Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 1 of 3 · from the scan, no model involved
There is a lot of money in the pipeline to help farmers implement better management on the farm — there has been plenty of money in state and federal conservation programs for years.
But the money, typically, is of the cost-share variety, and, again typically, provides only 75 percent of a conservation project's cost. The farmer is stuck with the rest, and if, as a Hanover County dairyman recounted at the meeting, you are looking at $100,000 in on-farm improvements, his $25,000 share is a tough nut to crack, especially now wher>4he cost of production is greater than the revenue from sales on his. and likely every other dairy farm in the state.
Farmers have always been stuck with an unenviable business model in that they aren’t given the luxury of naming a price for the products they sell. They cannot pass increased costs of production on to the consumer, as almost every other business can; they simply absorb them. But now, farm advocates insist, the sponge is saturated.
VFBF officials are gearing up for the General Assembly session that kicks off after the first of the year, and they told conventioneers that they will be in Richmond again, hat in hand, seeking more money for the farmers they represent. In 2009, they asked for $100 million, got $20 million.
What they need to push for is not so much a bigger pot as a bigger portion. Full, 100 percent payment for onservation projects is going overboard, likely; farmers are, after all, making improvements to their operations. some of which result in greater efficiencies that show up on their bottom line. Not all do, however.
Brighter minds than ours can likely figure out which is which, and propose ways to adjust the matching funds accordingly. But certainly, those funds need to he adjusted upward.
74.7%