|
Newsletter | Past Issues
November,
2009
In This Issue:
Legal
Questions & Answer about Issues 2
Animal
Welfare Symposium Presentations Available
2010
Ohio Corn, Soybean, and Wheat Enterprise Budgets
Input,
Outlook and Ohio Cropland Values/Cash Rents
Interpreting
Financial Statements & Measures
Nutrient
Management Workbook Now Available
Regulatory
Control over Aquatic Pesticide Applications
Regional
Policy & Outlook Meetings to be held across Ohio
When
to Sell Grain-Basic Assumptions
Better
Milk Prices Require Fewer Milk Cows
Ohio
Income Tax Schools to be held in 10 Locations
Agricultural
Tax Issues Workshop Announced
Do
you have a question that you would like to ask the Ohio
AG Manager Team? If so, click here to email your
question
Legal
Questions and Answers about Issue 2, The Ohio Livestock
Care Standards Board Ballot Issue
Peggy
Kirk Hall, Director
of Agricultural Law, OSU
Extension Agricultural and Resource Law Program
What
is Issue 2?
Issue
2 is a ballot issue that Ohio voters will decide in
the November 3, 2009 general election. The issue proposes
an amendment to the Ohio Constitution that addresses
the care of livestock in Ohio. Click
here for a PDF version of this article.
How
did Issue 2 get on the ballot?
There
are two ways to propose an amendment to the Ohio Constitution:
by citizen initiative or by a joint resolution passed
by Ohio 's legislature, the General Assembly. Both methods
require that the proposal be placed on the ballot for
majority approval by Ohio voters. Issue 2 arose through
a joint resolution in the General Assembly. The Ohio
House of Representatives and the Ohio Senate both approved
the proposed constitutional amendment. As required by
law, the Ohio General Assembly then submitted the enacted
resolution to the Ohio Secretary of State, who chairs
the Ohio Ballot Board. The five member Ballot Board
reviewed the resolution and developed a summary of the
joint resolution for the ballot. The Ohio Attorney General
certified that the Ballot Board's summary is an accurate
depiction of the joint resolution, and the summary will
appear as Issue 2 on the November 3, 2009 general election
ballot. You may view the joint resolution passed by
the Ohio legislators here
, which is the actual language that would be included
in the Ohio Constitution if approved on November 3,
2009. The Ballot Board's summary of the joint resolution,
which is the actual language that will appear on the
ballot as Issue 2, is here
. To learn more about the ballot initiative procedure
in Ohio , visit this
page .
Is
a constitutional amendment the same as a law?
Yes.
Ohio 's Constitution is one source of law; Ohio also
has statutory law (the Ohio Revised Code), administrative
law (agency rules), and common law (written court decisions).
However, the Constitution is Ohio 's “supreme” law because
it establishes the framework for Ohio 's governmental
structure, sets forth powers of the government, provides
for fundamental individual rights, and is difficult
to change. Only a majority vote by Ohio voters can change
the Ohio Constitution.
What
does Issue 2's proposed constitutional amendment do?
Issue
2 proposes to amend the Ohio Constitution by including
language in the Constitution that:
•
Creates an Ohio Livestock
Care Standards Board that would have the authority to
establish standards for livestock care in Ohio .
•
Gives the Ohio Department
of Agriculture the authority to oversee and enforce
the livestock care standards.
•
Grants the Ohio General
Assembly the authority to enact laws necessary for creating
the Livestock Care Standards Board and overseeing, implementing
and enforcing its standards.
Who
would be on the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board?
Issue
2 establishes a thirteen member Livestock Care Standards
Board. No more than seven members on the board may be
of the same political party. The Ohio General Assembly
would have the power to set the terms of office for
the Board members and determine any conditions for the
Board members' service. The proposal states that the
Board would consist of:
•
The director of the department
of agriculture, who would serve as chair of the Board;
•
Ten members appointed by
the Governor with Senate approval, which must include:
one family farm representative, one member knowledgeable
about food safety in Ohio; two members representing
statewide farmer organizations; one veterinarian licensed
in Ohio; the State Veterinarian; the dean of an Ohio
college or university's agriculture department; two
members of the public representing Ohio consumers; one
member representing a county humane society
•
One family farmer appointed
by the Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives.
•
One family farmer appointed
by the President of the Ohio Senate.
What
is a “family farmer” for purposes of Issue 2?
Issue
2 does not contain a definition of “family farmer,”
nor does Ohio 's statutory laws.
How
would the Board create the livestock care standards?
Issue
2 does not specifically detail how the Livestock Care
Standards Board would go about creating the livestock
care standards, but it does state that when developing
the standards, the Board must consider factors that
include, but are not limited to, agricultural best management
practices for such care and well-being, biosecurity,
disease prevention, animal morbidity and mortality data,
food safety practices, and the protection of local,
affordable food supplies for consumers. Issue 2 also
directs the Ohio legislature to enact laws to help the
Board carry out its duties, which would allow the legislature
to establish a process for the Board to follow when
developing the livestock care standards.
Who
would enforce the livestock care standards ?
According
to Issue 2, the state department that regulates agriculture
(which is currently the Ohio Department of Agriculture)
would have the authority to implement and enforce the
standards developed by the Livestock Care Standards
Board, and could create administrative rules and regulations
necessary to do so.
How
much will a Livestock Care Standards Board cost and
how will it be funded?
The
Office of Budget and Management has prepared a fiscal
analysis for Issue 2. The analysis projects costs based
upon similar Ohio boards and programs. OBM assumes that
funding will derive from the state's General Revenue
Fund, since the proposal does not designate a funding
source. See the OBM's cost projections here
.
Do
other Ohio laws affect the care of farm animals?
Yes.
Ohio currently has laws related to the care of domestic
animals, commonly referred to as our animal cruelty
laws. The laws prohibit acts such as torture; confinement
without adequate shelter, fresh air, food or water;
and unnecessary or cruel harm to an animal. Unless the
Ohio General Assembly changes them, these laws will
remain in effect and will apply to farm animals even
if Issue 2 passes. The Ohio General Assembly could choose
to amend the existing animal cruelty laws to include
the livestock care standards developed by the Board.
See Ohio 's animal cruelty laws here
.
If
Issue 2 passes, could it ever be changed?
Yes,
but because Issue 2 proposes an amendment to the Ohio
Constitution, it could only be changed by another proposed
constitutional amendment that must be approved by Ohio
voters.
How
does Ohio 's Issue 2 differ from Proposition 2 that
passed last year in California ?
The
ballot initiative known as Proposition 2 passed by California
voters last fall amended California 's statutory law.
It was not a constitutional amendment like Ohio 's Issue
2. The California law does not address the care of all
livestock, but instead prevents certain actions for
certain types of livestock. California 's law prohibits
the tethering or confinement of pregnant pigs, veal
calves and egg-laying hens in a way that prevents the
animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending
its legs or turning around freely for a majority of
the day.
Could
a ballot proposal like California 's Proposition 2 come
to Ohio if Issue 2 passes?
In
addition to allowing initiatives that amend the Constitution,
Ohio law allows citizens to propose new statutory laws
through the ballot initiative process. A person or group
could use the ballot initiative to propose a law like
California 's Proposition 2 in the future, and the proposal
could be placed on the general election ballot for voter
approval. If Issue 2 passes, however, a future ballot
proposal that conflicts with Issue 2's constitutional
amendment could be challenged legally.
Do
other states have laws like the one proposed by Issue
2?
A
number of states have addressed the issue of farm animal
care, but none have enacted a law similar to Ohio 's
Issue 2. Rather, the laws follow California 's approach
of prohibiting certain practices for certain types of
livestock. Only Florida has enacted a constitutional
amendment on farm animal care, and the Florida provision
applies only to confinement of pregnant pigs. For links
to other state laws on farm animal welfare, see our
website at http://aede.osu.edu/programs/aglaw
or visit Michigan State University 's Animal Legal
& Historical Center at http://www.animallaw.info/
.
Return
to Top
Animal
Welfare Symposium Presentations Available
Dr.
Jim Skeeles, OSU Extension Educator
With
the interest in animal care and welfare spawned by Issue
2, the presentations at the Animal Welfare Symposium,
held October 16, 2009 at The Ohio State University are
appropriate for public audiences and now available online
at http://vet.osu.edu/2816.htm
Most of the individual presentations given at the
October 16, 2009 symposium are available at the above
web site. This symposium was co-organized by Dr. Candace
Croney, Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine,
College of Veterinary Medicine and Naomi Botheres, Department
of Animal Science, College of Food, Agricultural and
Environmental Sciences.
- Official announcement of Ohio State
partnership with the Animal Welfare Science Centre,
Dr. Jim Kinder, chair, Department of Animal Sciences,
The Ohio State University.
- Keynote Address: "The Australian
approach to addressing farm animal welfare: What lessons
have been learned and how can Ohio apply this information?"
Dr. Paul Hemsworth, Director, Animal Welfare Science
Centre, Australia.
- What does the science say about welfare
of laying hens in conventional & alternative systems
& what do we still need to know? Dr. Ruth Newberry,
Center for the Study of Animal Well-being, Washington
State University.
- What does the science say about welfare
of sows in conventional & alternative systems
& what do we still need to know? Dr. Harold Gonyou,
Prairie Swine Centre, Canada.
- Panel discussion with above speakers
- Addressing animal handling and worker
education, Dr. Naomi Botheras, Department of Animal
Sciences, The Ohio State University.
- Is self-regulation enough or is legislation necessary? Lessons
from the EU and beyond, Dr. Janice Swanson, Director
of Animal Welfare, Michigan State University.
- Panel Discussion – Moderator: Dr.
Gary Varner, Texas A&M. with Jack Advent, Ohio
Veterinary Medical Association, Gene Baur, Farm Sanctuary,
Mike Bumgarner, Ohio Farm Bureau, Julie Maschhoff,
The Maschhoffs, Steve Moeller, Department of Animal
Sciences, The Ohio State University, Dr. Timothy Barman,
Cooper Farms
- Summary of presentations and close:
Dr. Candace Croney, Department of Veterinary Preventive
Medicine, The Ohio State University.
Return
to Top
2010
Ohio Corn, Soybean and Wheat Enterprise Budgets
Barry
Ward, Leader, Production Business Management, Department
of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics
Budgeting
helps guide you through your decision making process
as you attempt to commit resources to the most profitable
enterprises on the farm. Crops or Livestock? Corn, Soybeans,
or Wheat? We can begin to answer these questions with
well thought out budgets that include all revenue and
costs. Without some form of budgeting and some method
to track your enterprises' progress you'll have difficulty
determining your most profitable enterprise(s) and if
you've met your goals for the farm.
Budgeting
is often described as “penciling it out” before committing
resources to a plan. Ohio State University Extension
has had a long history of developing “Enterprise Budgets”
that can be used as a starting point for producers in
their budgeting process.
Newly
updated Enterprise Budgets for 2010 have been completed
and posted to the Farm Management Website of the Department
of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics.
Updated Enterprise Budgets can be viewed and downloaded
from the following website:
http://aede.osu.edu/Programs/FarmManagement/Budgets/
Enterprise
Budgets updated so far for 2010 include: Corn-Conservation
Tillage; Soybeans-No-Till (Roundup Ready); Wheat-Conservation
Tillage, (Grain & Straw).
Our
enterprise budgets are compiled on downloadable Excel
Spreadsheets that contain macros for ease of use. Users
can input their own production and price levels to calculate
their own numbers. These Enterprise Budgets have a new
look with color coded cells that will enable users
to plug in numbers to easily calculate bottoms lines
for different scenarios. Detailed footnotes are included
to help explain methodologies used to obtain the budget
numbers. Starting this year we will be updating these
Enterprise Budgets periodically during the year is large
changes occur in price or costs. Budgets will include
a date in the upper right hand corner of the front page
indicating when the last update occurred.
Return
to Top
Input
Outlook and Ohio Cropland Values/Cash Rents
Barry
Ward, Leader, Production Business Management, Department
of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics
Materials
presented at the recent OSU Department of Agricultural,
Environmental, and Development Economics Outlook Kickoff
Meeting held October 26,.2009 covering input outlook,
land values and cash rents is available online at: http://aede.osu.edu/Programs/FarmManagement/Programs/Input%20Outlook%202010.pdf
Return
to Top
Interpreting
Financial Statements and Measures
Center
of Farm Financial Management, University of Minnesota
One
of the unique things about agriculture is that most
ag producers are also their own chief financial officer.
As agriculture becomes more and more complex, farm and
ranch managers need to understand and communicate in
the financial world. The Center for Farm Financial Management
has created a new online workshop series to help ag
producers (and anyone who works with them) understand
and use common financial statements and measures. Our
new website, Interpreting Financial Statements and Measures
(IFSaM), is intended to teach producers the basics of
interpreting the 4 major financial statements and the
21 financial measures recommended by the Farm Financial
Standards Council.
IFSaM is a series of online videos that producers can
work through at their own pace. Each session provides
benchmarks, based on actual farms, that producers can
use to evaluate their own financial position and their
financial performance. Case farm examples are used to
bring the data to life. There are also optional “test
your knowledge” quizzes at the end of each session.
In total, there is over 2 ½ hours of information.
Best of all, it’s free. This series was created
with funding from the North Central Risk Management
Education Center. IFSaM is located at
http://ifsam.cffm.umn.edu/
Please take a look at this series for you own personal
knowledge and also forward this to ag producers who
could benefit from this series.
Return
to Top
Nutrient
Management Workbook Now Available
Amanda
Meddles, OSU Extension Program Coordinator, Environmental
Management
Do
you have a nutrient management plan for your farm? Many
producers avoid developing nutrient management plans
because they can be time consuming and hard to understand.
With that in mind the OSU Extension Environmental Management
team and other state agencies with support from the
Ohio Soybean Council set out to create a nutrient management
plan that farms of every size could easily use.
The
Nutrient Management Workbook uses information from crops
grown, commercial fertilizers and manure to calculate
how many nutrients a field needs and how much is applied.
One can easily fine tune a farming operation to prevent
over application of nutrients and save money on purchasing
commercial fertilizers.
Working
with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division
of Soil and Water Conservation, we have come up with
criteria that can be met by producers that would qualify
the plan to be approved by local Soil and Water Conservation
Districts. If the plan is approved and followed it can
proved the operation with an affirmative defense in
a private civil action for nuisances involving agriculture
pollution. For example, the amount of manure that was
calculated and approved in the Nutrient Management Workbook
is applied to the field on a day where no rain was in
the forecast but a pop-up storm drops an inch of rain
causing run-off and someone complains. If you followed
the approved plan, it can be used as a defense against
the complaint. If you are interested in pursuing this
option, contact your county Soil and Water office.
The
workbook is divided into sections with detailed explanations
and examples for each section. In Section A: Field Information,
the planned crop, yield goal, previous crop and field
size are entered. Soil test information is also taken
into account. It is recommended to have soil samples
pulled every three years and you must have current soil
test information to become approved, but if you do not
have soil test values, a chart with maintenance values
is included. Maintenance values will have you apply
the same amount of nutrients that the crop withdraws
from the soil.
Section
B: Manure Information goes through everything needed
to calculate nutrients available in the manure: when
it is applied, whether it is incorporated or not and
within how many days it is incorporated. Books values
are listed for those who do not have manure tests.
The
next sections get into calculating how many nutrients
are need and applied. Starting off with crop nutrients
needs based on charts from the Tri-state Fertilizer
Recommendations and Ohio Agronomy Guide publications.
The charts from these publications for major crops in
Ohio are included in the workbook. Next, if applied,
starter fertilizer is subtracted from crop nutrient
needs. An example and formulas are listed for calculating
the manure application rate and nutrients applied at
that rate. There is another section for additional nutrients
applied if a field is side-dressed or has fertilizer
applied to it in some other way. After doing the math
you are left with the crop nutrient balance. If there
is excess potassium and phosphorus, formulas for calculating
how many years worth of nutrients that are banked in
the field is demonstrated. You can also calculate the
value of those excess nutrients based on current commercial
fertilizer prices. This will help you realize the value
of those nutrients and show that application of more
nutrients in the next years would be useless and a waste
of money.
If
applying manure, one very important step included in
the plan is spreadable acres. This will guide you in
determining setbacks from sensitive areas and the amount
of acres remaining. There is also a section for manure
storage management that goes through the amount of manure
produced on a farm by the animals, the volume applied
to a field and the volume remaining so you can effectively
plan when to apply manure to prevent storages from becoming
full or the need to apply on frozen and snow covered
ground.
This
workbook was developed with the average Ohio producer
in mind so it is easy to use and does not take a lot
of time. Developing long detailed farm plans is pointless
if they sit on the shelf. The Nutrient Management Workbook
aimed to avoid that situation. For information on ordering
the workbook along with an instructional video go to
http://oema.osu.edu/NMW.html
.
Return
to Top
Regulatory
Control over Aquatic Pesticide Applications: What does
the Future Hold?
Peggy
Hall, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program
Producers
who apply pesticides in, on, or near water will want
to keep an eye on the U.S. EPA's development of a permitting
program for aquatic pesticide applications. The program
is not an EPA initiative, but results from a court case
that challenged an EPA regulation exempting certain
pesticide applications from the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements.
The court decision nullified the EPA's pesticide exemption
regulation for aquatic pesticide applications. The issue
has been a hard one to keep up with; below is a summary
of the events leading to the permitting program and
an explanation of its current status.
The
Clean Water Act Permit Program. The federal Clean
Water Act (CWA) creates a structure for regulating discharges
of pollutants into waters and establishing surface water
quality standards. Under the CWA, those who “discharge”
a “pollutant” from a “point source” into “navigable
waters of the United States ” must first obtain permission
to do so via the EPA's National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit program, or the discharge will be unlawful. The
law contains a list of exceptions for discharges that
do not require an NPDES permit. The CWA's nearly forty
year history has been fraught with legal battles to
clarify terms such as “pollutant,” “discharge,” “point
source” and “waters of the United States ,” as is the
case with aquatic applications of pesticides.
The
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) is the federal law governing the registration,
labeling, and use of pesticides in the U.S. From 1977
until recently, the EPA required that a pesticide registered
under FIFRA contain a notice on its label stating that
the pesticide could not be “discharged into lakes, streams,
ponds, or public waters unless in accordance with an
NPDES permit.” The EPA modified this position with its
pesticide exemption rule.
The
EPA's Pesticide Exemption Rule. In November of
2006, the EPA finalized a regulation that created an
exception from the CWA's NPDES permitting program for
pesticides applied in compliance with FIFRA in two circumstances:
1) pesticides applied directly onto water to control
pests such as mosquito larvae or aquatic weeds, and
2) pesticide applications over or near water where the
pesticide could be deposited on or in the water, such
as aerial applications over a forest canopy where water
is present. In its rule, the EPA took the position that
FIFRA pesticides are not “pollutants,” except for residual
pesticides or excess applications that remain in the
water after the application has accomplished its purpose.
Even in the case of residual or excess pesticides, however,
the EPA maintained that an NPDES permit is not required
because the pesticide application resulting in the residual
or excess was not a regulated “discharge from a point
source” under the CWA.
The
Legal Challenge to EPA's Rule . For different reasons,
neither environmental nor industry organizations approved
of the EPA's pesticide exemption rule and brought legal
challenges that were joined together in the case of
National Cotton Council of America v. EPA. The
eventual decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit determined that the EPA's pesticide exemption
rule was not a reasonable interpretation of the Clean
Water Act. The court concluded that certain applications
of aquatic pesticides could constitute “point source
discharges” of “pollutants” and thus must be regulated
by the NPDES permit program.
The
court based its decision on the CWA definition of “pollutant,”
which includes the terms “chemical waste” and “biological
materials,” and determined that excess or residual pesticides
applied in, near or above waters are “chemical wastes”
and that biological pesticides such as artificial concentrations
of viruses, bacteria, fungi, or plant materials are
“biological materials.” The court clarified that an
intentional application of a chemical pesticide to water
for a particular useful purpose which leaves no excess
portions after performing its purpose is not “chemical
waste” and does not require an NPDES permit. According
to the court, two scenarios of excess or residual pesticides
could lead to a permit requirement: (1) where chemical
pesticides are applied to land or air, and excess pesticides
or pesticide residue is subsequently deposited into
waters; and (2) where pesticide residue remains after
a direct application of chemical pesticides to waters.
The court also declined to follow EPA's reasoning that
excess or residual pesticide applications are not “point
source” discharges. Because the EPA incorrectly interpreted
the Clean Water Act, the court vacated the pesticide
exemption rule. Parties to the National Cotton
lawsuit requested a rehearing on the case, but the court
denied the request. The National Cotton decision
is posted here.
EPA's
Request for a “Stay.” The EPA asked the court for
a “stay,” or a delay of the effective date of its decision.
EPA argued that states and the EPA would need time to
develop a permitting program for all of the pesticide
applications in the U.S. that will now require an NPDES
permit due to the court's decision. The court agreed,
and has stayed its decision until April 9, 2011. The
EPA's pesticide exemption rule thus remains in effect
until April 9, 2011, or until the NPDES permit program
for pesticides is in place.
EPA's
Permit Program Development. EPA
has announced that: “ EPA plans,
before the ruling takes effect (April 9, 2011), to
issue a final general NPDES permit for covered pesticide
applications, to assist authorized states to develop
their NPDES permits, and to provide outreach and education
to the regulated community. EPA will work closely with
state water permitting programs, the regulated community
and environmental organizations in developing a general
permit that is protective of the environment and public
health. NPDES permits will be required for pesticides
applied directly to water to control pests and/or applied
to control pests that are present in or over, including
near waters. Irrigation return flows and agricultural
runoff will not require NPDES permits as they are specifically
exempted from the CWA.”
Impacts
on Aquatic Pesticide Applications . For now, operators
using FIFRA registered pesticides in, on or near waters
are exempt from the NPDES permitting requirement. The
EPA has stated its intent to issue a “general” NPDES
permit for aquatic pesticides before the April 9, 2011
deadline. A general NPDES permit
covers a group in the same geographic area with the
same type of pollutant discharge. The general permit
applies similar permitting conditions to all dischargers
covered under the permit. Once the EPA or a state has
developed the general permit for aquatic pesticides,
a person who will make aquatic pesticide applications
must submit a Notice of Intent to the EPA or the State
in order to be covered by the general permit. However,
the EPA or State may still require an applicator to
submit an individual permit application and receive
an individual NPDES permit, rather than the general
permit, if it determines that coverage under the general
permit is inappropriate for the situation.
A
challenge for the EPA in developing the permitting program
will be discerning between applications that do and
do not create excess chemical waste, residual chemical
waste, or biological matter. Chemical pesticide applications
leaving no excess or residual waste will not require
NPDES permits, according to the court, but applications
resulting in residuals or excess chemicals will require
a permit, as will applications involving “biological
pesticides” or “biological wastes.”
Keeping
Track of EPA's Progress . To follow future developments
in the aquatic pesticides NPDES permitting program,
check the EPA's NPDES
- Agriculture web page at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=41
.
Another
Issue: “Waters” covered by the Clean Water Act. A
concurrent development that will likely impact all NPDES
permits is a proposal before Congress to amend the Clean
Water Act to clarify which waters are “waters of the
United States ” and thus are subject to the CWA. Senate
Bill 787 attempts to clarify the government's jurisdiction
over “waters,” and many claim will greatly expand federal
authority under the CWA. Search for S. 787 here.
Return
to Top
Regional
Policy & Outlook Meetings to be held Across Ohio
Stan
Ernst, Extension Program Leader & Marketing Instructor.,
Department of Agricultural, Environmental & Development
Economics
Eight
regional Policy & Outlook meetings have been schedule
throughout Ohio during November and December.
Topics vary according to location but will include Grain
Outlook, Farm Input Costs, Farmland Values and Rents,
Macroeconomic Trends, Cap-and-Trade Policy, and Dairy
Markets and Policy. Scheduled locations are in
Celina, Urbana , Wooster , Waldo, Circleville, Defiance
, Ashland , and Attica . For details on topics at each
location and registration information, visit the Policy
& Outlook Program website at http://aede.osu.edu/programs/outlook/
or contact your county OSU Extension office. These
meetings are sponsored by the OSU Department of Agricultural,
Environmental, and Development Economics, county offices
of OSU Extension, and local businesses.
When to Sell Grain-Basic
Assumptions
Steve
Prochaska, OSU Extension Educator
One
of the most difficult decisions for farmers is when
to sell grain. Basically, a decision to sell grain should
incorporate the following assumptions:
1.
Farmers should create and utilize enterprise
budgets to calculate the costs of the commodity raised.
An enterprise budget accurately details your fixed and
variable costs on a per acre or bushel basis to raise
the commodity. It is often not possible to know if a
grain price is good or bad without this information.
Go to the following website to download crop budgets
(
http://aede.osu.edu/Programs/FarmManagement/Budgets/index.htm
), or stop in at an Extension Office for copies
of OSU enterprise budgets.
2.
Grain marketing decisions by farmers should
be based upon:
a.
What is offered to you by existing grain
markets, crop insurance products, and government programs?
b.
By knowledge of grain marketing alternatives
•
Costs and returns to storage
•
Analysis of historical market trends. For example for
the period of 1990-2007, University of Minnesota, Center
for Farm Financial Management found 75% odds that corn
spring price will exceed fall price.
•
Knowledge of local cash markets and concomitant basis
trends. For example, in some areas a strong positive
basis for early soybeans may be offered or an opportunity
may exist in some years to contract grain at higher
moistures without discount into an ethanol plant or
livestock finishing operation.
3.
Farmers cannot consistently predict
major market moves and therefore should not speculate
excessively.
4.
Grain marketing should be based upon probabilities.
This may seem like gambling, but a farmer who plants
a crop in the spring is using a probabilistic approach.
A farmer believes that there is a good chance a crop
will be produced to market in the fall. This type of
thinking is based on probability. Ask yourself when
the last time was that you didn't have at least a half
crop to sell. Many might respond "2002". Even
then, corn in our area of Ohio ( Crawford County ) averaged
73 bushels/acre. The point is this: it is likely you
will produce at least an average crop this fall.
5.
Grain marketing should be based on your
risk bearing ability . If you have many debts
to service, you should not allow marketing opportunities
to pass when the total costs of production can
be paid and therefore debt be serviced.
Return
to Top
Better
Milk Prices Require Fewer Milk Cows
Cameron Thraen, State Specialist, Dairy Markets and
Policy, The Ohio State University Extension, The Agricultural,
Environmental, and Development Economics, The Ohio State
University
The
current discussion front and center for everyone involved
in the U.S. dairy industry involves how broken the current
system is and in what manner can this be repaired. This
article provides Dr. Thraen's explanation on what in
the world is going on with U.S. dairy, milk prices,
and dairy farm financial health. Dr. Thraen state's
the U.S. dairy industry needs to shed an additional
200,000 head of cattle to return to a “state of normalcy”
where production is more in balance with domestic demand.
Click
here to access this complete report.
Return
to Top
Ohio
Income Tax Schools to be held in 8 Locations
David
Marrison, OSU Extension Educator
The
Ohio State University 's Department of Agricultural,
Environmental, and Development Economics Department
is pleased to be offering eight OSU Income Tax Schools
across Ohio from November 12 through December 11. These
schools are designed for tax preparers with some experience
preparing and filing federal tax returns for individuals
and small businesses. Instruction focuses on tax law
changes and on the problems faced in preparing tax returns.
The two day schools will also provide an Ohio income
tax update. Highly qualified instructors will explain
and interpret tax regulations and recent changes in
tax laws.
Participants
in the Tax Schools receive a 700-page workbook prepared
by the Land Grant University Tax Education Foundation
especially for the income tax schools held in Ohio and
30 other states. The workbook is available only as a
part of tax school registration. The tax school workbook
also covers the changes in filing Ohio tax returns.
This workbook includes a searchable CD for the 2004-09
workbooks. This year participants will also receive
RIA's Federal Tax Handbook. The registration fee includes
the workbook and other reference materials, instructor
fees, meals, meeting rooms, and other expenses.
The tax school locations are as follows:
Fremont – November 12-13
Ole Zim's Wagonshed
1375 State Route 590
Gibsonburg, Ohio 43431
Columbus – November 16-17 (New Location)
Bridgewater Banquet & Conference Center
10561 Sawmill Parkway
Powell, OH 43065
Kent – November 18-19
Kent State University
Student Center
Summit Street
Kent, OH 44242
Dayton – November 23-24
Presidential Banquet Center, Dayton
4548 Presidential Way
Dayton, OH 45429
Ashland – December 1-2
Convocation Center, Ashland University
820 Claremont Ave.
Ashland, OH 44805
Chillicothe – December 3-4
Ross County Service Center
475 Western Avenue
Chillicothe, OH 45601
Lima – December 8-9
Lima Civic and Convention Center
7 Towne Square
Lima, OH 45801
Zanesville – December 10-11
Ohio University Campus Center,
Zanesville Branch
1425 Newark Road
Zanesville, OH 43701
2-Hour Ethics Class – 5:15-7:15 p.m. (Three Locations
Only)
Columbus – November 16
Kent – November 18
Lima – December 8
Workshop information, a downloadable registration form
as well as on-line registration are available at the
following website: http://aede.osu.edu/programs/taxschool/default.aspx
Information can also be received by contacting Dr.
Warren Lee, Ohio Income Tax Schools, at 614-292-6308
(or lee.69@osu.edu )
Return
to Top
Agricultural
Tax Issues Workshop Announced
David
Marrison, OSU Extension Educator
Tax practitioners with an interest in farm income taxes
will have an opportunity to attend a one day farm tax
workshop scheduled for Friday, December 18 in eight
locations across Ohio. This workshop will be taught
by Dr. Phil Harris, Professor of Agricultural Economics,
University of Wisconsin via conference call.
This program has been designed for tax practitioners
who have a significant number of farm clients and therefore
need a substantial amount of information on agricultural
tax issues. Participants will hear an audiotape of a
live lecture given by Phil Harris, supplemented with
a showing of the slide presentation Dr. Harris used
during his lecture. Dr. Harris will be available for
questions during two conference calls during the day,
and OSU faculty will be in the meeting rooms to answer
questions. Registrants will receive a valuable 300 page
supplemental book.
Some
of the topics to be discussed include 5-year depreciation
recovery period for equipment; Futures and options;
Qualified deferred payment contracts; Transitioning
farm businesses to rental; Social security strategies;
Soil and water districts (sale and leasing of water
rights) and Wind farms.
The
locations for the 2009 Agricultural Issues Workshops
are:
Caldwell,
Ohio- OSU Extension Southeast Region Office
Greenville, Ohio OSU Extension Darke County Office
Ottawa, Ohio OSU Extension Putnam County Office
Upper Sandusky, Ohio OSU Extension Wyandot County Office
Urbana, Ohio OSU Extension Champaign County Office
Wooster, Ohio OSU Extension Center at Wooster
Jefferson, Ohio OSU Extension Ashtabula County Office
Columbus, Ohio OSU Campus-Agr Adm Bldg
The Agricultural Tax Issues program has been accepted
for continuing education credits by the Accountancy
Board of Ohio, IRS Director of Practice and the Ohio
Supreme Court Commission on Continuing Legal Education.
Workshop information, a downloadable registration form
as well as on-line registration are available at the
following website: http://aede.osu.edu/programs/TaxSchool/agissues.aspx
or by contacting Dr. Warren Lee, Ohio Income Tax Schools,
at 614-292-6308 (or lee.69@osu.edu).
The Agricultural Tax Issues Workshop is sponsored by
the Ohio State University Department of Agricultural,
Environmental and Development Economics and Ohio State
University Extension.
Return
to Top
**************************************************************************************
Readers
can subscribe electronically to this newsletter by sending
an e-mail message to: ohioagmanager-on@ag.osu.edu.
A successful subscription message will receive by an
automatic reply from the listserv. Contact your local
Ohio State University Extension Office or e-mail marrison.2@osu.edu
if you have problems subscribing.
The
Ohio Ag Manager newsletter is published in collaboration
by OSU Extension Educators and Faculty members of Ohio
State University's Department of Agricultural, Environmental
and Development Economics.
Ohio
Ag Manager Team Leaders: Chris Bruynis & David Marrison
Web
Page Managers: David Marrison & Andy Kleinschmidt
Information
presented above and where trade names are used, they
are supplied with the understanding that no discrimination
is intended and no endorsement by Ohio State University
Extension is implied.
Ohio
State University Extension embraces human diversity
and is committed to ensuring that all research and related
educational programs are available to clientele on a
nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color,
religion, sex, age, national origin, sexual orientation,
gender identity or expression, disability, or veteran
status. This statement is in accordance with United
States Civil Rights Laws and the USDA.
Keith
L. Smith, Ph.D., Associate Vice President for Agricultural
Administration and Director, Ohio State University Extension
TDD No. 800-589-8292 ( Ohio only) or 614-292-1868
|
