Newsletter | Past Issues

June, 2009

In This Issue:

The Economics of Animal Welfare Regulations Proposed for Ohio

Laws for All-Purpose Vehicles to Change July 1, 2009

Reducing Employee Turnover through Creative Employee Packages

Renewable Energy Projects Effect on Current Agricultural Use Valuation (CAUV)

Determining a Fair Rental Rate for Farm Buildings

What To Do With The Farm?

Moving from a Handshake to a Written Contract

Dairy Critical Issue Briefs (DIBS) Address Issues Facing Dairy Producers

Do you have a question that you would like to ask the Ohio AG Manager Team?  If so, click here to email your question

The Economics of Animal Welfare Regulations Proposed for Ohio

Luther Tweeten, Emeritus Chaired Professor, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Ohio State University

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) seeks to phase out battery cages for Ohio's laying hens, gestation crates for its pregnant pigs, and crates for veal calves in favor of group housing (FarmPolicy [farmpolicy@gmail.com], May 5, 2009). As the nation's second largest producer of eggs (27 million laying hens) and a major producer of swine and dairy cattle, Ohio agriculture has a major stake in the outcome of this HSUS effort.

HSUS is likely to put its proposal before Ohio voters next year if poultry and livestock producers don't cooperate with HSUS to write legislation changing the way producers operate. This is no idle threat. Last year California voters approved a similar measure (Proposition 2 or Prop 2) mandating as of January 1, 2015 that it shall be a misdemeanor for any person to confine a pregnant pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a manner not allowing the animal to turn around freely, stand up, lie down, and fully extend its limbs. At least four other states have passed laws similar to California's Proposition 2.

Is such legislation a good idea? The following discussion is especially focused on laying hens, the enterprise likely to be most affected in Ohio. The following analysis addresses animal welfare dimensions of Prop 2-type regulations before addressing the economic dimensions.

Animal Welfare

First, it is important to recognize that nearly everyone including persons associated with large confinement feeding operations supports humane treatment of animals. At issue is what constitutes humane treatment. On the one hand, large confinement cage or crate operations would seem to reduce animal welfare by inhibiting the freedom of animals for nesting, sex, and exercise (Shields and Duncan 2009, pp. 2-5). Proponents contend that Prop 2-type legislation will enhance animal welfare, provide healthier food because animals will contract fewer air-borne diseases, and will reduce soil, water, and air pollution.

On the other hand, confinement is associated with protection of animals from extreme temperatures, predators, and soil-borne diseases and parasites. Animals in confinement can be monitored closely for health. Confinement systems deliver fresh, clean eggs to consumers. Confinement operations use less land, labor, and other resources per animal unit. Opponents of Prop 2-type legislation contend that with sound management, large confinement operations have demonstrated they can produce without harm to the environment or animal welfare.

The public looks to objective scientific findings to narrow differences of opinion between supporters and opponents of Prop 2-type measures. That strategy has met with only partial success as apparent from studies measuring how specific engineering-type provisions (such as space provided per animal) affect animal welfare. In Austria for example, Zaludik et al. (2007) evaluated the usefulness of the government's Animal Needs Index (ANI) auditing how hen welfare is affected by floor space, feeder space, and the like for organic laying hen production. No relationship was found between a good score on the ANI and hen welfare as assessed by mortality, injury, measures of abnormal behavior, and footpad and breast lesions. This and other empirical studies give conflicting results regarding the contribution of a “favorable” environment to animal welfare (Shields and Duncan 2009, pp. 12, 13). After an excellent review of existing scientific studies, Mench et al. (2009, p. 44) conclude that "…we still have little understanding of how all of the complex inputs on commercial farms (whether those are husbandry inputs or genetic inputs) interact to cause or minimize animal welfare problems."

Economic Implications

The economic implications of Prop 2-type regulations imposed on Ohio's agriculture are more clear than the foregoing animal welfare implications. Market forces help protect animals to the extent that abused and diseased animals reduce profits, forcing animal producers to use more humane practices. In part out of concern for animal product demand and profit, the livestock (including poultry) industry has voluntarily changed production practices. Experts on animal welfare and ethics, though noting the absence of federal regulation of animal production, cite the recent voluntary development and enforcement of animal care standards by producer groups and retailers. Animal welfare scientists (Mench et al., 2009, p.2) conclude that “These standards have resulted in some striking improvements in animal welfare…” along the entire supply chain of animals and their products.

Socially acceptable production practices for animal welfare ultimately rest on the public's values and attitudes and not just on science. Such values range from indifferent observers to animal rightists who object to animal confinement and would end use of animals as sources of food, clothing (leather), fiber, draft-power, or companionship (pets). Even among those who make animal products a part of their diet, the range of preferred animal production practices stretches from conventional to organic, to free range. Markets can serve discriminating consumers over this broad range of preferences. The key is to label animal products by production practices. Preferred animal welfare practices may be more costly to producers, but consumers can “vote” their preferences with dollars in the market.

Labeling, a means for producers to receive premium prices for humane and more costly animal welfare practices, seems an ideal solution because it allows each consumer to uniquely express demand for traditional or enhanced animal welfare practices in the market. Mench et al. (2009, p.3) note that such labeling has attracted few customers. That is, animal welfare enhanced products remain a small, niche market, suggesting either that consumers are not well informed or they place little value on these enhanced production practices.

Disappointed with outcomes, the Humane Society of the United States seeks public intervention in Ohio with government regulation to reach its animal welfare objectives well beyond what market labeling and voluntary industry reforms have achieved.

Animal welfare and environmental regulations are unlikely to eliminate the current cost advantage of large farms over small farms. Numerous studies indicate that the cost of producing a unit of animal products is lower on large farms than on small farms (see Tweeten 2003, p. 85). Most such studies can be faulted for including only costs to farms. That is, the economic studies ignore full incremental cost of production which includes environmental or animal welfare costs accruing to society but not to farms (externalities in economist's jargon). However, experts such as Martin and Zering (1997, p.20) and Boehlje et al. (1996) conclude that unit production costs would be lower on large farms than on small farms even if all externalities were internalized. Other things equal, risk increases with scale of operations. But economies of size provide the wherewithal for larger farms to afford the able management required to cope with risk.

Prop 2 for California is similar to HSUS' proposal for Ohio. In addition, livestock production conditions in Ohio are sufficiently similar to those in California so that economic analysis for California provided a strong basis to begin assessing the situation in Ohio. Scientists at the University of California-Davis (Sumner et al. 2008, p. 36) concluded that under Prop 2 “variable costs of production [for eggs in California ] would rise by at least 20 percent and perhaps substantially more. Underlying these higher costs per dozen eggs are higher feed use per bird, higher cost per pullet, lower average productive life of a hen, higher mortality rates, fewer eggs of premium size or acceptable marketability, fewer birds per facility, and higher labor costs.” Other studies have estimated that total cost per dozen eggs are 26 percent higher for barn production and 45 percent higher with free range production compared to conventional cage egg production (Agra CEAS 2004, p.45).

Ohio is surrounded by states with competitive laying hen enterprises. Indiana's 24 million average number of laying hens and Pennsylvania's 21 million hens were not far behind Ohio's average inventory of 27 million hens in 2007. Eggs produced under conventional cage systems in surrounding states would have a 20 percent or more cost advantage over Ohio 's farms producing under Prop 2-type regulations. Ohio laying hen producers would not be competitive. To protect its producers, California has proposed trade barriers to egg imports from other states. Such barriers seem unachievable because they conflict with the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. constitution and likely would be ruled unconstitutional.

In short, according to Sumner et al. (2008, iv):

Our analysis [of Proposion 2 regulations applied to California agriculture] indicates that the expected impact would be the almost complete elimination of egg production in California within the six-year adjustment period. Non-cage production costs are simply too far above the costs of the cage systems used in other states to allow California producers to compete with imported eggs in the conventional egg market. The most likely outcome, therefore, is the elimination of almost all of the California egg industry over a few years.

 

The authors noted the exception of a very small residual of local specialty producers that would supply part of the California market for eggs produced in non-cage systems.

Sumner et al. (2008, pp. 46-47) go on to add that

The elimination of most of the California egg industry would have broader economic implications. The loss of about 3,000 jobs in the industry would be multiplied by a factor of about 0.9 to imply a statewide loss of jobs of about 5,750 jobs. The loss in overall economic activity in the state is also larger than the gross [egg] sales of about $370 million in 2007 because of the ripple effects that affect upstream and downstream industries.

Conclusions

Who would be the economic gainers and losers from imposition of Prop 2-type regulations on Ohio's agriculture? Ohio would lose: laborers, livestock and crop producers, and the economy as a whole. Ohio's laying hen enterprise, second only in the nation to that of Iowa and 38 percent greater than that of California in 2007, would be decimated. Applying the latter percentage to the available estimate of job loss in California, Ohio's loss from Prop 2-type legislation would total 7,928 jobs and associated income.

Diminished animal agriculture means diminished crop agriculture in Ohio -- less demand for livestock means less demand for corn and soybeans. The state's livestock agriculture directly consumed 22 percent of the state's corn crop and a sizable percentage of the soybean crop in 2008. Including distillers' grain byproducts (from corn feedstocks for ethanol production) and corn silage, some 30 percent of the state's corn crop is fed to livestock.

Ohio's consumers would lose as workers and income-earners, but Ohioans would face little if any higher food prices with imposition of Prop 2-type regulations as surrounding states supply low-cost animal products. Thus other states would gain jobs and income at Ohio's expense as animal products consumed in Ohio would be produced elsewhere. Those products would be produced using current practices, so overall animal welfare would be unaffected.

To avoid interstate trade that abrogates the intended animal welfare gains from Prop 2-type regulations, the HSUS can be expected to pursue national legislation to impose regulations on all U.S. livestock producers. Even if such measures were enacted they would be severely undermined over time by livestock product imports from Canada, Mexico, and other countries -- often under animal welfare conditions below Ohio's standards.

References

Agra CEAS Consulting Ltd. ( December 2004) “Study on the Socio-economic Implications of the Various Systems to Keep Laying Hens.” Final Report for the European Commission. Submitted by Agra CEAS Consulting Ltd.

Boehlje, M. (1996) “Industrialization of Agriculture: What are the Choices?” Choices. First quarter, pp.30-33.

Martin, L. and K. Zering (1997). “Relationships between Industrialized Agriculture and Environmental Consequences: The Case of Vertical Coordination in Broilers and Hogs.” Staff Paper 97-6. East Lansing : Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University .

Mench, Joy A., Harvey James,, Edmond A. Pajor, and Paul B. Thompson (2009). “The Welfare of Animals in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.” Davis, CA : Department of Animal Science.

Shields, Sara and Ian Duncan. “An HSUS Report: A Comparison of the Welfare of Hens in Battery Cages and Alternative Systems.” Washington, DC : Humane Society of the United States , 2009.

Sumner, Daniel A., J. Thomas Rosen-Molina, William A. Matthews, Joy A. Mench and Kurt R. Richter (July 2008) “ Economic Effects of Proposed Restrictions on Egg-laying Hen Housing in California.” Davis, CA : University of California Agricultural Issues Center .

Tweeten, Luther (2003). Terrorism, Radicalism, and Populism in Agriculture. Ames: Iowa State Press.

Zaludik, K., A. Lugmair, R. Baumung, J. Troxler. and K. Niebuhr (2007). “Results of the Animal Needs Index (ANI-35L) Compared to Animal-based Parameters in Free-range and Organic Laying Hen Flocks in Austria.” Animal Welfare, 16: 217-219.

Return to Top

Laws for All-Purpose Vehicles to Change July 1, 2009

Peggy Hall, Director, Agricultural & Resource Law Program, Ohio State University Extension

Ohio law will soon contain new provisions on criminal trespass, registration and operation of all-purpose vehicles (APVs). The General Assembly included the changes in H.B. 2 this spring, which becomes effective on July 1, 2009. Rural landowners will have interest in the new criminal trespass sections, which increase fines when a trespass occurs with an APV. The law's license plate program will require APVs to display a license plate and validation sticker like other vehicles. APV operators will pay higher registration fees, but on-farm APVs used as a farm implement will be exempt from registration.

According to Ohio law, an “all-purpose vehicle” is “any self-propelled vehicle designed primarily for cross-country travel on land and water, or on more than one type of terrain, and steered by wheels or caterpillar treads, or any combination thereof, including vehicles that operate on a cushion of air, vehicles commonly known as all-terrain vehicles, all-season vehicles, mini-bikes, and trail bikes.” The definition of “all-purpose vehicle” does not include golf carts or utility vehicles that are designed to transport materials or cargo.

Below is a summary of the new law that will go into effect on July 1.

Criminal trespass with APVs. The law contains stiffer penalties for criminal trespass that involves an APV. Criminal trespass is the entering or remaining on another's land without permission or privilege, and is a fourth degree misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $250 and jail time of up to 30 days. Under the new law, when a person commits criminal trespass using an APV, a court must double the fine. Where a person is convicted three times of criminal trespass using an APV, the court may also impound the registration and license plate of the vehicle for at least 60 days.

Registration exceptions. Ohio law currently requires registration of APVs, snowmobiles and off-highway motorcycles, with a few exceptions. The new law changes the exceptions that apply to APVs in two ways. First, the new law removes the registration exception for APVs operated exclusively upon lands owned by the owner or on lands to which the owner has a contractual right. This exception from registration will apply only to snowmobiles and off-highway motorcycles. Second, the law creates a new registration exception for APVs: an owner does not have to register an APV that is used primarily on a farm as a farm implement. The law also increases the penalties for operating an unregistered APV, snowmobile or off-highway motorcycle to no less than $50 and no more than $100.

License plate requirements. The new law requires operators of APVs to display a license plate and validation sticker rather than a registration number after July 1, 2010. An owner must display the license plate so that it is "distinctly visible" and in accordance with rules to be adopted by the Board of Motor Vehicles (BMV). After an owner obtains a license plate, the BMV will issue a new validation sticker to display on the license plate for each three-year registration period. The new license plate provision does not affect snowmobiles or off-highway motorcycles.

Registration fees. The new law increases the registration fees for APVs, snowmobiles and off-highway motorcycles from $5 to $31.25 for the three-year registration period. The registrar may retain up to $5 of the fee and must deposit the remainder into the state treasury for the state recreational vehicle fund, which also receives amounts from fines issued under the law. Purposes of the fund include enforcing and administering laws regarding registration and operation of snowmobiles, off-highway motorcycles, and APVs, purchasing additional land to provide trails and other areas for such vehicles on state-controlled land and waters, and providing safety programs.

Out of state driver's licenses. The old law requires the operator of an APV, snowmobile or off-highway motorcycle to hold a valid driver's license from the State of Ohio. The new law allows a person holding a driver's license from another state to operate the vehicles.

Impoundment. The new law allows a court to impound the registration and license plate of an APV for no less than 60 days whenever a person is found guilty of operating the vehicle in violation of Ohio law.

See these Ohio Revised Code sections at http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/ for changes to APV law: O.R.C. 2911.21, 4519.02, 4519.03, 4519.04, 4519.08, 4519.09, 4519.10, 4519.44, and 4519.47.

Return to Top

Reducing Employee Turnover through Creative Employee Packages

David L. Marrison, Extension Educator (marrison.2@osu.edu) and Chris Zoller, Extension Educator (zoller.1@osu.edu), Ohio State University Extension

A variety of research studies have reported the number one issue facing businesses is finding and keeping good employees. Many employers are surprised to learn that good wages and job security are not necessarily the ultimate motivators of employees. A study conducted by George Mason University showed the top three motivators for employees were interesting work, appreciation, and feeling in on things. Surprisingly, good wages only ranked 5th.

It is not unusual for a farming operation to experience a 25% turnover rate of employees. Some turnover is actually good. No one is perfect in hiring employees. Mistakes happen and there are just some employees that you will never be able to motivate to complete job responsibilities efficiently and according to your farm’s operating procedures.

While some employees are busts, it is important for farms to develop strategies to reduce employee turnover. Turning over employees has several costs. These costs include: separation costs for the former employee, recruiting costs for new employees, interviewing time, administrative work associated with a new hire, training and supervisory time, and overtime pay for employees who have to fill in for the departed employee. There is also a cost for lost production associated with getting a new employee up to speed with their new job. Sarah Smith, an organization leadership supervisor specialist at Purdue University estimates a loss of $2,000 to the business for each time you have to replace a farm employee.

So, what are some strategies to reduce employee turnover?

• Take time to hire better qualified employees (you get what you pay for).
• Make sure to check references on prospective employees.
• Establish a training protocol for new employees.
• Develop an employee manual.
• Have job expectations clearly defined for employees.
• Develop goals with each employee.
• Use a probationary period for all new employees.
• Place employees in jobs they like.
• Have flexible employee compensation programs.
• Give employees an opportunity for time off that fits their personal obligations.
• Hold regular staff meetings to discuss farm issues, goals, and operational strategies.
• Several farmers could share one or more employees or seasonal labor.
• Conduct periodic worker satisfaction surveys.
• Have clearly defined grievance policies.
• Conduct exit interviews to determine why employees are leaving.
• Invite your Extension Educator or other key farm advisor to complete SWOT (strength, weaknesses, opportunities, & threats) analysis of your farm employee management system.

The present economy is presenting a significant hardship on cash flow. In times when money is tight it is often difficult to reward employees for their performance in the form of cash. So, what things can farm employers do that don’t cost a lot of money, but still let employees know their work is appreciated and valued? In no particular order, here are a few suggestions you can use to show employees that their work is appreciated and valued:

1. Thank your employees for the work they do and their dedication to the farm. It’s really a no-brainer, but it’s one thing many employers don’t do often enough. Best of all, it doesn’t cost a penny!

2. Most employees love food! Inviting employees in for lunch each day (or occasionally) can go a long way to improving employee morale. A great home cooked meal is always more enjoyable than a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

3. Allow employees to use farm equipment for a few evenings or weekends for their personal use. Maybe they need to plow a garden, use a welder, or borrow a farm truck to haul debris.

4. Because of labor demands it is often difficult to do, but consider allowing employees to have time off and be more flexible in scheduling.

5. Provide the opportunity for employees to use fuel or farm commodities.

6. If there is an employee(s) with a particular skill that could benefit the farm, and they desire additional training, pay their registration fees. Encourage them to receive additional training.

7. Provide theme or amusement park tickets to employees to spend time with their families for a few days.

8. Consider providing employees with shirts and or hats with the farm name.

9. Ask your staff about ways you can improve the working environment for them. Eliminating employee dis-satisfiers such as unsafe equipment, unreasonable rules and policies, and conflict with co-workers can help employees enjoy their work more.

10. Many employees would appreciate health insurance coverage, but the cost is often high. An alternative might be a Health Savings Account (HSA). Money can be deposited into the account to provide coverage for employees and may be more affordable to the employer.

Having the right employees, developing a good employee management program and developing creative ways to express appreciation to your employees can reduce your employee turnover. Your local Extension Educator can help assist you as you develop an employee management plan. Call you local Extension office today. Specific questions can be asked to the Ohio Ag Manager team by emailing: ohioagmanagerinfo@ag.ohio-state.edu

Return to Top

Renewable Energy Projects Effect on Current Agricultural Use Valuation (CAUV)

Chris Bruynis, Extension Educator, and Eric Romich, Extension Educator, Ohio State University Extension

Current Agricultural Use Value (CAUV) is a differential real estate tax assessment program which allows owners of farmland the opportunity to have their parcels taxed according to the land value in agriculture, rather than full market value. To qualify for CAUV assessment, a landowner must devote the parcel exclusively to agricultural use. The parcel must be 10 acres or more and have been in agricultural use for the last three years. A smaller tract may be included in this program if the tract produced an average income of $2,500 or more from sales of agricultural products during the previous years or if there is an expected gross income of that amount. If a parcel of land does not meet one of these criteria, it loses its eligibility for CAUV tax treatment.

If land is converted from agricultural production to a use inconsistent with the CAUV criteria, the Ohio Constitution permits the recoupment by levying a charge on the affected land in an amount equal to the tax savings during the three tax years immediately prior the year in which the conversion occurs.

As advanced energy projects have become a vital component of economic development strategies in rural communities, projects such as wind energy turbines and solar energy fields are actively seeking rural locations in Ohio. The implementation of these projects should cause farmland to lose the CAUV tax status. However, the effect is not the same. Although some of the taxation rules concerning renewable energy are still being drafted, the logic that is being applied will be discussed in this article.

In the case of wind turbines, the land that will be occupied during the construction phase will lose CAUV valuation for that year only. Since it will be quickly returning to agriculture production, there is no recoupment assessed on that portion of the property. The land that actually supports the wind turbines will lose the CAUV permanently, and the three year tax recoupment will be assessed along with the land being taxed as commercial property going forward.

Solar fields will have a different tax treatment. Even though this land can be returned to agriculture production, the transition back to farmland will not be for 35-50 years. The conversion from farmland to commercial property is considered semi-permanent and not only triggers the loss of CAUV; it also triggers the recoupment of taxes for the previous three years. The land will then be taxed as commercial property until it returns to agricultural property.

When structuring land acquisition deals, renewable energy projects can be proposed in the form of a long term lease agreement or an outright purchase agreement. Regardless of the land acquisition type, it is advantageous to specify in the agreement terms which party is responsible for any agricultural tax recoupment payments that may be triggered by the change in land use.

Although participating in these opportunities can provide substantial personal returns and community benefits, landowners need to do due diligence in calculating the cost-benefit analysis for their land. Landowners are encouraged to discuss these issues with their county auditors to determine the exact tax liabilities that would result from the construction of renewable energy projects.

Return to Top

Determining a Fair Rental Rate for Farm Buildings

Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, Tuscarawas County and Barry Ward, Leader, Production Business Management, Ohio State University Extension

From time to time questions arise about renting farm buildings. “What should I charge for my building” is the question many Extension Educators receive. There are a variety of ways to determine a rental rate that is fair to both parties. The building owner needs to evaluate his costs associated with renting the facility, leaving it sit empty, or tearing it down. The lessee must decide how much he can afford to pay for the facility without negatively impacting profitability.

Once a rental rate is agreed upon, having a written agreement that describes the details of the lease and the responsibilities of the parties involved is critical. The agreement should list complete information about the parties involved, location of the property, amount and payment terms, responsibilities, and other items deemed necessary.

There are a number of excellent Extension resources available to help determine fair rental rates and develop a lease agreement. For more information, visit the following web sites:

www.extension.umn.edu/info-u/farming/BC947.html

www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/EC/EC-451-W.html

www.agmanager.info/farmmgt/land/lease/papers/Building%20Leases.pdf

www.ohioline.osu.edu/fr-fact/pdf/0007.pdf

Return to Top

What To Do With The Farm?

Jerry Mahan,Extension Educator, Greene County, Ohio State University Extension

How many times have you heard this question from landowners who are struggling to make a decision of what to do with their farm? Perhaps no one in the family is interested in farming or cannot farm the land for other reasons. Maybe the farm has been in the family for several years and there is interest in keeping it as a farm. Maybe the health of the owners has deteriorated to a point where the owners need cash from the land to pay medical bills. What are some of the tax consequences of selling the land? Can we put an agricultural easement on the farm? These and other scenarios are covered in the OSU Ext. Ag. Economics fact sheet titled "What Should I Do With The Farm? It can be found at: http://ohioline.osu.edu/ae-fact/pdf/AEDE_13_09.pdf

Return to Top

Moving from a Handshake to a Written Contract

Peggy Hall, Director, Ohio State University Agricultural & Resource Law Program

Many farm rental situations began years ago with a verbal agreement and a handshake. What happens when one or both of the parties want to put the verbal agreement in writing? A few guidelines may help ease the transition from a handshake to a written contract.

• Begin with the verbal agreement. The parties likely established key terms in the verbal agreement, such as the rental length, amount of acreage and rental fee. Itemize all of the terms addressed by the party in the verbal agreement.

• Revise and determine additional terms. A verbal agreement rarely includes all of the terms that a farmland rental contract should address. Entering into a written contract offers the opportunity to revise the original terms and agree upon additional terms, which can minimize uncertainty and disputes in the future. For a listing of terms to include in a farmland lease, see OSU’s Fact Sheet “Farm Rental Agreement Checklist” at http://ohioline.osu.edu/fr-fact/0003.html

• Tailor the contract to the situation. Forms and checklists can be useful resources, but a contract will be more viable if it carefully fits the actual parties. Rely upon professionals such as accountants, attorneys and farm managers to help analyze needs and determine the impacts of the rental situation.

• Be prepared for problems. Parties to farm leases often hesitate to address resolving disputes. A provision for handling disagreements is imperative to operational continuity, however, and can minimize the costs and challenges of litigation. Assume that there will be problems, and determine an agreeable method for resolving disputes before entering into the contract.

• Ensure enforceability. A written contract in Ohio must meet certain requirements for legal enforceability. Ensure that all owners or representatives sign the contract. Notarize the document and record the lease (or a short form of the lease) with the county recorder where the land is located.

• Use an attorney. Involving an attorney with knowledge in farmland leases will ensure that the contract is comprehensive, tailored and enforceable. Equally important, an attorney can serve as an intermediary when one or both parties are uncomfortable with the transition, as is often the case when a handshake agreement becomes a written contract.

For additional resources on farmland leases, visit the farm lease page on OSU’s Agricultural & Resource Law Program at http://aede.ag.ohio-state.edu/programs/aglaw/farm_leases.htm

Return to Top

Dairy Critical Issue Briefs (DIBS) Address Issues Facing Dairy Producers

Dianne Shoemaker, Extension Dairy Specialist (shoemaker.3@osu.edu), Ohio State University Extension

Dairy Issue Briefs (DIBS) target critical management issues facing Ohio’s economically bruised dairy farms. Cost-cutting decisions must be made with full awareness of both short and long-term production and economic consequences. OSU Extension’s Dairy Working Group, a collaboration of OSU Extension and OARDC faculty is identifying and addressing critical issues in five areas:

• Nutrition and feed costs
• Reproduction and health
• Calf and heifer management
• Business issues
• People and stress management

The Issue Briefs can be found at the http://dairy.osu.edu web site. Twenty one DIBS are now posted and include:

21-09 Communication: Listening during times of stress

20-09 Communication: Sending a message during times of stress

19-09 Communication during times of stress

18-09 How to keep employees when cash is short: The high cost of employee turnover

17-09 Non-cash compensation alternatives for dairy employees

16-09 Do “pop-up” fertilizers make sense in corn silage production?

15-09 Are there opportunities to decrease my current debt payments?

14-09 Ingredient replacement opportunities

13-09 Can I feed my calves “half rations” to save money?

12-09 How do I answer big financial questions?

11-09 How should I take on additional debt?

10-09 Should I wean calves earlier?

8-09 Should I use silage additives this year?

7-09 What happened to our dairy exports?

6-09 Observing signs of stress and depression

5-09 Should I remove feed additives from my diet to reduce short term costs?

4-09 How can I lower feed costs in a management intensive grazing system?

3-09 Will changing from a confinement system to a grazing system reduce my short term costs?

2-09 Is it time for Daisy to go on a truck ride?

1-09 Can I use more corn silage in my diets to reduce cash feed costs?

The emphasis is on “brief”, with a short explanation of the issue, the conclusion and contact information for the author(s) if you have further questions. As additional DIBS are completed, they are posted to the OSU Resources for Ohio’s Dairy Industry Website.

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