be accomplished through inclusion of farmers and agribusiness owners on local zoning boards, whereby stakeholders can develop a shared understanding of how current and future zoning practices help or hinder agriculture. Regional stakeholders could develop a model zoning ordinance conducive to agriculture and agribusinesses to be adopted by local governments, for example. Additionally, local agencies should provide local farmers’ groups and farmer networks with information about the beneficial services available to farmers that are attempting to engage in new agricultural practices. Agencies should also provide farmers with information on how to best work with current zoning regulations and acquire the right permits to engage in on-‐farm activities that will boost production. Encourage Development in Non-‐Agricultural areas In order to preserve productive agricultural land and allow farming operations to occur without pressure from development, commercial and residential growth should be concentrated in non-‐agricultural areas. Local planners and developers should focus new building near existing centers where infrastructure exists. Local planning boards, with the input of farming board members or stakeholders, should focus on this type of “smart growth” and develop zoning laws and practices that support the growth of our region’s agricultural economy.

Attract Agriculture Processing Facilities to the Region Of farmers surveyed, 78% felt that food processing business should be increased in the region. By increasing the number of food processing businesses in the region, farmers would benefit from cheaper, more efficient shipping. Instead of having to send their products 100 miles away or more, shipping distances will be reduced to 10-‐50 miles. Economic developers in the region should work with local farmers to develop innovative strategies for attracting processing facilities to the area. Encourage Agricultural Entrepreneurship Although dairy and row crop production are the strongest agriculture sectors in our region, potential growth opportunities in other areas are significant. The farmers surveyed ranked advanced agricultural technology, commodity crops, and alternative energy as having the most potential for economic growth. Other areas for growth include biomass electrical generation, value-‐added land-‐based products and timber management, local food processing, horticulture and nurseries, farm supply services and organic products.

of 24

Some farmers have begun making their farms available to visitors for recreation. Farms make excellent locations for festivals, family reunions, and weddings, and more events of this type could be encouraged through providing farmers with access to marketing resources. Farmers should also be encouraged to find new uses for their products. For example, a Michigan State University researcher found that the cancer-‐fighting drug Taxol can be produced using enzymes from yew trees, a much cheaper method than current semi-‐synthetic organic chemistry approaches24. Local farmers can capitalize upon the discovery of new markets like this to make their businesses more profitable and sustainable. Our region needs to focus resources towards the opportunity for agricultural growth in order to foster agricultural entrepreneurship. Local financial institutions should be encouraged to lend to agricultural producers with new ideas, and processing facilities, suppliers, and agricultural services industries need to be incentivized to locate in our region.

Link Agricultural Activities to Community Development Efforts Local and downtown development activities do not need to occur separately from agricultural economic development opportunities. Downtown development organizations should be encouraged to cooperate with local agricultural vendors. Some localities have embraced opportunities to leverage agricultural and non-‐agricultural local economic growth. Many communities in the region host a farmers’ market in their downtown areas. This provides multiple benefits by drawing people that are primarily there to pick up fruits and vegetables at the farmers market into nearby stores for gifts or lunch, while those who are visiting downtowns to shop at the stores may purchase items from one of the farmers’ market vendors. This scenario allows for increased marketing for both shops and market vendors. The benefits and success of farmers’ markets in the region should be shared with other communities to encourage the expansion of additional markets. Food vendors can also be clustered into food business districts to attract buyers and encourage vendors to work together. The Lansing City Market is an example of a food district that provides exposure for local agricultural producers with value-‐added businesses. Shoppers can purchase fresh fruit and vegetables, stop at a café for lunch, and pick up some gelato or homemade cookies, all purchased from local 24 http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/Processing-QC/Effective-biosynthetic-alternative-to-Taxol-production-discovered

of 24

producers. Other communities in the region could work with area growers to develop and promote food districts. Advocate for Government Support Our agriculture community should reach out to state and local policy leaders, emphasizing that agriculture and agricultural products should be given equal weight to the re-‐tooling of the auto-‐industry. State government should help support exports from the region and financial capital for agricultural practices. Agriculture-‐related organizations should work to ensure agriculture is incorporated into local economic development planning efforts. According to the farmer survey, 78% of farmers whose farms provide their primary source of income have more than three-‐quarters of their land enrolled in the State of Michigan’s Farmland and Open Space Preservation Program (commonly referred to as PA 116). The majority of respondents whose farms do not provide a primary source of income have no land enrolled in the program. This data may indicate that farmers tend to thrive when they can receive the tax benefits associated with farmland preservation. Regional planners, economic development officials, and policymakers should work with local groups to ensure area farmers are fully aware and take advantage of financial incentive programs such as PA 116, FRPP, CREP and the state farmland preservation program. These groups may consider providing services to area farmers to assist them with the application process to such programs. Market Our Agricultural Products Our region should work to promote the importance and prevalence of agricultural products in our communities, as well as the variety of different types of farming practices, like organic and local. Promotion and education is necessary to achieve a positive public perception of farming in the region, and to help farmers get to know the needs of consumers. Agriculture should be included in local economic development promotion. An inventory of agricultural assets would be a helpful guidance tool for farmers and a source of information for the community as a whole. Regional branding and the location of value-‐added practices, like marketing, processing and distribution, within the region would create a community connection to agriculture and encourage farmers and processors to locate their business and invest here. Consumers and farmers should buy agricultural products and supplies from local suppliers. By focusing demand inward, more dollars will be put into the local

of 24

economy, and farmers and suppliers will be encouraged to expand or create new businesses. Our region is home to hundreds of schools, hospitals, colleges, universities and large businesses that have the power to influence the local food supply chain. These entities should be encouraged to source products, such as milk, fruits and vegetables from local producers. To encourage marketing of locally grown food, relationships between local restaurants and local producers should also be encouraged. Improve Access to Financial Resources Revenue sharing, property tax alternatives, cost-‐sharing, tax rebates and grants are all financial incentives that help to attract new farming operations to the community and retain current ones. Tax incentives for farming operations should be encouraged. State agencies can establish loan programs for first-‐time farmers, or provide banks with loan guarantees. MDARD can set aside grants for farm financial planning. Local financial institutions should be educated about the benefits of lending to agricultural businesses and encouraged to do so. Economic development professionals can connect agricultural businesses with the resources needed to apply for SBA loans. Finally, angel investors and venture capitalists should be encouraged to look at entrepreneurial agricultural businesses as a smart way to invest their resources and contribute to the local economy. Improve and Expand Farmers’ Networks Farmers’ networks and co-‐operatives (co-‐ops) are examples of organizations through which farmers share resources that help save costs or encourage innovation and help to expand the capacity of these groups. Economic development coordinators and non-‐governmental organizations should initiate support for these types of networks. Some successful examples of current networks include the Michigan Farmers Market Association, which provides services such as insurance, education, policy support and peer-‐to-‐peer networking to members.25 The Starting Block Incubator in Hart, Michigan provides licensed commercial facilities, entrepreneurial education, and peer-‐to-‐peer networking to food and natural resource related businesses26. Networks should have access to production, market and other data that can show trends in the local food supply chain.

25 http://www.mifma.org/home/ 26 http://www.startingblock.biz/about.htm

of 24

Make Information About Local Agriculture Accessible It is critical to educate planners, economic developers, policymakers, retailers, consumers, and youth about what is grown in our region and how supporting local agriculture benefits the economy in the Greater Lansing region. Regional leaders could develop a promotional campaign to educate and collaborate with these audiences to promote local agriculture. Farmers themselves need access to education, including assistance with business plans, production, and management.27 This can be achieved with the development of start-‐up assistance apprenticeships. Access to information on marketing materials, including information on supply, demand, and markets is also crucial. Farmers also need information on best practices and new technologies that could improve or make their operations more innovative, perhaps meeting a certain market need. Groups that provide services to farmers, like the MSU Agricultural Product Center and MSU Extension, and other non-‐governmental organizations, should hold conferences and disseminate newsletters and brochures with information about new agricultural technologies.

Conclusion Agriculture and agriculture-‐based businesses are key drivers to Greater Lansing’s regional economy. This plan was developed to further encourage agriculture economic development in the region. Recommendations include:

• Include Agriculture in Local Economic Development Planning • Develop Zoning that Supports Innovative Farming Activities • Encourage Development in Non-‐Agricultural Areas • Attract Agriculture Processing Facilities to the Region • Encourage Agricultural Entrepreneurship • Link Agricultural Activities to Community Development Efforts • Advocate for Government Support • Market Our Agricultural Products • Improve Access to Financial Resources • Improve and Expand Farmers’ Networks • Make Information About Local Agriculture Accessible

It is the aim of this plan’s authors that local economic developers, planners, agriculture-‐based business owners, farmers, local officials, and other stakeholders will work together to implement these recommendations. Many of these strategies will require additional funding to complete. For example, follow-‐on projects could include: convening stakeholders to draft a model zoning ordinance that is favorable to agribusinesses; identifying and cataloguing resources for farmers, economic 27 Cocciarelli, S., Smalley, S. and Hamm, M. (2011). Farm Viability and Development: Michigan Good Food Work Group Report No. 4 of 5. K. Colasanti (ed.) East Lansing, MI.

of 24

development professionals, and zoning officials; or developing a public outreach campaign on agriculture’s impact to the regional economy. Project partners are committed to exploring funding sources to implement this plan, which will support our rich agricultural heritage, create job growth, and enhance our quality of life.

of 24

APPENDICES

Tri-‐County Agriculture: The Status, Conditions, and Economic Impacts Report

Farmer Survey Results

Tri-‐County Agricultural Zoning Assessment

A REPORT ON CLINTON, EATON AND INGHAM COUNTIES

MICHIGAN TRI-COUNTY AGRICULTURE

status, conditions andeconomic impactsTH

E

August 31, 2011

BY THE LAND POLICY INSTITUTE AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

08.31.11

Support for this project was provided by Project

GREEEN at Michigan State University and the

W.K. Kellogg Foundation through the People

and Land Initiative, administered by the MSU

Land Policy Institute (LPI) and Public Sector

Consultants. The Land Policy Institute would

like to thank our partners on this project:

� The Tri-County Regional Planning

Commission;

� The Ingham County Agricultural

Preservation Board;

� The Clinton County Economic

Development Alliance;

� The Eaton County Community

Development Department;

� The MSU Department of Agriculture,

Food and Resource Economics; and

� Kuntzsch Business Services.

About Land Policy Research

Research and analysis is supported by the Land

Policy Research (LPR) team at the Land Policy

Institute at Michigan State University.

Tyler BorowyResearch Analyst

Ben CalninData and Informatics Coordinator

Melissa GibsonResearch Manager

Mary Beth GraebertAssociate Director for Programs and Operations

Acknowledgements

repo

rt

TRI-COUNTY AGRICULTURE

In order to ensure that agriculture remains

a sustainable and viable resource for

the Tri-County Region of the Greater

Lansing Area (Clinton, Eaton and Ingham

counties in Mid-Michigan) and a vital part of

the state’s economy, an agricultural economic

development plan is needed to focus regional

efforts and bring greater awareness to the

critical role agriculture and agricultural

businesses can play as part of a comprehensive

economic development strategy. To achieve

this, the Land Policy Institute (LPI) at

Michigan State University (MSU); the Ingham

County Agricultural Preservation Board; the

Tri-County Regional Planning Commission;

the MSU Department of Agriculture, Food

and Resource Economics; the Clinton County

Economic Development Alliance; and the

Eaton County Community Development

Department Alliance partnered to develop

the Tri-County Regional Agricultural Economic

Development Plan. The planning process

consists of five steps, that once complete, will

comprise the Agricultural Economic Development

Plan, including:

� A regional agricultural sector baseline

assessment (this report).

� A series of listening sessions involving

farmers, citizens, local planning

officials, local and regional leaders, and

other policy makers (completed in the

spring of 2011).

� A survey of farmers to assess the

relationship between agriculture and

economic development in the region

(May–June, 2011).

� An assessment of zoning ordinances

and master plans pertaining to

agricultural land uses (June 2011).

� The development of A Plan for

Agricultural Business in the Greater Lansing

Region (August 2011).

This report presents the regional agricultural

baseline assessment of the Tri-County

Region. It highlights county-level statistics on

agricultural production and sales, examines

the changes that have occurred over the

10-year period from 1997 to 2007, in five-

TRI-COUNTY AGRICULTURE: Status, Conditions and Economic Impacts

THIS REPORT PRESENTS THE REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF THE TRI-COUNTY REGION (CLINTON, EATON AND INGHAM COUNTIES) OF THE GREATER LANSING AREA. IT HIGHLIGHTS COUNTY-LEVEL STATISTICS ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND SALES, EXAMINES THE CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED OVER THE 10-YEAR PERIOD FROM 1997 TO 2007, IN FIVE-YEAR INCREMENTS, AND ESTIMATES THE REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR.

Executive Summary

i

the status, conditions and economic impacts

land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

year increments (U.S. Census of Agriculture

information is released every five years),

and estimates the regional economic impact

of the agricultural sector. Having a firm

understanding of the status and conditions of

the agricultural industry and the contribution

it makes to the local economy, and the

promotion of such information and the sector’s

needs, can bring greater awareness to this

sector of the economy—which is often ignored

in economic development planning. This

report is one step in promoting awareness

and understanding of the status of tri-county

agriculture in Mid-Michigan.

When examining agricultural statistics

for the Tri-County Region, Table 1 suggests

that agriculture in the Tri-County Region is

diverse and relatively strong, but that it also

may face some challenges. In 2007, its sales

contributions to Michigan’s agricultural

economy (5.6%) are slightly less than its

percentage of land in farms (6.8%) and its total

number of farms (6.1%). A minor decline in

sales between 1997 and 2002 was overcome by

a sizeable gain between 2002 and 2007. From

1997–2007, tri-county agriculture kept pace

with the state in terms of sales, but did not

exceed the state trend.

As a robust sector of our regional and state

economies, understanding the economic

impacts of agriculture to the regional economy

is necessary for increasing agricultural

awareness and encouraging its incorporation

into economic development plans. Table

2 presents the total economic impact of

agriculture in the Tri-County Region (in 2007

dollar values), which includes:

� $68 million in labor income;

� $114 million in property-type income;

Table 1: Tri-County Region Agricultural Statistics for 1997, 2002, and 2007

Michigan Tri-County RegionTri-County % of

State Total1997 2002 2007 1997 2002 2007 1997 2002 2007

Crops ($1,000) $2,476,501 $2,268,123 $2,763,840 $126,805 $111,760 $144,932 5.1% 4.9% 5.2%

Livestock, Poultry, and Their Products ($1,000) $1,476,796 $1,353,415 $2,011,332 $94,071 $83,159 $121, 323 6.4% 6.1% 6%

Total Sales ($1,000) $3,953,297 $3,621,538 $4,775,172 $220,876 $194,918 $266,256 5.6% 5.4% 5.6%

Number of Farms 53,519 53,315 56,014 3,507 3,418 3,409 6.6% 6.4% 6.1%

Land in Farms (Acres) 10,443,935 10,142,958 10,031,807 702,348 679,152 679,982 6.7% 6.7% 6.8%

Harvested Cropland (Acres) 6,989,300 6,827,903 6,859,081 514,972 515,271 523,490 7.4% 7.6% 7.6%

Sources: Table created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2011. Data from the 2002 and 2007 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture. Note: See Appendix B for Global Commodity Price Index.


land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

ii

repo

rt

TRI-COUNTY AGRICULTUREiii

� More than 5,182 jobs; and

� Approximately $437 million in

economic output.

A hypothetical 5% increase in agricultural

sales would create an additional:

� $3.4 million in labor income;

� $5.7 million in property-type income;

� 259 new jobs; and

� $22 million in economic output.

The Tri-County Region is endowed with

a variety of land cover types. The greater-

metropolitan area of Lansing includes East

Lansing, Delta Township, Delhi Township

and Meridian Township. Several nearby cities

include St. Johns, Dewitt, Charlotte, Eaton

Rapids, Mason and Williamston. Outside of

the region’s urbanized area, predominant land

cover includes agricultural types, primarily

those devoted to row crops and grains, hay,

and seeds. Natural land types compose the

majority of the remainder of land cover in the

region (see Figures 1 and 2).

Based on Cropland Data Layer (CDL) and

U.S. Census of Agriculture information, the

following briefly highlight agricultural figures

of the three counties included in the Tri-

County Region:

Clinton County

� Contains 41% of the total cropland in

the region, which is highest among the

three counties.

� Regionally, it ranked first in total

agricultural sales, with a value of

$137.4 million in 2007 (adjusted to

2000 dollar values), with more than

$83.2 million in livestock, poultry and

their products.

Ingham County

� In 2007, had the second largest value

of sales in the region, at $70.2 million

(adjusted to 2000 values).

� Had high sales in grains, oilseeds, dry

beans, and dry peas along, with milk

and other dairy products from cows

accounting for most of these sales.

Table 2: Contribution of Agriculture to the Tri-County Region’sEconomy for 2007

Impact Category Direct Indirect Induced TotalLabor Income $35,649,535 $20,197,015 $12,461,951 $68,308,501

Property-Type Income $82,409,608 $24,078,052 $7,900,661 $114,388,320

Employment (People) 4,281 527 373 5,182

Value of Output $320,788,996 $77,966,081 $38,283,211 $437,038,288

Sources: Table created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2011. Data from IMPLAN and the 2007 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture.Note: See Appendix C for definitions of Direct, Indirect, Induced and Total Effects.


land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

Figure 2: Proportional Land Cover for theTri-County Region for 2007

Source: Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2011. Data from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2009 Michigan Cropland Data Layer.

iv

Figure 1: Land Cover Types for the Tri-County Region of Mid-Michigan


repo

rt


Eaton County

� With $58.6 million in

total sales (adjusted

to 2000 dollar

values), Eaton County

saw most of its sales

come from grains,

oilseeds, dry beans

and dry peas.

The Tri-County Region has an

established agricultural base

that, based on this report and

listening session responses,

could be expanded and

enhanced to help the region

achieve increased agricultural

economic activity, and could

increase its sales and bolster

its markets.

This report identifies the

region’s agricultural status and conditions

alongside economic impacts. It will be

integrated into the Agricultural Economic

Development Plan, which will assist in linking

agriculture and economic development. The

plan will also help guide the region along

a mutually beneficial path toward regional

and statewide prosperity through expanding

agricultural business opportunities.

v


land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

1

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................................i

Tri-County Agriculture Assessment..............................................................................................................................3

Background.......................................................................................................................................................................3

Agricultural Base of the Tri-County Region.......................................................................................................5

Agriculture-Related Industries, Region-Wide................................................................................................10

Economic Impact of Agriculture in the Tri-County Region......................................................................13

County-Based Assessments of Agriculture in the Tri-County Region of Mid-Michigan.....................16

Clinton County Agriculture Assessment...........................................................................................................18

Eaton County Agriculture Assessment..............................................................................................................22

Ingham County Agriculture Assessment..........................................................................................................26

Conclusion...............................................................................................................................................................................30

Appendices...............................................................................................................................................................................31

References................................................................................................................................................................................38

Table of Contents

Figure 1: Land Cover Types for the Tri-County Region of Mid-Michigan...................................................iv

Figure 2: Proportional Land Cover for the Tri-County Region for 2007......................................................iv

Figure 3: Number of Farm Proprietors and Their Net Income for the Tri-County Region

for 1969–2007........................................................................................................................................................15

Figure 4: Clinton County Land Cover Types............................................................................................................19

Figure 5: Clinton County Proportional Land Cover for 2009...........................................................................21

Figure 6: Number of Clinton County Farm Proprietors and Their Net Income for 1969–2007.........21

Figure 7: Eaton County Land Cover Types................................................................................................................23

Figure 8: Eaton County Proportional Land Cover for 2009..............................................................................23

Figure 9: Number of Eaton County Farm Proprietors and Their Net Income for 1969–2007.............25

Figure 10: Ingham County Land Cover Types..........................................................................................................27

Figure 11: Ingham County Proportional Land Cover for 2009.........................................................................27

Figure 12: Number of Ingham County Farm Proprietors and Their Net Income for 1969–2007.......29

Figure 13: Global Corn, Soybean and Wheat Prices for 1996–2011.................................................................34

Figure 14: Global Beef and Poultry Prices for 1996–2011......................................................................................35

Figures

repo

rt

TRI-COUNTY AGRICULTURE2

Table 1: Tri-County Region Agricultural Statistics for 1997, 2002 and 2007................................................ii

Table 2: Contribution of Agriculture to the Tri-County Region’s Economy for 2007.............................iii

Table 3: Percentage of Total Land Cover Acreages for 2007 for Michigan and the

Tri-County Region................................................................................................................................................7

Table 4: Agricultural Sales by Type for 1997, 2002 and 2007 for Michigan and the

Tri-County Region................................................................................................................................................8

Table 5: Farms and Acreage for 1997, 2002 and 2007 for Michigan and the Tri-County Region.........8

Table 6: Agricultural Sales by Type for 1997, 2002 and 2007 for the Tri-County Region........................9

Table 7: Number of Businesses, Employment and Sales for the Tri-County Region for 2009........11-12

Table 8: Current Contribution of Agriculture to the Tri-County Region’s Economy.............................14

Table 9: Potential Increased Contribution to the Tri-County Region’s Economy from a 5%

Increase in Agricultural Sales.........................................................................................................................14

Table 10: Each County’s Percentage of Agricultural Acreage in the Tri-County Region for 2007.....17

Table 11: Clinton County Land Cover Acreages for 2009....................................................................................18

Table 12: Clinton County Farms and Farm Acreage for 1997, 2002 and 2007.............................................19

Table 13: Clinton County Agricultural Sales by Type for 1997, 2002 and 2007.........................................20

Table 14: Eaton County Land Cover Acreages for 2009.......................................................................................22

Table 15: Eaton County Farms and Farm Acreage for 1997, 2002 and 2007................................................24

Table 16: Eaton County Agricultural Sales by Type for 1997, 2002 and 2007.............................................24

Table 17: Ingham County Land Cover Acreages for 2009...................................................................................26

Table 18: Ingham County Farms and Farm Acreage for 1997, 2002 and 2007............................................28

Table 19: Ingham County Agricultural Sales by Type for 1997, 2002 and 2007........................................28

Tables

Appendix A: Data Sources and Issues..........................................................................................................................31

Appendix B: Global Commodity Sales for Major Crops and Livestock.......................................................34

Appendix C: Glossary of Terms......................................................................................................................................36

Appendices


land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

tri-county region agriculture assessment

MICHIGAN IS ENDOWED WITH THE COMBINATION OF SOIL, CLIMATE AND WEATHER PATTERNS TO CREATE ONE OF THE MOST DIVERSE AGRICULTURE SECTORS IN THE NATION. IT RANKS SECOND ONLY TO CALIFORNIA IN THE DIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS. MICHIGAN HAS A SIGNIFICANT EDGE, WITH ITS UNIQUE ENDOWMENT AND ABUNDANCE OF AVAILABLE WATER TO SUPPORT A WIDE-RANGE OF FARMING OPERATIONS ACROSS THE STATE. THE TRI-COUNTY REGION IS WELL-POSITIONED, BOTH GEOGRAPHICALLY AND ECONOMICALLY, TO CAPITALIZE ON ITS AGRICULTURAL ASSETS.

Tri-County Region

3

Background

Land is the primary resource upon which

American prosperity was built. Until

the mid to late 1850s, the utilization

of land to optimize the performance of land-

based industries (e.g., agriculture or industry)

was the primary focus of land planning and

policy. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander

Hamilton vigorously debated the future of the

U.S. development of land. Jefferson believed

that the republic’s strength lay in its agrarian

roots and a decentralized government.

Hamilton advocated for industry in urban

centers and a strong and efficient central

federal government. Clearly, parts of both

philosophies prevailed and, as a result, both

agriculture and industry have flourished since

the founding of the United States.

Following the Civil War, a key goal of U.S.

agricultural policy was the enhancement

of agricultural yield and productivity,

while guaranteeing national food security.

Commodity price support programs helped

to mask various inefficiencies inherent

in commodity-focused agriculture, while

obscuring unique market and ecological

opportunities for agriculture at the state and

local levels (Keeney and Kemp, 2003).

Since the Industrial Revolution, however, the

focus on land in the United States has been

more on its potential for development into

non-agricultural uses (such as for locating

manufacturing industries or housing) than on

the maintenance of an agricultural base. The

post-World War II phenomenon of sprawling

cities changed how people perceived land.

Where once it was valued for the quality of its

soil and potential for agricultural production,

it came to be judged by its locational proximity

and building potential. The development

pressure facing farm families, with the promise

of large buy-outs and comfortable retirements,

was and remains enticing, particularly with

the volatile agricultural prices farmers face.

Since the 1983 Dairy and Tobacco Adjustment

Act and the subsequent diminished emphasis

on national government intervention,

repo

rt


agricultural policy development has

increasingly become the responsibility of state

and local governments (Offutt et al., 2004).

For example, in the area of marketing, such

issues as eco-tourism, agro-entertainment,

value-added farm diversification, right-to-farm,

specialty markets, farmland preservation,

direct marketing, new use agriculture

and the management skills of farmers are

increasingly being pursued at the state level as

opportunities to enhance the competitiveness

and retention potential for agriculture (Babb

and Long, 1987). Simultaneously, the aesthetic

and ecological dimensions of the industry are

also becoming more clearly illuminated (Offutt

et al., 2004).

The enhancement of farm viability has, thus,

become an agricultural policy goal at state

and local levels (Adelaja and Sullivan, 1998).

Rapid consolidation of farms and the apparent

limited viability of many mid-size farms,

in the 1960s and 1970s, led many states to

explore mechanisms for direct intervention

in the economic plight of state agriculture.

In such states as Iowa, Michigan, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey and

Ohio, policies are being implemented to

address viability issues.

The debate about the future survival of

agriculture has gone well beyond the discourse

in the 1980s about farm viability (Adelaja

and Rose-Tank, 1988; Adelaja et al., 1989).

Farmers must coexist with their neighbors

and take advantage of the unique local features

in order to survive well into the future.

Water management practices, chemical

usage strategies, good neighbor relations,

participation in federal conservation programs

(e.g., Conservation Reserve Programs), generally

accepted agricultural management practices

(GAAMPs) and other factors that contribute to

sustainability could potentially impact viability.

The chemistry between agriculture and

economic development can certainly be

traced back to Jefferson and Hamilton. Yet

its modern roots took shape in the 1960s.

Johnston and Mellor (1961) discuss the false

dichotomy between agricultural and industrial

development, arguing that agriculture’s role in

economic development is primarily dependent

on the amount of people living in rural areas

and at what stage of economic development

a particular community may be facing. In

other words, agricultural and industrial

developments are not mutually exclusive.



land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

5

Yet even today, the economic development

literature has favored the development of the

modern industrial sector over agriculture (Self

and Grabowski, 2007). However, the authors

highlight the importance and potentially high

economic impacts of agricultural technology

in re-establishing agriculture as having a vital

role in economic development. They also state

that more recent economic models have found

significant contributions to economic growth

from agriculture and agricultural technologies.

Regardless of the literature, experience

has shown that over the past few decades,

rural and small town poverty—resulting

from slowdowns in agriculture and

manufacturing—has taken its toll on many

communities. Michigan was not immune

to this slowdown. The economic declines

in rural communities have been a result of

high interest rates, farmland speculation

and over-production (Blakely and Bradshaw,

2002). As industries and farms collapsed, so

too did employment levels, which had a harsh

ripple-effect throughout rural communities

(Blakely and Bradshaw, 2002). Furthermore,

the fluctuation of global commodity prices,

and the decisions of manufacturing firms and

other raw-material-extracting businesses

to close plants or relocate, has exacerbated

the negative economic and social effects on

communities (Blakely and Bradshaw, 2002).

Surely, such challenges, when combined with

speculative real estate development pressure,

necessitate the need to closer examine the

potential positive interactions of agriculture

and economic development.

Recognizing the importance of this

interaction, this report summarizes the

agricultural base of the Tri-County Region

(Clinton, Eaton and Ingham counties) of

Mid-Michigan to underscore the current

agricultural assets and the changes that have

occurred in recent years. The report does not

delve into rural challenges and poverty, and

how past economic development efforts have

targeted them, but merely presents the current

trends and conditions of agriculture and

agriculture-related businesses.

Agricultural Base of the Tri-County Region

Despite projected statewide losses of farmland,

Michigan’s agricultural production is expected

to increase, due to technological advances

and farm specialization (Leholm et al., 2003).

However, the question remains: As farms

become more productive will they also become

more profitable and economically viable, and

how will agri-business opportunities play a

role? The effects of climate change may also

affect Michigan agriculture, as other regions

become too arid for diverse crop production,

or as cooler climates—such as Michigan’s—

experience changes in their production

potential. This may also provide interesting

opportunities for agricultural diversification

and alternative energy production.

The issues mentioned above are important

to consider for farms and farmers in the Tri-

County Region too. The agricultural landscape

of Mid-Michigan is varied and diverse, with few

elevation changes providing prime landscape for

row crops. The three counties of Clinton, Eaton

repo

rt



and Ingham are located in this region of the

state, and their central location and proximity

to the State Capitol and Michigan State

University offer unique market opportunities

and partnerships. All three counties have

harvested cropland acreage and total sales

greater than the state’s county average of 82,640

acres and $69.3 million, respectively.

By examining the agricultural base and sales

between 1997 and 2007, it is possible to see

how agriculture has changed in the Tri-County

Region. It is important to understand the path

agriculture has been on before suggesting

modifications to that path. It is also important

to understand the agri-business opportunities

that may be present. A breakdown of the acres

of farmland harvested by crop for the year 2009

(based on Cropland Data Layer (CDL) data),

as well as acreage devoted to other uses for the

state of Michigan and the Tri-County Region’s

percentage of the state’s total is presented in

Table 3. This snapshot in time reveals that in

2009, nearly three times as much land was

devoted to agricultural production, and nearly

two-and-a-half times as much devoted to

natural land types than to urban/developed

land. This exemplifies the highly rural/

agricultural nature of the region and the need

for targeted economic development planning

for agriculture and agri-businesses.

As of the 2007 Census of Agriculture, the Tri-

County Region accounted for 7.6% of the state’s

harvested cropland, and 6.1% of the state’s

farms, and contributed 5.6% of the state’s total

sales (see Tables 4 and 5). However, the region’s

share of the state’s total farms decreased from

6.6% in 1997 to 6.1% in 2007, its share of land

(acres) in farms increased from 6.7% in 1997 to

6.8% in 2007, its acreage of harvested cropland

increased to 7.6% from 7.4%, and its share of

the state’s total sales remained steady at 5.6%

from 1997 to 2007. It would appear that the

tri-county’s portion of the state’s farms, acreage

and total sales of agricultural products has

remained virtually unchanged from 1997 to

2007. During the same period, the region lost

98 farms and retained land in farms at a rate

similar to the state—the state lost 3.9% and the

region 3.1%. Michigan’s total harvested cropland

decreased by 1.9% from 1997 to 2007, while

the same measure for the Tri-County Region

increased by 1.7%. Thus, while the statewide

trend of declining land in farms and harvested

cropland was occurring, the Tri-County Region

showed similar trends with regard to acreage

of land in farms, but did not trend downward

in its acreage of harvested cropland like the

state. A loss of land in farms is attributed to

urbanization, sale of farms, and farmland being

succeeded by fallow or idle cropland.

According to the 2007 U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural

Statistics Survey (NASS) Census of

Agriculture, there are 679,982 acres of

farmland, with total sales of more than $320

million ($266 million when adjusted for

inflation to the year 2000) in the Tri-County

Region1 (see Tables 5 and 6). The region

experienced a decline of nearly $26 million in

sales between 1997 and 2002, followed by an

increase of more than $71 million from 2002 to

1. All dollar values reported have been adjusted for inflation to the year 2000 (a census year) for ease of interpretation and comparison across years. For Mid-Michigan, in 2007, total sales were $320.8 million, but when adjusted for inflation to 2000 dollar values, were closer to $266.3 million.

6


land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e


land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

7

Table 3: Percentage of Total Land Cover Acreages for 2007 for Michigan and the Tri-County Region

Crop

State of Michigan

AcresTri-County

Acres

Tri-County Percentage

of StateRow Crops 4,715,007 399,416 8.5%

Corn 2,587,362.3 194,634.2 7.5%

Sorghum 2,864.1 63.5 2.2%

Soybeans 2,120,536.6 204,684.9 9.7%

Sunflowers 2,326.3 16.3 0.7%

Sweet Corn 1,673.1 16.3 1%

Popping or Ornamental Corn 244.9 0.8 0.3%

Grain, Hay, Seeds 1,439,805 112,494 7.8%

Barley 12,349.9 74.4 0.6%

Winter Wheat 736,133 72,992.3 9.9%

Other Small Grains 484.3 1.5 0.3%

Winter Wheat and Soybean Double Crop 580.4 4.6 0.8%

Rye 11,235.6 44.2 0.4%

Oats 40,556.3 185.2 0.5%

Speltz 1,055.4 289.8 27.5%

Alfalfa 637,410.2 38,901.9 6.1%

Other Crops 419,359 2,969 0.6%

Sugarbeets 116,896 492.1 0.4%

Dry Beans 202,890 498.3 0.2%

Potatoes 39,405 103.8 0.3%

Other Crops 3,978 1.5 0%

Misc Vegetables, Fruits 47,455 189.1 0.4%

Onions 1,093 176.7 16.2%

Peas 2,750 0.8 0%

Herbs 1,986 1,438.3 72.4%

Clover/Wildflowers 2,906 68.2 2.3%

Open Non-Crop 133,359 1,922 1.4%

Fallow Idle Cropland 133,359 1,921.8 1.4%

Urban/Developed 4,363,131 163,377 3.7%

Natural Land Types 25,164,736 409,782 1.6%

Water 849,491 6,598 0.8%Source: Table created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2011. Data from the 2009 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Cropland Data Layer.Note: Tree crops have been excluded due to inability to distinguish tree crops from natural land types. See Appendix A for more information.

repo

rt


2007 (see Table 6). This could be attributed to

the temporary spike in sales of corn for ethanol

products, and may not represent an actual

sustainable increase in sales. Yet, over the 10-

year period, the number of acres of harvested

cropland increased by 1.7%, increasing from

514,972 to 523,490. Meanwhile, the number of

acres of land in farms declined from 1997 to

2007, going from 702,348 to 679,982—a 3.2%

decline. Regardless, sales per acre (using land

in farms) increased from $314.48 to $391.56 per

acre from 1997 to 2007 (dollar values adjusted

to year 2000 values), thus illustrating an

upward trend in sales and productivity during

the decade.

During this 10-year period, the sales of

crops and livestock (including poultry and

their products) remained relatively evenly

distributed between the two groups, with

sales from crops exceeding those of livestock

products by $23.6 million in 2007 (see Table 6).

Of crop sales in 2007:

� More than 83% came from grains,

oilseeds, dry beans and dry peas.



State Total1997 2002 2007 1997 2002 2007 1997 2002 2007

Number of Farms 53,519 53,315 56,014 3,507 3,418 3,409 6.55% 6.4% 6.1%

Land in Farms (Acres) 10,443,935 10,142,958 10,031,807 702,348 679,152 679,982 6.72% 6.7% 6.8%

Harvested Cropland (Acres) 6,989,300 6,827,903 6,859,081 514,972 515,271 523,490 7.37% 7.6% 7.6%

Table 4: Agricultural Sales by Type for 1997, 2002 and 2007 for Michigan and the Tri-County Region

Table 5: Farms and Acreage for 1997, 2002 and 2007 for Michigan and the Tri-County Region


State Total1997 2002 2007 1997 2002 2007 1997 2002 2007

Crops ($1,000) $2,476,501 $2,268,123 $2,763,840 $126,805 $111,760 $144,932 5.12% 4.93% 5.24%

Livestock, Poultry, and Their Products ($1,000) $1,476,796 $1,353,415 $2,011,332 $94,071 $83,159 $121, 323 6.37% 6.14% 6.03%

Total Sales ($1,000) $3,953,297 $3,621,538 $4,775,172 $220,876 $194,918 $266,256 5.59% 5.38% 5.58%

Source: Table created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2011. Data from the 2007 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture.

Source: Table created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2011. Data from the 2007 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture. Note: Sales figures adjusted to year 2000 values. See Appendix B for Global Commodity Price Index.

repo

rt



land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

Table 6: Agricultural Sales by Type for 1997, 2002 and 2007 for the Tri-County Region

Item 1997 2002 2007Crops $126,804,630 $111,760,320 $144,932,110

Grains, Oilseeds, Dry Beans, Dry Peas - $84,616,320 $120,950,9520

Vegetables, Melons, Potatoes, Sweet Potatoes - $7,352,640 $4,986,640

Fruits, Tree Nuts, Berries - $1,108,800 $984,380

Nursery, Greenhouse, Floriculture, Sod - $12,326,400 $10,656,370

Cut Christmas Trees, Short-Rotation Woody Crops - $545,280 $1,069,040

Other Crops, Hay - $5,810,880 $6,286,420

Livestock, Poultry, and their Products $94,071,190 $83,159,040 $121,322,760

Poultry, Eggs $204,370 - $234,060

Cattle, Calves $19,948,010 $16,543,680 $18,252,530

Milk, Other Dairy Products from Cows $61,198,650 $58,435,200 $92,047,830

Hogs, Pigs $9,718,810 $5,588,160 $3,985,660

Sheep, Goats, Their Products - $407,040 $428,280

Horses, Ponies, Mules, Burros, Donkeys - $1,746,240 -

Aquaculture - - -

Other Animals, Other Animal Products - - -

Value of Agricultural Products Sold Directly to Individuals for Human Consumption $887,030 $1,525,440 $1,498,980

Total Sales* $220,875,820 $194,919,360 $266,254,870

Average Sales per Farm** $62,718.41 $56,817.28 $77,801.16

For the purpose of comparison, all dollar values have been adjusted for inflation to the year 2000. Missing values (-) exist due to data limitations and non-disclosure policies of the Census of Agriculture. Missing values do not necessarily represent non-activity.*Total Sales does not include “Value of Agricultural Products Sold Directly to Individuals for Human Consumption.” It is a separate category that includes sales from roadside stands and other direct interactions between farmer and consumer. These total sales figures are non-rounded calculations, which match total sales information in Table 4.**Average Sales per Farm was calculated by summing the average sales per farm for each of the three counties, and dividing by three. Source: Table created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2011. Data from the 2007 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture. See Appendix B for Global Commodity Price Index.

� Corn and soybean sales accounted for

50% and 39% of sales, respectively.

� Seven percent came from the sale of

nursery, greenhouse, floriculture and

sod products.

� The region did

not display strong

sales trends in the fruits,

tree nuts and berries category.


land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

9

repo

rt


Among livestock sales in 2007:

� More than 75% came from milk and

other dairy products from cows.

� Roughly 15% of livestock sales came

from cattle and calves.

� Sales in poultry and egg products

were not strong when compared to

other livestock categories.

The region lost 89 farms from 1997 to 2002,

and subsequently lost nine farms from 2002

to 2007, resulting in an overall decrease in

farms for the region of 98 for the 10-year

period between 1997 and 2007 (see Table 5).

The region’s share of farms within the state

also declined during this period, which is not

surprising considering that the number of

farms statewide increased during the decade.

Nationally, from 1997 to 2007, the nation

(excluding Alaska and Hawaii) lost a total of

11,084 farms—a less than 1% reduction.

The following sections will examine

agriculture-related industries, the economic

impact of agriculture to the region, and

county-specific attention of farm and

farming characteristics, upon which

appropriate economic development strategies

can be formulated.

Agriculture-Related Industries, Region-Wide

In order to better identify potential agri-

business expansion opportunities, it is

necessary to know what businesses already

exist, how many people they employ, and what

their sales figures are. Having this information

also helps to identify possible gaps or regional

shortcomings in agri-business activities.

An agriculture industry sector breakdown

of the Tri-County Region reveals that the

greatest number of businesses (excluding all

other miscellaneous crop farming) is in corn

farming, with a total of 206 businesses (see

Table 7). Dairy cattle and milk production, at

128, ranks second. Within support activities

for agriculture and forestry, most businesses

are dedicated to support activities for animal

production (48 businesses). Within the food

manufacturing sub-sector, most businesses

(29) are retail bakeries.

Food Manufacturing has only 79 businesses,

but employs 616 people—the largest ratio of

jobs to businesses (7.8 people per business). On

the other hand, there are 714 Crop Production

businesses that employ 1,373 people, which

is less than two people employed for each

business (1.92). Support Activities for

Agriculture and Forestry also have a larger

ratio of jobs to businesses (4.6). The ratio of

jobs to businesses for Animal Production is

3.06. It is apparent that the Support Activities

and other industries associated with farming



land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

Table 7: Number of Businesses, Employment and Sales for the Tri-County Region for 2009

Source: Table created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2011. Data from the 2009 Dunn and Bradstreet National Establishment Time Series. Note that sales and employment figures presented in this table may be different than in other tables due to counting procedures and other methodologies. Notes: ‘D’ represents non-disclosure of information. Employment and sales figures have been removed for those industry sectors with fewer than five businesses so as to not disclose sensitive data and information on businesses in the region, which may be gleaned from the table above if there are only a few of those businesses present. The rows in the table containing the totals include the non-disclosed figures. Employment figures may be under-represented due to the fact that not all businesses have a Dunn and Bradstreet identification number.

Industry SectorNumber of Businesses

Employment (People) Sales

Crop Production 714 1,373 $97,645,756

Soybean Farming 88 136 $10,477,000

Dry Pea and Bean Farming 8 12 $810,000

Wheat Farming 27 47 $4,022,000

Corn Farming 206 339 $25,012,000

All Other Grain Farming 35 65 $4,600,000

Potato Farming 1 D D

Other Vegetable (except Potato) and Melon Farming 16 85 $7,482,856

Apple Orchards 4 D D

Grape Vineyards 3 D D

Strawberry Farming 1 D D

Berry (except Strawberry) Farming 4 D D

Other Noncitrus Fruit Farming 5 D D

Mushroom Production 1 D D

Nursery and Tree Production 33 143 $7,216,700

Floriculture Production 4 D D

Hay Farming 22 29 $1,748,000

All Other Miscellaneous Crop Farming 256 365 $29,003,200

Animal Production 253 774 $58,468,600Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming 31 61 $3,216,800

Cattle Feedlots 32 53 $5,046,700

Dairy Cattle and Milk Production 128 482 $41,634,400

Hog and Pig Farming 8 10 $964,000

Chicken Egg Production 2 D D

Broilers and Other Meat Type Chicken Production 1 D D

Sheep and Goat Farming 3 D D

Apiculture 2 D D

Horses and Other Equine Production 18 46 $1,380,000

Fur-Bearing Animal and Rabbit Production 1 D D

All Other Animal Production 27 105 $5,394,200


land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

11


land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

Table 7: Number of Businesses, Employment and Sales for the Tri-County Region for 2009 (Cont.)

Source: Table created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2011. Data from the 2009 Dunn and Bradstreet National Establishment Time Series. Note that sales and employment figures presented in this table may be different than in other tables due to counting procedures and other methodologies. Notes: ‘D’ represents non-disclosure of information. Employment and sales figures have been removed for those industry sectors with fewer than five businesses so as to not disclose sensitive data and information on businesses in the region, which may be gleaned from the table above if there are only a few of those businesses present. The rows in the table containing the totals include the non-disclosed figures. Employment figures may be under-represented due to the fact that not all businesses have a Dunn and Bradstreet identification number.

Industry SectorNumber of Businesses

Employment (People) Sales

Support Activities for Agriculture and Forestry 68 313 $22,956,387

Cotton Ginning 1 D D

Soil Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating 10 16 $1,578,200

Crop Harvesting, Primarily by Machine 4 D D

Post-Harvest Crop Activities (except Cotton Ginning) 2 D D

Farm Management Services 1 D D

Support Activities for Animal Production 48 271 $19,565,887

Support Activities for Forestry 2 D D

Food Manufacturing 79 616 $59,933,509

Dog and Cat Food Manufacturing 1 D D

Other Animal Food Manufacturing 9 83 $17,850,000

Soybean Processing 1 D D

Confectionery Manufacturing from Purchased Chocolate 2 D D

Nonchocolate Confectionery Manufacturing 3 D D

Frozen Specialty Food Manufacturing 1 D D

Fluid Milk Manufacturing 2 D D

Dry, Condensed, and Evaporated Dairy Product Manufacturing 1 D D

Ice Cream and Frozen Dessert Manufacturing 2 D D

Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering 7 19 $1,308,000

Meat Processed from Carcasses 1 D D

Poultry Processing 2 D D

Retail Bakeries 29 232 $9,889,010

Commercial Bakeries 8 32 $1,825,600

Cookie and Cracker Manufacturing 1 D D

Flour Mixes and Dough Manufacturing from Purchased Flour 1 D D

Other Snack Food Manufacturing 2 D D

Coffee and Tea Manufacturing 1 D D

Flavoring Syrup and Concentrate Manufacturing 2 D D

Spice and Extract Manufacturing 1 D D

All Other Miscellaneous Food Manufacturing 2 D D

Region Total 1,114 3,076 $239,004,252

repo

rt



land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e


and agriculture are major employers within the

overall agricultural industry.

There are several sectors that appear ripe

for expansion, based on business and

employment numbers. However, the highly

mechanized and efficiency-oriented nature of

some agricultural crops and products makes

expanding employment in those sectors

impractical or inefficient:

� Could tea production or processing

grow, given the amount of mint grown

in Clinton County?

� There are two poultry processing

businesses. Could there be more?

� Chicken egg production has two

businesses. Is there room for expansion

in this sector?

� Clinton County has a strong dairy

cow base. Could dairy processing be

expanded in this county or throughout

the region?

� Are other crops and farms ready

for expansion?

These are important questions to ask in

moving forward with an agricultural economic

development plan and grasping a better

understanding of the impacts agriculture and

its many industries can have on the region.

Economic Impact of Agriculture in the Tri-County Region

The contribution of agriculture to

the local and regional economy is

significant. To conduct an economic

impact assessment of the agricultural

sector of the tri-county economy, the IMPLAN

economic impact analysis tool (a recognized

procedure in estimating the economic impacts

that result from a given situation, in this case

the current level of agricultural sales) was

utilized. These impacts were then traced

through the effects on labor income, property-

related income, employment and value of output

in the region. They are classified into direct

impacts (the first-impacted sectors); indirect

impacts (effects on other related sectors, as a

result of impacts on first-affected sectors); and

induced effects (subsequent effects transmitted

through the rest of the sectors linked to the

changes in income and consumption). The total

economic impact traces all these effects across

interconnected sectors.

The IMPLAN analysis tool was applied to

the Tri-County Region so as to isolate the

effect of agriculture at the regional scale. The

IMPLAN tool obtains data from several sources

to construct its database, which is utilized to

measure economic impacts of a specific event.

Despite already having available agricultural

industry sales for 2007 within IMPLAN, Census

of Agriculture 2007 sales values were used to

supplement already existing data and were then

analyzed for this exercise. These values are used

13

repo

rt


Table 9: Potential Increased Contribution to the Tri-County Region’s Economy from a 5% Increase in Agricultural Sales

Impact Category Direct Indirect Induced TotalLabor Income $1,782,477 $1,009,851 $623,098 $3,415,425

Property-Type Income $4,120,480 $1,203,903 $395,033 $5,719,416

Employment (People) 214 26 19 259

Value of Output $16,039,450 $3,898,304 $1,914,161 $21,851,914

Source: Table created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2011. Data from IMPLAN and the 2007 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture.

to estimate the regional impact of the existing

agriculture industry on the local economy, and

to isolate the effects as they trickle through the

economy. Impacts on the surrounding regions

and the state as a whole are not included.

In Table 8, the estimated economic impacts to

the Tri-County Region of current agricultural

sectors in the tri-county economy are

presented, including the direct, indirect

and induced impacts, all in 2007 dollar

values. Currently, agriculture-related sectors

contribute a total of:

� $68,308,501 in labor income;

� $114,388,320 in property-type income;

� 5,182 jobs; and

� $437,038,288 in value of economic output.

In addition to estimating the current value

of agriculture’s contribution to the Tri-

County Region, a hypothetical projection was

conducted to estimate the contribution to the

local economy if the agriculture sector were to

increase by 5% in agricultural output across

the board. Table 9 presents the additional

total, direct, indirect and induced economic

impacts that could result from a 5% increase in

agricultural sales:

� $3,415,425 in labor income,

� $5,719,416 in property-type income,

tri-county region agriculture assessmentre

port


Table 8: Current Contribution of Agriculture to the Tri-County Region’s Economy1

2

2. Forestry, hunting, fishing—commercial and otherwise—were not included in the measurement of agricultural impacts in the Tri-County Region, but are integrated with support services for agriculture within the modeling software. Hence, relative weight of the forestry/hunting/fishing sectors was subtracted from the total support services sector to arrive at an estimate of agricultural support services.

14

Impact Category Direct Indirect Induced TotalLabor Income $35,649,535 $20,197,015 $12,461,951 $68,308,501

Property-Type Income $82,409,608 $24,078,052 $7,900,661 $114,388,320

Employment (People) 4,281 527 373 5,182

Value of Output $320,788,996 $77,966,081 $38,283,211 $437,038,288

Source: Table created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2011. Data from IMPLAN and the 2007 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture.


land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

Figure 3: Number of Farm Proprietors and Their Net Income for the Tri-County Region for 1969–2007

Source: Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2011. Data from the Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table CA30, April 2009. See Appendix B for Global Commodity Price Index.Note: Income figures adjusted for inflation to year 2000.

� 259 jobs and

� $21,851,914 in value of economic output.

Figure 3 depicts the number of farm

proprietors and their net income in the Tri-

County Region from 1969 to 2007. The graph

indicates that the number of farm proprietors

has steadily declined from roughly 5,000 to

approximately 3,400. Meanwhile, their net

income (adjusted for inflation) fluctuated

greatly during the period. Since 1969, net

income dropped below $0 three times. In 1989,

farm proprietors’ income reached $30,000,000.

However, in 2001, this figure dropped to

-$20,000,000. Since then, income figures

have remained positive. Over the course of

the entire period, while

varying greatly, net income

remained relatively unchanged

(when adjusting for inflation).

To conclude this section, it is apparent

that the total economic impact of

agriculture in the region is impressive.

Yet, upon examining net income figures

over time, ensuring a profitable agricultural

economy is far from guaranteed. Regardless, the

potential for growth in the agriculture sectors

should not be ignored in economic planning,

but investigated and strategically engaged for

a diverse and well-rounded economy. The next

section highlights trends and conditions in

Clinton, Eaton and Ingham counties.

15

repo

rt


County-Based Assessmentscounty-based assessments of the tri-county region

16

The remainder of this report reviews

NASS data for the years 1997, 2002

and 2007, and Michigan CDL map

information for 2009 at the county level. All

dollar values reported have been adjusted

for inflation to the year 2000 (a census year)

for ease of interpretation and comparison

across years.

While the tables and figures shown

throughout this section highlight information

pertinent only to one county, comparisons

are made to other counties throughout this

section. The bulleted list below is designed to

help make those comparisons.

For Each County:

� Land coverage for 2009 is presented

and illustrates the breakdown of

acreages for the given year. This

information compares data from

Tables 12 (Clinton County), 15 (Eaton

County) and 18 (Ingham County).

� Land coverage acreages are depicted

using CDL imagery. This information

compares data from Figures 4 (Clinton

County), 7 (Eaton County) and 10

(Ingham County).


land

pol

icy

inst

itut

eTable 10: Each County’s Percentage of Agricultural Acreage in the

Tri-County Region for 2007


Agricultural Acreage PercentageClinton 233,342 41.2%

Eaton 176,885 31.3%

Ingham 155,695 27.5%

Total 565,922 100%

� A graphical representation of land

coverage is portrayed. This information

compares data from Figures 5 (Clinton

County), 8 (Eaton County) and 11

(Ingham County).

� Basic farm statistics are shown, such as

number of farms, land in farms, average

farm size and harvest cropland. This

information compares data from Tables

12 (Clinton County), 15 (Eaton County)

and 18 (Ingham County).

� The number of farm proprietors

and net income is disclosed. This

information compares data from

Figures 6 (Clinton County), 9 (Eaton


� The sales of crops,

livestock and other

products for each county are

revealed. This information

compares data from Tables 13

(Clinton County), 16 (Eaton


Key points of interest are identified and

discussed, along with significant changes or

variations over time, for each county. Table 10

lists each county’s percentage of agricultural

acreage in the region in 2007 and shows that

the majority of the region’s farmland is in

Clinton County, followed by Eaton, then by

Ingham. Overall, the region boasts more than a

half-million acres of agricultural land.


land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

17

repo

rt


Table 11: Clinton County Land Cover Acreages for 2009

clinton county assessment of agriculture

Clinton CountyCrop Acres

Row Crops 156,438

Corn 78,799

Sorghum 60

Soybeans 77,562

Sunflowers 6

Sweet Corn 11

Popping or Ornamental Corn 0

Grains, Hay, Seeds 47,244

Barley 2

Winter Wheat 27,427

Other Small Grains 1

Winter Wheat and Soybean Double Crop 5

Rye 31

Oats 106

Speltz 30

Alfalfa 19,642

Other Crops 1,918

Dry Beans 368

Potatoes 18

Other Crops 1

Misc Vegetables, Fruits 80

Onions 28

Peas 1

Herbs 1,372

Clover/Wildflowers 50

Open Non-Crop 1,005

Fallow Idle Cropland 1,005

Urban/Developed 39,967

Natural Land Types 117,529

Water 2,815

18

Source: Table created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2011. Data from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2009 Michigan Cropland Data Layer.

CLINTON WAS THE ONLY COUNTY TO INCREASE ACRES OF LAND IN

FARMS IN THE TRI-COUNTY REGION.

1997–2007

In 1997, Clinton County had 1,286 farms, which

declined to 1,179 by 2002, and then increased

to 1,231 by 2007 (see Table 12). In 2007, Clinton

and Eaton counties both had 1,231 farms. Although

Clinton and Eaton are equal in number of farms,

Clinton County has consistently maintained the

most acres of harvested cropland in the region,

which accounts for about 42% of the region’s

total harvested cropland (see Table 12). Remotely

sensed imagery (see Table 11, Figure 4 and Figure 5)

indicates that of the three counties, Clinton County:

� Has the most planted acres of corn and

soybeans—the region’s most prominent crops.

� Had roughly 21% of its land devoted to

growing both corn and soybeans (see

Figures 4 and 5) in 2009.

� Ranked highest in the region in total acres

of grains, hay and seeds.

� Is the least urbanized/developed county in

the region.

� Possesses the least amount of natural land

types among the three counties (compare

Tables 11, 14 and 17).


land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

Figure 4: Clinton County Land Cover Types


Table 12: Clinton County Farms and Farm Acreage for 1997, 2002 and 2007

1997 2002 2007Number of Farms 1,286 1,179 1,231

Land in Farms (Acres) 256,693 255,673 271,558

Average Size of Farm (Acres) 200 217 221

Harvested Cropland 196,942 200,538 217,655



land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

19

� Is also the state leader in mint grown for

oil. In 2002, Clinton County possessed

76% of the state’s total acreage devoted

to growing herbs (predominantly mint

in Clinton County).2

3

Tables 12 and 13 indicate that from 1997 to

2007, Clinton County:

3. Values are not available for 2007, due to data disclosure limitations.

� Was the only county in the region

to have increased its acreage of land

in farms.

� Increased the amount of land in farms

by 14,865 acres (5.8%).

� Had the highest total sales in the

region. In 2007, total sales equaled

$165.5 million—almost doubling

repo

rt


Table 13: Clinton County Agricultural Sales by Type for 1997, 2002 and 2007

Item 1997 2002 2007Crops $45,793,860 $39,800,640 $54,237,180

Grains, Oilseeds, Dry Brans, Dry Peas - $31,424,640 $45,602,690


Fruits, Tree Nuts, Berries $881,680 $460,800 $285,520


Cut Christmas Trees, Short Rotation Woody Crops - $200,640 $166,000

Other Crops, Hay - $2,589,120 $3,879,420

Livestock, Poultry, and Their Products $54,216,900 $54,913,920 $83,150,230

Poultry, Eggs $18,190 - $70,550

Cattle, Calves $8,860,670 $8,825,280 $10,595,780


Hogs, Pigs $4,191,190 $1,794,240 $1,705,650


Horses, Ponies, Mules, Burros, Donkeys - $163,200 $108,730

Aquaculture - - -

Other Animals, Other Animal Products - - $177,620

Value of Agricultural Products Sold Directly to Individuals for Human Consumption $394,830 $629,760 $520,410

Value of Certified Organically Produced Commodities - $88,320 -

Total Sales $100,010,760 $94,713,600 $137,387,410

Average Sales Per Farm $77,770 $80,334 $111,607

For the purpose of comparison, all dollar values have been adjusted for inflation. They have been adjusted to the year 2000. Missing values (-) exist due to data limitations and non-disclosure policies of the Census of Agriculture. Missing values do not represent non-activity.Source: Table created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2011. Data from the 2007 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture. Note: See Appendix B for Global Commodity Price Index.

repo

rt


clinton county assessment of agriculture

Ingham County’s total sales, which

was $84.6 million.

� Farms increased their average sales per

farm by 44%.

� Is clearly the regional leader in

agriculture.

Compared to the region as a whole (Figure 3),

Figure 6 indicates that Clinton County farm

proprietors had fewer years of not experiencing

net income. Net income only falls below zero

one time between 1969 and 2007 and remained

there for two years (2001 and 2002). Meanwhile,

the number of farm proprietors declined to

roughly 1,400, down from about 2,000.


land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

Figure 6: Number of Clinton County Farm Proprietors and Their Net Income for 1969–2007

Source: Figure created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2011. Data from the Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table CA30, April 2009. Note: See Appendix B for Global Commodity Price Index.

21

Figure 5: Clinton County Proportional Land Cover for 2009


repo

rt


Table 14: Eaton County Land CoverAcreages for 2009

eaton county assessment of agriculture

Eaton CountyCrop Acres

Row Crops 135,157

Corn 62,581

Sorghum 2

Soybeans 72,573

Sunflowers 0

Sweet Corn 0



Barley 0

Winter Wheat 24,033



Rye 1

Oats 17

Speltz 135

Alfalfa 10,949

Other Crops 480

Dry Beans 100

Potatoes 69

Other Crops 1


Onions 145

Peas 0

Herbs 65


Open Non-Crop 301

Fallow Idle Cropland 301



Water 2,257

22


In the Tri-County Region, Eaton County ranks

second to Clinton County in its total amount

of natural land cover categories (see Figues 7

and 8). Eaton County:

� Has higher acreages devoted to

some “other crops,” such as potatoes,

miscellaneous fruits and vegetables and

onions (see Table 14).

� Ranks highest in the region in its amount

of Alfalfa grown.

� Is less urban/developed than Ingham

County, but more so than Clinton County.

� Ranked highest in Poultry and Eggs sales

at $83,000 in the region (see Table 16).

As indicated in Table 15, between 1997 and 2007,

the number of farms in Eaton County decreased

by only 16, but experienced a decrease in acres

in farms, as well as a decline in the average farm

size. In fact, from 1997 to 2007, Eaton County lost

the most acres of land in farms in the region. In

Eaton County:

� Adjusted total sales during 2007 were

$58.6 million in 2000 dollar value ($70.6

million in actual 2007 value).

� For all three years for which data was

available, the county has generally had

the smallest average sales-per-farm in

the region.

EATON COUNTY RANKS HIGHEST IN THE REGION IN THE AMOUNT

OF ALFALFA GROWN AND IN POULTRY AND EGG SALES


land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

Figure 7: Eaton County Land Cover Types

Figure 8: Eaton County Proportional Land Coverfor 2009



23

repo

rt


Table 15: Eaton County Farms and Farm Acreage for 1997, 2002 and 2007

1997 2002 2007Number of Farms 1,247 1,221 1,231




Table 16: Eaton County Agricultural Sales by Type for 1997, 2002 and 2007

Item 1997 2002 2007Crops $43,950,250 $38,781,120 $47,668,560



Fruits, Tree Nuts, Berries - $138,240 $211,650



Other Crops, Hay - $1,587,840 $1,308,080


Poultry, Eggs $103,790 $70,080 $83,000

Cattle, Calves $6,459,590 $4,661,760 $4,217,230


Hogs, Pigs $3,638,000 $2,645,760 $4,814,830


Horses, Ponies, Mules, Burros, Donkeys - $713,280 $557,760

Aquaculture - - -

Other Animals, Other Animal Products - $30,720 $32,370


Value of Certified Organically Produced Commodities - - -

Total Sales $60,976,090 $50,912,640 $58,632,860



Source: Table created by the Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University, 2011. Data from the 2007 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service

repo

rt



land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

eaton county assessment of agriculture

Figure 9: Number of Eaton County Farm Proprietors and Their Net Income for 1969–2007


25

� Has seen both total sales and average

sales per farm decrease from 1997 to

2007—a trend not experienced by

either Ingham or Clinton counties

(although Ingham did decline from

1997 to 2002) (compare Tables 13, 16

and 19). This decline was primarily due

to decreases in sales in the Livestock,

Poultry and Their Products category,

which went from $17 million in 1997 to

$10.9 million in 2007.

Figure 9 shows that Eaton County tracked

more closely with regard to regional net income

trends (see Figure 3 for regional trends) than

did Clinton County. When net income at the

regional level dropped

below zero, it did also in

Eaton County. In addition, there

was much more variation in net income

observed in Eaton County. In other

words, there was greater year-to-year

fluctuation in the county. Furthermore,

net income was close to $5,000,000 in

1969, down to just under $1,000,000 in 2007—a

steeper decline than what is observed at the

regional scale. Meanwhile, the number of farm

proprietors declined to just over 1,200 in 2007,

from roughly 1,550 in 1969. The county had the

most farm proprietors during the mid-1970s and

early 1980s, but has been in decline ever since.

repo

rt


Crop AcresRow Crops 107,821

Corn 53,254

Sorghum 2

Soybeans 54,550

Sunflowers 10

Sweet Corn 5



Barley 72

Winter Wheat 21,533



Rye 12

Oats 62

Speltz 125

Alfalfa 8,311

Other Crops 79

Dry Beans 30

Potatoes 17

Other Crops 0


Onions 4

Peas 0

Herbs 1


Open Non-Crop 616

Fallow Idle Cropland 616



Water 1,526

Table 17: Ingham County Land Cover Acreages for 2009

ingham county assessment of agriculture

Ingham County

26


Ingham County is the most urbanized/

developed county in the Tri-County Region,

with 21% of its land classified as such (see

Table 17 and Figures 10 and 11). In addition,

Ingham County:

� Has fewer farms, land in farms and

harvested cropland than Clinton and

Eaton counties (see Table 18).

� Has a larger average farm size than

Eaton County.

� From 1997 to 2007, the average farm

size decreased.

� Lost 27 farms—not as many as Clinton

County (-55), but more than Eaton County

(-16), from 1997 to 2007.

� The amount of harvested cropland

declined 2.7% from 1997 to 2007.

OF INGHAM COUNTY LAND IS CLASSIFIED AS URBANIZED/DEVELOPED, THE HIGHEST AMOUNT FOR THE REGION

21%


land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

Figure 10: Ingham County Land Cover Types

Figure 11: Ingham County Proportional Land Cover for 2009



27

repo

rt


Table 18: Ingham County Farms and Farm Acreage for 1997, 2002 and 2007

1997 2002 2007Number of Farms 974 1,018 947




Table 19: Ingham County Agricultural Sales by Type for 1997, 2002and 2007

Item 1997 2002 2007Crops $37,060,520 $33,178,560 $43,026,370



Fruits, Tree Nuts, Berries $522,160 $509,760 $487,210



Other Crops, Hay - $1,633,920 $1,098,920


Poultry, Eggs $82,390 $181,440 $80,510

Cattle, Calves $4,627,750 $3,056,640 $3,439,520


Hogs, Pigs $1,889,620 $1,148,160 $1,131,290


Horses, Ponies, Mules, Burros, Donkeys - $869,760 -

Aquaculture - - -

Other Animals, Other Animal Products - $52,800 -


Value of Certified Organically Produced Commodities - - -

Total Sales $59,888,970 $49,292,160 $70,235,430




repo

rt



land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

Figure 12: Number of Ingham County Farm Proprietors and Their Net Income from 1969–2007


29

ingham county assessment of agriculture

Ingham County was the only county in the

region that experienced an increase in the

number of farms from 1997 to 2002 (see Table

18). Alongside Clinton County, its acres

of harvested cropland also increased from

2002 to 2007. From 1997 to 2007, the average

sales per farm increased by 21%. Overall,

both crops and livestock contributed to the

increases in total sales and average sales

per farm in the county. For 2007, Ingham

County ranked just behind Eaton County in

total sales of Poultry and Eggs—total sales

were $80,510 (adjusted for inflation to 2000

dollar values) (see Table

19). Farm proprietors’ net

income in Ingham County also

fluctuated more than in Eaton and

Clinton counties (See Figures 6, 9 and

12). While all counties in the region

experienced a shock in this measure

after September 11, 2001, Ingham

County struggled much sooner, and for a

much longer period of time than the other

counties. Only Clinton County remained

positive in the recession of the early 1980s.

repo

rt


ConclusionBEFORE POLICIES, IDEAS AND INITIATIVES ARE SOUGHT, DISCUSSED AND IMPLEMENTED, IT IS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND WHERE AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-BUSINESS STANDS—ECONOMICALLY AND IN TERMS OF CROP DIVERSITY—BEFORE CHANGES ARE SUGGESTED AND OPPORTUNITIES ARE IDENTIFIED, WHICH ULTIMATELY AIM TO IMPROVE AGRICULTURE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE REGION.

30

The stated goal of this report is to present a regional baseline assessment, highlight

statistics, present agri-businss-related sectors, and estimate the regional economic

impact of agriculture and agri-business. It is designed to be one step of an Agricultural

Economic Development Plan that promotes awareness and understanding of agriculture and agri-

business in relation to economic development in the region. Other steps of the plan include

listening sessions, a survey of farmers and an inventory of zoning ordinances of local units of

government throughout the Tri-County Region. The Agricultural Economic Development Plan’s aim is

to be flexible and evolving, allowing for feedback and modifications based on regional conditions

and changing trends.

Before policies, ideas and initiatives are sought, discussed and implemented, it is necessary to

understand where agriculture and agri-business stands—economically and in terms of crop

diversity—before changes are suggested and opportunities are identified, which ultimately aim

to improve agriculture and its relationship to economic development in the region.


land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

Appendix A: Data Sources and Issues

In 2006, the Land Policy Institute at MSU and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)

National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) entered into a partnership to produce the 2007

Cropland Data Layer (CDL) for Michigan. The funding for that effort was raised through a

cooperative partnership between LPI and collaborating MSU researchers (including the Integrated

Pest Management Program and the Computational Ecology and Visualization Laboratory). The result

was the completion of the 2007 and 2008 CDL and dissemination via partners and through the LPI

informatics unit.

This report relies on data collected and reported by the USDA NASS Census of Agriculture for 1997,

2002 and 2007, as well as CDL data for the year 2009. These two comprehensive sources are the most

reliable for examining the agricultural base and production at the county level in Michigan. This

report presents agricultural acreage, farms, sales and income as reported by the Census of Agriculture

and CDL.

The Census of Agriculture surveys farmers every five years, focusing on different crops and livestock

in each census. As a result, sales data for specific commodities is unavailable/incomplete for the years

discussed in this report. All dollar values reported have been adjusted for inflation to the year 2000

(a census year) for ease of interpretation and comparison across years. The multipliers utilized for the

inflation adjusted dollar values for each year are: 2007 values are adjusted down by 0.83; 2002 values

are adjusted down by 0.96; and 1997 values are adjusted up by 1.07. Hence, the values reported for 2007

and 2002 will be lower in value (deflated to the year 2000) than the actual values in 2002 and 2007,

and values reported for 1997 will be higher.

Several concerns regarding data obtained from the CDL and U.S. Census of Agriculture were

addressed during advisory team meetings. Primarily, those concerns were focused on the accuracy of

acreages for specialty crops reported in the CDL. Such a wide discrepancy between what is reported

in the CDL, and what farmers and other officials know to be true, is problematic. The purpose of the

following paragraphs, therefore, is to address this problem by providing more details on how the CDL

is composed and why acreage numbers are not likely to match.

Appendices

31

repo

rt


Appendix A: Data Sources (Cont.)

First, there are sure to be problems when trying to correctly classify acres of Christmas tree farms, for

example, via satellite imagery when one of the classifications incorporated into the CDL is the Natural

Land Cover Dataset. As its name would indicate, it includes natural land types—one of which is forest

and is sure to include coniferous trees. The CDL metadata section lists the “producer’s accuracy” of

this crop to be 24.43%.

Second, the CDL, by design, was never intended to provide accurate estimates of specialty or

“other crops.” One of the main purposes of the CDL program is to “provide acreage estimates to the

Agricultural Statistics Board for the state’s major commodities.”1

4 Additionally, the CDL relies on

three satellites to provide crop-specific land cover information at a ground resolution of 56 meters.

Additional inputs that aid crop classification and the overall CDL include such sources as the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS), the National Elevation Dataset (NED), the USGS National Land Cover

Dataset 2001 (NLCD), and the NASA Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS). The

metadata of CDL explicitly states that its emphasis is producing agricultural land coverages, and that

“no farmer reported data are derivable from the CDL.”

Third, classification accuracy is cited as being 85–95% correct for the “major crop-specific land cover

categories.” Corn, soybeans and winter wheat are the most accurately predicted crop coverages, with

“producer’s accuracy” being no lower than 93% for each. The “user’s accuracy” is no less than 94%

for each major crop. Producer’s accuracy “indicates the probability that a ground truth pixel will be

correctly mapped,” whereas the user’s accuracy “indicates the probability that a pixel from the CDL

classification actually matches the ground truth data and measures ‘errors of commission.’”

The CDL mapping process goes through a rigorous process in order to achieve the final product. It

can be described as an “adjusted census by satellite.” The process by which the CDL progresses is

based on computer processing, where raw satellite imagery is processed with ancillary layers and

validation, which includes ground truthing layers and a decision tree, to create the final CDL. As

with any statistical or geospatial exercise, errors do occur. The CDL validation process includes

procedures for reducing error. For example, even though there are generally fewer cloudy days during

the summer months when the images are procured, there is the possibility of cloud cover masking the

ground. Over a series of a few days, it is hoped that an overall composite image is secured that avoided

capturing clouds, thus allowing for a more accurate image.

4. USDA, National Agriculture Statistics Service, 2009 Michigan Cropland Data Layer Metadata: http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/metadata/metadata_mi09.htm.

32

http://www.nass.usda.gov/About_NASS/index.asp



land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

The Census of Agriculture also has error problems associated with it. Considering that the Census of

Agriculture Census Mail List contains more than 3.1 million records and that 2.1 million of them were

thought to meet the farm definition, obtaining 100% accuracy is surely impossible. Furthermore, the

census strives to follow-up with correspondence and procedures to ensure that it achieves at least a

75% response rate in all counties. For the 2007 census, the response rate was 85.2%.

The overall procedure utilized by the Census of Agriculture, explained in its own methodology

appendix, employs several components of an overall methodology that adjusts for undercoverage at

the county level, assigns weights and adjusts for non-respondents, and employs complex calibration

algorithms all as part of an attempt to count non-respondent farms. It also verifies reported responses

and checks internal processing for errors. Generally speaking, there are two types of errors to be

concerned about: 1) respondent and enumerator error; and 2) various census-based errors, such as

processing, classification and matching errors. The census fully discloses these sources of error and

offers remedies and adjustments to address them.

It is also important to remember where various statistics and measures are being cited from. The

Census of Agriculture does not break down specialty crops as well as the CDL. This is concerning

when one considers Michigan’s agricultural diversity. This is why acreages are reported from the CDL,

and sales, number of farms and other measures are reported from the census.

Another issue that arises from census data is comparability across multiple time periods. It is not

uncommon for the census to modify its methodology between census years. Therefore, data collected

or counted in 2002 may not be comparable to those from 1997. The Census of Agriculture corrects

this comparability issue, however, by applying 2002 criteria to the previously obtained measurements

obtained in 1997. In most cases, when examining the census data, the current census year being

examined also contains data from the previous census year. This allows for easy five-year comparisons.

33

repo

rt


Appendix B: Global Commodity Sales of Major Crops and Livestock

Global demand for food and fuel can affect price, resulting in fluctuating crop and

livestock prices over time. Market prices for crops peak in 2007–2008, contributing to

rising sales observed in census sales statistics and in Figures 3, 6, 9 and 12. Figures 13

and 14 lend a context for which to compare sales figures throughout the report.

Source: International Monetary Fund (IMF). Reported in nominal U.S. dollars. Not seasonally adjusted. See http://www.imf.org/external/np/res/commod/index.asp.

Figure 13: Global Corn, Soybean and Wheat Prices for 1996–2011

34


land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

Figure 14: Global Beef and Poultry Prices for 1996–2011

35

Source: International Monetary Fund (IMF). Reported in nominal U.S. dollars. Not seasonally adjusted. See http://www.imf.org/external/np/res/commod/index.asp.

repo

rt


Appendix C: Glossary of Terms

Agri-Business (or Agribusines): A general term used to describe any agriculturally related

business activity, whether on- or off-farm.

BEA REIS: The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) provides data and software through the

Regional Economic Information System (REIS). REIS software allows the user to export data

that can be analyzed with IMPLAN, which defines the output levels of all active agricultural

sectors in the local economy. These values are used to estimate the regional impact of the

existing agriculture industry on the local economy to isolate the effects as they trickle through

the economy.

CDL: The Cropland Data Layer (CDL) is administered by NASS and has been in existence since

the early 1970’s. The program’s primary goals are to combine remote sensing imagery, USDA Farm

Service Agency reported data, and NASS survey data to produce unbiased acreage estimates for

major commodities within participating states; and to produce a crop-specific digital land cover

data layer for distribution.

Direct Effects: Used in IMPLAN. The set of expenditures applied to the predictive model (i.e.,

input-output multipliers) for impact analysis. It is a series of (or single) production changes or

expenditures made by producers/consumers as a result of an activity or policy. These initial

changes are determined by an analyst to be a result of this activity or policy. Applying these

initial changes to the multipliers in an IMPLAN model will then display how the region will

respond, economically to these initial changes.

Farm: A farm is currently defined, for statistical purposes, as any place from which $1,000 or

more of agricultural products (crops and livestock) were sold or normally would have been sold

during the year under consideration. This definition has been in place since August 1975—by

joint agreement among U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Office of Management and Budget,

and the Bureau of the Census.

Farm Diversification: To increase the variety of the products of a farm (adapted from Merriam-

Webster Dictionary, online).

Farmland Preservation: The process of maintaining existing farmland for the use of future

generations, which can be achieved through various open space preservation programs, such as

development rights agreements, conservation easements and purchase of development rights.

IMPLAN: The IMPLAN (IMpact analysis for PLANning) economic impact analysis tool is a

recognized procedure for estimating the economic impacts as a result of a given event.

Indirect Effects: Used in IMPLAN. The impact of local industries buying goods and services

from other local industries. The cycle of spending works its way backward through the supply

36


land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

chain until all money exits the local economy, either through imports or by payments to value

added. The impacts are calculated by applying Direct Effects to the Type I Multipliers.

Induced Effects: Used in IMPLAN. The response by an economy to an initial change (direct

effect) that occurs through re-spending of income received by a component of value added.

IMPLAN’s default multiplier recognizes that labor income (employee compensation and

proprietor income components of value added) can support the regional economy. This money is

recirculated through the household spending patterns causing further local economic activity.

Labor Income: Used in IMPLAN. All forms of employment income, including Employee

Compensation (wages and benefits) and Proprietor Income.

Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing: A Manufacturing subsector of the U.S. Census

Bureau North American Industry Classification System.

NASS: The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service

(NASS) conducts yearly surveys and prepares reports related to nearly every aspect of U.S.

agriculture (adapted from online description at http://www.nass.usda.gov/About_NASS/index.asp).

Natural Lands: Defined here as all lands not classified as agricultural or urban. Includes land

covers, such as woodlands, wetlands, grass/pasture, water, shrubland, barren or fallow/idle

cropland. These land covers are identified using remotely sensed imagery from the National Land

Cover Dataset.

Property Type Income: Used in IMPLAN. Other property income includes dividends, interest

payments, rents and profits.

Right-to-Farm: In Michigan, the Right-to-Farm Act, P.A. 93, provides farmers with protection

from nuisance lawsuits and authorizes the Michigan Commission of Agriculture to develop

and adopt Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs) for farms

in Michigan (Michigan Department of Agriculture, online at http://www.michigan.gov/

mda/0,1607,7-125-1566_2311_2313-13052--,00.html).

Value Added: The process of increasing the economic value and consumer appeal of an

agricultural commodity through the use of alternative production and marketing strategies

(Michigan State University Extension, online at http://web1.msue.msu.edu/valueadded/).

Value of Output: Used in IMPLAN. Output represents the value of industry production. In

IMPLAN these are annual production estimates for the year of the data set and are in producer

prices. For manufacturers this would be sales plus/minus change in inventory. For service sectors

production = sales. For Retail and wholesale trade, output = gross margin and not gross sales.

37


http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-1566_2311_2313-13052--,00.html

http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-1566_2311_2313-13052--,00.html

http://web1.msue.msu.edu/valueadded/

repo

rt


Adelaja, A., D. Derr and K. Rose-Tank. 1989. “Economic and Equity Implications of Land-Use Zoning in Suburban Agriculture.” Journal of Agricultural Ethics 2:97–112.

Adelaja, A. and K. Rose-Tank. 1988. “Farm Viability Revisited: A Simultaneous Equation Cash Flow Approach.” Agricultural Finance Review 48:10–24.

Adelaja, A. and K. Sullivan. 1998. “Agricultural Viability at the Urban Fringe.” Working Paper. Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI; and Cook College, Rutgers University, New Jersey, NJ. Available at: http://njsustainingfarms.rutgers.edu/PDF/Agricultural_Viability_at_the_Urban_Fringe.pdf.

Babb, E.M. and B.F. Long. 1987. “The Role of Alternative Agricultural Enterprises in a Changing Agricultural Economy.” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics July: 7–16.

Blakely, E.J. and T.K. Bradshaw. 2002. Planning Local Economic Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Johnston, B.F. and J.W. Mellor. 1961. “The Role of Agriculture in Economic Development.” The American Economic Review 51(4):566–593.

Keeney, D. and L. Kemp. 2003. “A New Agricultural Policy for the United States.” A paper produced for the 2002 NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Sustainability. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis MN; and The Minnesota Project, St. Paul MN. Available at: http://www.mnproject.org/pdf/ANewAgriculturePolicyfortheU.S.byDennisKeeneyLo..pdf.

Leholm, A., R. Vlasin and J. Ferris. 2003. “Michigan’s Agricultural, Forestry, and Mining Industries.” In Michigan at the Millennium, eds. C.L. Ballard, P.N. Courant, D.C. Drake, R.C. Fisher and E.R. Gerber. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Offutt, S., B. Kuhn and M. Morehart. 2004. “Devolution of State Programs Could Broaden States’ Roles in Agricultural Policy.” Amber Waves: The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources and Rural America 10:1–8.

Self, S. and R. Grabowski. 2007. “Economic Development and the Role of Agricultural Technology.” Agricultural Economics 36(3):395–404.

Photos by The Allen Neighborhood Center, pg. 5 (fruit and tomato photos); Andrea Bommarito, pg. v; Aunt Owwee, front cover bottom and pg. 5 (cows); EllenM1, front cover top; Joel Dinda, pgs. 5 and back cover bottom (farm); Martin LaBar, pg. 17; Michigan State University, pg. 35; MSUAgBioResearch, pg. 27; MSU ANR Communications; pgs.19 and. 30; stock.exchng, back cover top; and stock photography, pgs. 4 and 5 (wheat).

References

38


land

pol

icy

inst

itut

e

The Report OnlineThis report is available online at www.landpolicy.msu.edu/Tri-CountyAgReport.

Michigan State University has been advancing knowledge

and transforming lives through innovative teaching, research

and outreach for more than 150 years. MSU is known

internationally as a major public university, with global reach

and extraordinary impact. Its 17 degree-granting colleges

attract scholars worldwide who are interested in combining

education with practical problem solving. www.msu.edu.

The School of Planning Design and Construction will be

known for leading education, research and outreach towards

the integration of planning, design and construction to

create a sustainable built and natural environment. The goal

of SPDC is to create knowledge that enriches communities,

advances economic and family life through leadership, fosters

the development of entrepreneurial creativity, imbues a sense

of social responsibility, promotes the appreciation of cultural

relevance, and above all, advances the understanding of

environmentally beneficial planning, design and construction.

www.spdc.msu.edu

The Land Policy Institute partners with the School of

Planning, Design and Construction at Michigan State

University to provide policy makers at the federal, state, local

level and beyond with science-based tools and solutions that

help build a better quality of life, strengthen the economy and

protect the environment in ways that are fair to all. The LPI

works to encourage collaboration among land use researchers,

policy makers and community organizations.

www.landpolicy.msu.edu.

School of Planning, Design and Construction

39

Land Policy Institute

http://www.landpolicy.msu.edu/Tri-CountyAgReport

repo

rt


LAND POLICY RESEARCH

Land Policy InstituteMichigan State University1405 S. Harrison Road3rd Floor Manly Miles BuildingEast Lansing, MI 48823

517.432.8800517.432.8769 fax

www.landpolicy.msu.edu

Prepared by the Land Policy Institute at MSU, June 2011

Tri-County Farmer Survey: Summary of Results

Strongly disagree

10%

Neutral 2%

Agree 34%

Strongly agree 54%

1. Economic development efforts in this region should include agriculture production as a source of economic growth and stability.

Strongly disagree

4%

Disagree 34%

Neutral 24%

Agree 22%

Strongly agree 16%

2. It is up to the farmers in this region, NOT the community and economic development initiatives, to seek out and expand agricultural markets and opportunities.


Disagree 10%

Neutral 26%

Agree 42%

Strongly agree 18%

Don’t know 4%

3. Local efforts that support the "local food movement" will enhance my farm business.


4. Please rank your level of agreement with the following statements. It is important for our regional

economy to:

Disagree 4%

Neutral 20%

Agree 44%

Strongly agree 32%

a. boost sales and production in specialty crops. Strongly

disagree 4%

Disagree 6%

Neutral 29%

Agree 44%

Strongly agree 15%

Don’t know

2%

b. boost sales in agri-tourism.

Strongly disagree

4%

Disagree 16%

Neutral 32%

Agree 28%

Strongly agree 20%

c. boost sales and production in organic farming.

Strongly disagree

2%

Disagree 4%

Neutral 16%

Agree 56%

Strongly agree 22%

d. increase food processing business.


4. Please rank your level of agreement with the following statements. It is important for our regional

economy to (continued):

Note: These represent weighted results. Number of responses “most important” multiplied by 3; “second most important”

multiplied by 2; “third most important” multiplied by 1. Weighted results were then summed.

Strongly disagree

6%

Disagree 10%

Neutral 10%

Agree 48%

Strongly agree 26%

e. boost sales and production of alternative energy. Disagree

4%

Neutral 10%

Agree 54%

Strongly agree 30%

Don’t know

2%

f. increase farm access to advanced agricultural technologies..

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Agri-tourism

Specialty Crops

Organic farming

Food processing business

Livestock

Alternative energy

Commodity crops

Advanced agricultural technology

5. Considering that the promotion of agriculture is part of the region’s economic development effort, please select three segments from the following areas of focus with the most potential for economic growth in the region.


6. Please rank your level of agreement with the following statements.

Strongly disagree

2% Disagree

4%

Neutral 10%

Agree 50%

Strongly agree 32%

Don’t know

2%

a. The global economy has a significant impact on the success of agriculture in this region.

Strongly disagree

4%

Disagree 14%

Neutral 6%

Agree 32%

Strongly agree 44%

b. Development pressure of agricultural land is a large issue threatening the future of agriculture in this region of the state.

Strongly disagree

2%

Neutral 30%

Agree 50%

Strongly agree 18%

c. Various on-site farm activities like u-pick, festivals, markets and other agriculture

events are important for increasing agricultural sales in our region.


7. What do you see as the greatest opportunities to help strengthen or expand agriculture and ag-related

businesses in the Clinton-Eaton-Ingham county region? Please explain.

Open-ended response. Responses not disclosed.

8. What do you feel is holding back the expansion of agriculture and agri-business in the Clinton-Eaton-

Ingham county region? Please Explain.


Yes 12%

No 64%

Not sure 24%

9. Would you sell your farm if offered a fair market value?


0 5 10 15 20 25

Give it to others

Will it to others

Gift the farm to a conservation organization

Other

Sell it to a family member

Sell it to others

Give it to a family member

Undecided

Will it to a family member

10. What do you plan to do with your land when you retire from farming? Please check all that apply.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

11. Do you provide or allow any of the following farm- and non-farm-related activities on your farm? If so, do you charge a fee?

Provided/allowed

YES: Fee charged


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

12. Please estimate what percent of your agricultural income were from the following market outlets.

76-100%

51-75%

25-50%

16-25%

6-15%

1-5%

None

0 1 2 3 4 5

Biosolids application

Hydroponics

On-farm food processing

Renewable energy (biofuel, wind,solar) production

Organic farming

Other

Specialty crop production

13. Have you expanded your farming operations into any of the following emerging agribusiness activities in the past 5 years? (Please check all that apply.)


Very important 48%

Somewhat important

18%

Neutral 16%

Somewhat important

4%

Didn’t know about the law/ makes no

difference 14%

14. How important is the state Right-to-Farm law to the success of your business?

1-25% 6%

26-50% 4%

51-75% 2%

76-100% 18%

None 70%

15. What percentage of your land is currently enrolled in PA116 (The Farmland and Open Space Preservation Program)?


19%

29%

31%

21%

16. Does your operation generate sufficient revenues to cover your expenses?

a) Yes – enough that my operation is my primary source of income

b) Yes – enough that my operation is my secondary source of income

c) No – my revenues cover my expenses but does not meaningfully contribute to my total income

d) No – my revenues do not cover my expenses

1-5 acres 6%

6-10 acres 10%

11-20 acres 6%

21-40 acres 8%

41-80 acres 17%

81-160 acres 15%

161-500 acres 17%

501 or more acres 21%

17. How many acres do you currently operate?


0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Nursery crops (field only, Christmas trees)

Nursery crops (greenhouse only)

Aquaculture

Poultry

Horses

Other (please specify)

Tree fruit

Berries (blueberries, grapes, raspberries, cranberries)

Vegetables

Other livestock (goats, sheep)

Wood products

Dairy and beef

Field crops (hay, potatoes, sweet potatoes)

Cash grain (corn, soybeans, wheat, barley, oil seeds,…

18. What are the primary crops grown or livestock raised on your farm? (Please check all that apply.)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0-3 years 4-9 years 10-15 years 16-29 years 30-39 years More than 40years

19. For how many years have you been working as a farmer?


22. Please provide any additional comments you think are important and we should know about.


Survey notes:

Total number of respondents from Clinton, Eaton and Ingham Counties: 50

All respondents did not necessarily answer all questions throughout the survey.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Clinton Eaton Ingham Other

20. I operate my farm in __________County (please check all that apply).

18-29 10%

30-39 8%

40-49 6%

50-59 28%

60+ 48%

21. I am between the ages of:

Prepared by Associates at the Planning & Zoning Center at MSU, June 2011 1

Tri-County Agricultural Zoning Assessment

Prepared By: Ryan Soucy, Research Assistant, Planning & Zoning Center Mark Jones, Graduate Assistant, Planning & Zoning Center

Mark Wyckoff, Director, Planning & Zoning Center

A 23-question assessment tool was developed to aid in the identification of agricultural-related provisions found in local master plans and zoning ordinances in the Tri-County Region (Clinton, Eaton and Ingham Counties.) Forty-two jurisdictions consisting of county, township, city and village governments that engage in zoning were assessed using this tool.

Master plans, zoning ordinances and other related ordinances were sought from each community in the study area that were known to engage in planning and zoning. Attempts to obtain documents began through internet searches; primarily the community’s official website or a third-party service, such as Municode (http://www.municode.com/). If documents were not able to be obtained through this method, they were searched at Tri-County Regional Planning Commission’s library. Obtained documents were analyzed using the assessment tool and results for individual communities were recorded and tabulated (see attached spreadsheet).

Of the 48 townships within the study area, 23 were assessed; the remaining townships were not examined due to being under the authority of county planning and zoning. Documents were unable to be obtained from Ingham Township and, as a result, it was the only township with local planning and zoning authority that was not examined. Eighteen cities and villages that possess local zoning, as well as two counties (Clinton and Eaton) and Michigan State University, make up the remainder of the 42 jurisdictions assessed. Ingham County does not engage in planning and zoning at the county level on behalf of local jurisdictions and, therefore, was not included in this total.

Agricultural Planning in the Tri-Counties Master plans within the study area were assessed for the presence of goals, objectives, strategies and action items related to agricultural economic development. Master plan documents were obtained from 26 out of the 42 communities surveyed. Twelve of the 26 master plans were created or updated since the passage of the Michigan Planning Enabling Act in 2008.

The goal of farmland or agricultural preservation was contained in 19 of the 26 community master plans. Strategies for attaining this goal were primarily through the use of conservation easement agreements, transfers and purchases of development rights, enrollment in the Michigan Farmland & Open Space Preservation Program (PA 116), and zoning regulations. Communities that were more urban and contained few to no agricultural districts within their jurisdiction were more likely to lack agricultural zoning preservation goals.

Goals, objectives, and strategies that related specifically to agricultural economic development were much less prevalent than farmland or agricultural preservation goals. Ten of the 26 master plans stated a desire for improving or maintaining the viability of the local agricultural economy.


Of these 10 communities, four identified that these goals should be met by stabilizing property values of agricultural lands or reducing pressure to develop for non-agricultural purposes. The assessment indicated that 10 of the 26 master plans included specific agricultural-related uses, such as urban agriculture, chicken farming in non-agricultural zones, and farmer’s markets as either a current asset or part of a vision for the community’s future.

Agricultural Zoning in the Tri-Counties Agricultural zoning within the identified jurisdictions includes such things as where agricultural zoning occurs, where these zones are distributed throughout the Tri-County Region, and what uses are permitted within these zones.

Twenty-two of the 28 zoning ordinances were created or amended since passage of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act in 2006. The Village of Dimondale’s zoning ordinance is the most recently updated of any of the ordinances collected, citing a creation date of 2011. White Oak Township has the oldest ordinance in the study area, with a creation date citing 1995, with no mention of any amendments.

County zoning covers 13 of the 16 townships in Clinton County; the three remaining charter townships, as well as five other cities and villages, have their own regulations. County zoning covers approximately 75% of the total land area in Clinton County; of that percentage it is estimated that 75% of that land is zoned for agriculture.

In Eaton County, county zoning covers 12 of the 16 townships, while four townships and eight cities and villages engage in local zoning. County zoning covers approximately 70% of the total land area in Eaton County; of that percentage, it is estimated that 60% of that land is zoned for agriculture.

Ingham County does not engage in county zoning. All 16 townships, six municipalities and Michigan State University have local zoning. It is estimated that 50% of the land within Ingham County is zoned for agriculture.

While each local zoning ordinance varies, the majority of jurisdictions (57%) have only a single agriculture zoning district for general agricultural activities (farming, raising livestock, etc.) Clinton County’s zoning ordinance contained three different types of agricultural districts, the most of any jurisdiction in the study area. Eaton County’s zoning ordinance contained two types of agricultural districts; an LA (Limited Agriculture) district and an RC (Resource Conservation) district. Eaton County’s Resource Conservation district provides functions similar to Clinton County’s AP (Agricultural Preservation) district, but with additional provisions for open space conservation. Within jurisdictions characterized by suburban growth or encroaching development, 10 jurisdictions provide additional agricultural districts specifically for preservation of prime farmland or transitional districts that serve to protect traditional agricultural zones. Although most districts do not make use of a specialized zone for agricultural preservation, a desire for the preservation of prime farmlands is cited in 18 of the 21 Tri-County township ordinances.

Beyond the City of Lansing and its immediate urban and suburban neighboring jurisdictions, the percentage of land zoned for agriculture increases significantly. Typically, urban/suburban


communities adjacent to the City of Lansing, such as Delta or DeWitt Townships range from 0% to 20% agricultural zoning. Beyond these jurisdictions, rural townships like Eagle and Alaiedon are near 75% to 80%.

Among the typical uses permitted in agricultural zones, the most commonly cited were roadside stands (28 occurrences), commercial nurseries and/or greenhouses (28 occurrences), veterinary clinics (26 occurrences) and home-based businesses (26 occurrences). While many other common agricultural uses were not specifically cited, it was typical for a community to provide for these types of uses by permitting “all uses incidental to a farming operation.”

Regulations in Agricultural Districts Large minimum lot sizes for agricultural zones impede the further reduction of farmlands. When large minimums are present (as with Clinton County and Wheatfield Township 40-acre Agricultural Preservation zones) the likelihood that land will be parceled-off for subdivision development becomes much lower as long as farmland remains in an agricultural district. Jurisdictions that protect these large contiguous tracts of land are typically characterized by a more concentrated farming community with an abundance of agricultural land. Jurisdictions that allow for smaller minimum lot sizes (like the Village of Elsie with 20,000 square foot agricultural lots) are more typified by “gentleman farmer” acreage than active agricultural operations. The average minimum size for a lot in an agricultural district in the Tri-County area was 3.6 acres.

Approximately half of the Tri-County townships (10 of 21) regulate in some manner, the maximum number of animals permitted within agricultural uses. Some examples of these regulations include basic per animal limits, sliding scales based on lot area, and the less common calculation of “animal units” per unit of area. Cities and villages, on the other hand, do not typically address limits on the number of animals permitted on-site. These limits may be contrary to GAAMPs adopted under the Right-to-Farm Act. Most cities and villages do not allow for the keeping of non-household animals in any zone within the jurisdiction; only five of the 19 cities and villages set limits on the number of animals allowed to be kept in the zoning ordinance.

Most jurisdictions (26 out of 31) that allow the keeping of animals provide setback standards for structures used to house livestock and other farm animals. The most common standard for a majority of these regulations is 100 feet from any lot line. Such setback regulations are likely contrary to adopted GAAMPs once past a couple of animals.

Agricultural Activities in Non-Ag Zones Of all the communities that were assessed, the results show that a significant majority, 31 out of 42 jurisdictions, allow for some form of agricultural activity in districts not zoned for agriculture. For the most part, the uses that were permitted consisted primarily of growing crops for non-commercial purposes in low-density residential zones and in some cases allowed for the raising of chickens.

The agricultural use most commonly associated with non-agricultural zones in any jurisdiction was the use of roadside stands for the sale of agricultural products. Slightly under half (nine out of 19) of the study area’s cities and villages allowed for the placement of roadside stands in districts not zoned for agriculture; however, both Clinton County and Eaton County’s zoning ordinances did not allow stands in non-agricultural districts.


PDR/TDR All three counties (Clinton, Eaton and Ingham) authorize a Transfer or Purchase of Development Rights (TDR or PDR) program. Alaiedon Township is the only non-county jurisdiction within the study area that authorizes its own TDR program. No data was examined that measures the effectiveness of these PDR or TDR programs.

Summary Though outdated documents are not particularly pervasive in the Tri-County Region, up-to-date documents are an integral step in any planning and zoning exercise, and so it is recommended that master plans and zoning ordinances should be updated and amended as regularly as possible.

Eight out of 26 communities in the Tri-County Region have master plans dated older than the Michigan Planning Enabling Act of 2008. Given this fact, it may be a good opportunity for these communities to update their local master plans and consider adding goals and objectives for the preservation of farmlands and develop strategies to improve the local agricultural economy. Communities with a significant amount of agricultural land, as well as those communities that are under pressure to develop what remaining agricultural lands are left, should be the most interested in developing contemporary plans for safeguarding agricultural activities in the long-term.

Five out of 36 communities in the Tri-County Region have zoning ordinances dated older than the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act of 2006, and may be in danger of being at odds with State laws. It is recommended that all communities (especially those with ordinances older than the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act of 2006) read through the Michigan Right-to-Farm Act, as well as the current versions of Michigan’s 2010 and 2011 GAAMPs, and then re-evaluate their local zoning ordinances for possible amendment additions. For Tri-County communities (especially those subject to increasing development and encroachment into agricultural lands), local zoning regulations should be consistent with goals and objectives set-forth in the master plan. If agricultural preservation is a goal, the local zoning ordinance should reflect this by providing sufficient regulations and districts for preservation and transitioning between uses.

Agricultural activities in non-agricultural zones are a growing trend in the Tri-County Region. An example of this is the 12 communities that allow for the raising of chickens in residential districts and the numerous others currently debating ordinance amendments in favor of the practice. Communities that have adopted measures of this nature tend to be less traditional in regard to zoning and the separation of uses, and were characterized by having zones of mixed-uses, as with the City of East Lansing and Meridian Township. Clinton and Eaton counties, as well as a majority of townships that engage in zoning (13 of 22) take the traditional approach of separating uses by allowing for most typical agricultural activities only in agricultural, conservation and rural residential zones.