|
Newsletter | Past Issues
October,
2009
In This Issue:
Some
Thoughts on Ohio Issue 2
Acceptable
Production Evidence for ACRE
Dairy
Price Outlook
Hog
Producers See First Signs of Economic Recovery
Ohio
Income Tax Schools to be held in 10 Locations
Agricultural
Tax Issues Workshop Announced
10th
Annual Ohio Farmland Preservation Summit
Do
you have a question that you would like to ask the Ohio
AG Manager Team? If so, click here to email your
question
Some
Thoughts on Ohio Issue 2
Brian
Roe, AED Economics, Ohio State University
As
the fall election season approaches, many are becoming
aware of Ohio's
Ballot Issue 2 , which pertains to care standards
for farm animals. This article does not provide
an analysis of whether Issue 2 is good or bad nor does
it address any issues concerning the science of animal
care. Rather, I go through a series of questions about
the management implications of Issue 2 if it should
happen to pass and if it should happen to fail.
Given
the novelty of this ballot initiative, firm answers
are difficult to provide. However, I try to provide
some possibilities of what passage or defeat of Issue
2 might mean for Ohio livestock and poultry farmers.
Exact language of this initiative is available here.
Questions A – G are answered by using language from
the ballot initiative and joint resolution itself, i.e.,
I am basically re-organizing the words in the initiative
to answer some common questions. Questions H – M were
formulated by me and based upon my own research and
analysis. I thank Peggy Hall of Ohio State's Agricultural
Law Program for discussing and clarifying some of the
legal implications and ‘what ifs' of the initiative
with me as I developed this work, but the content contained
below is solely my responsibility.
Some
Basics About Issue 2
A.
What happens if Issue 2 passes?
•
A Livestock Care Standards Board is created in Ohio
B.
Who is on the Board?
•
13 Members
•
No more than 7 from any single political party
•
Ohio residents
•
Representatives of Ohio family farms, farming organizations,
food safety experts, veterinarians, consumers, the
dean of an agricultural department at an Ohio college
or university, a county humane society representative
C.
What is this Board authorized to do?
•
Establish standards for governing the care and well-being
of livestock and poultry in Ohio
D.
What should these standards attempt to achieve?
•
Maintain food safety
•
Encourage locally grown and raised food
•
Protect Ohio farms and families
E.
What factors must be considered when establishing and
implementing these standards?
•
Agricultural best management practices
•
Biosecurity
•
Disease prevention
•
Animal morbidity and mortality data
•
Food safety practices
•
Protection of local, affordable food supplies
•
Any other factors deemed appropriate by the Board
F.
Who administers and enforces these standards?
•
The Ohio department that regulates agriculture
G.
If someone wants to challenge the standards created
by the board, is there any recourse?
•
The administration and enforcement of the standards
by the Ohio department regulating agriculture is subject
to the authority of the General Assembly.
Some ‘What-Ifs' About Issue 2 and Beyond
H.
If Issue 2 passes, does it mean that nothing will change
for Ohio livestock farms?
•
This is not clear. Consider several speculative scenarios
(and, please, do not consider my introduction of these
scenarios as an endorsement of any of them).
- Absolutely
no change for producers . The newly created
Board is seated and essentially adopts existing
livestock practices as their chosen standards. The
department implementing and enforcing these standards
finds no need to verify whether individual operators
are in line with these practices or utilizes a verification
method with virtually no cost to individual producers.
- Only
paperwork/administrative changes for producers.
The newly created Board is seated and essentially
adopts existing livestock practices as their chosen
standards. The department implementing and enforcing
these standards requires that all producers document
compliance via a record keeping and paperwork regime.
So, even though no operator would alter production
practices, all operators may need to undertake additional
administrative work that can be costly and time-consuming,
particularly for smaller operations where the livestock
entity is not the core enterprise.
- Changes
in production practices . The Board is seated
and eventually (perhaps with changes in membership
due to administration turn over or public pressure
upon legislative members) adopts care standards
that would substantially alter production practices.
The department implementing and enforcing these
standards would then need to implement a compliance
regime that verifies that practices are actually
changed to comply with new standards, which could
alter the fixed or variable costs of producers in
addition to administrative costs.
I.
If Issue 2 passes, does it mean that future ballot initiatives
aimed at banning certain animal care practices are impossible?
•
Passage of Issue 2 would not guarantee that California-style
ballot initiatives would not be introduced in
2010 or beyond, but would likely decrease the odds
of such targeted animal care initiatives. Subsequent
initiatives seeking to ban certain practices would
have to alter Issue 2 to accommodate the goals of
subsequent initiatives, which could cause further
delays.
J.
If Issue 2 fails, what could happen?
•
Ohio voters might vote on a California-style
ballot initiative in 2010 or beyond that would
seek to ban cages for hens, farrowing crates for gestating
sows and crates for veal calves, perhaps by amending
the Ohio constitution. Note that most previous state-level
animal care initiatives have not amended the constitution
of the state, but rather just changed regulations.
Only the
Florida ballot initiative , which banned farrowing
crates, amended the state's constitution. Amendments
to a state's constitution are more rigid in implementation
and harder to change than simple legislative initiatives.
•
Legislators and farm groups may instead try to broker
a Michigan-style
negotiated deal to avoid a ballot initiative
where most of the above-mentioned practices are eventually
banned, but the main bargaining chip is how long before
such standards are mandatory. For example, the standards
will not be in full effect until 2020 for Michigan.
K.
If a California-style initiative passes in Ohio in 2010,
what would happen?
•
Farmers currently using banned practices will have to
make a decision among 3 options:
1.
Spend money to
•
Change production techniques
•
Any big change in production practices costs money
•
Most methods that would be banned are currently
the least expensive production methods, particularly
at larger scales of production
•
A study of the effects of banning cages for laying
hens in California was conducted by
UC – Davis economists , and found that non-cage
systems would increase costs of production by
about 20%.
•
Alter sales and marketing strategies
•
No one in Ohio would be required to buy the products
produced under the altered production standards,
so they would need to work through niche companies
that sell products for a premium and try to recoup
their increased expenses via higher sales price.
•
However if many farmers try to sell to this
niche market, those historically high sale prices
will decline as the market may become flooded
with additional product.
2.
Spend money to move their operation to a location
that allows such practices
3.
Exit the line of business subject to the new standards
L.
If a California-style initiative passes in Ohio in 2010,
will fewer total animals be subject to the banned practices?
•
It depends on how many farmers choose option 1 under
question K in the previous section. Consider two extremes:
1.
All current farmers using the banned practices stay
in business at the same exact level of production
and implement alternative production methods. Then
all of the animals currently exposed to the banned
practices each year would be raised using alternative
means, which would clearly reduce the worldwide number
of animals exposed to the banned practice.
2.
All current farmers using the banned practices either
move or exit. Then the same number of animals worldwide
would be raised using the banned practices, just their
location would be shifted out of Ohio while the products
are shipped back to Ohio for consumption.
•
The truth will lie somewhere in between and will likely
depend on:
1.
How much demand (and price premiums) for animal products
raised under alternative production systems increases
by the required transition date. Thisin turn will depend
on:
•
Whether consumers willingness to pay increases
•
Whether lots of other producers in other states also
transition and flood the market for these alternative
production system oods.
2.
How much the costs and efficiencies for alternative
production systemsimprove by the required transition
date. This is turn will likely depend on:
•
How many other farmers will have implemented these
systems and, through experience, reduced the cost
and increased the efficiencies of such systems
•
If good information and financing is made available
to farmers interested in transitioning to alternative
systems.
M.
What has happened to egg production in California since
the passage of the California ballot initiative?
•
California is the 5 th leading producer of eggs nationally.
•
The 2008 ballot initiative will require changes in the
way laying hens are
raised.
Note two things about the initiative and the laying
hen industry:
•
The rule changes will not go into effect until 2015.
•
The exact implications of the law for production practices
have not been fully articulated
•
For example, it has not been determined whether
the law outlaws all cages or just cages small enough
to limit birds from turning around fully with wings
spread without touching other birds.
•
However, comparing layer hen numbers from July 2008,
which preceded the ballot initiative, to July 2009 numbers,
which follow the initiative, we find that:
•
The number of laying hens in California dropped by
about 1 million birds
•
This is the 2 nd largest decline in laying hen numbers
among all states
•
This represents 24% of the laying hen population decline
observed nationally
•
California's share of the nation's laying hens declined
from 6.1% to 5.8%
•
All reductions in laying hen numbers in California
occurred among large flocks while small flock numbers
gained slightly.
•
These numbers may indicate initial industry response
from the impending regulatory changes
•
However, other regional factors cannot be ruled out
as drivers of the change in hen numbers given the
short time frame of the data analyzed
N.
Why not propose an alternative to banning certain production
practices? For example, ban the sale of products in
Ohio that do not use certain practices.
•
There has been some discussion of an effort
to do this in California in light of the passage
of the California law banning cages in the production
of eggs produced in that state.
•
For Ohio, such a ban on the sale of such products
would encourage Ohio farmers to not exit or move production
because they now have the advantage of a built-in
home market for selling products raised under such
standards.
•
This would likely alter the production circumstances
of more animals globally than a California-style ban
that focuses only on production within the state's
borders.
•
Such an initiative would also force Ohio consumers
to think more fully about the implications because
they would now be forced to pay any additional production
costs associated with banning such practices through
higher prices at the store.
•
However, such an alternative may not be practical
as it may face federal legal challenges as an infringement
of interstate commerce. Although, other states, such
as California, have passed regulations such as a ban
on the sale of foie gras from force-fed geese
regardless of where the foie gras was produced.
Return
to Top
Acceptable
Production Evidence for ACRE
Mike
Gastier, OSU Extension Educator, Huron County
For
producers that elected the ACRE program over the traditional
DCP program in The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act
of 2008, current market conditions would indicate that
choosing ACRE may be financially rewarding in the future.
That being said, don't forget that producers do have
some additional responsibilities to insure that conditions
of the ACRE contract are met, most notably providing
acceptable production evidence.
In
the words of Farm Service Agency Notice DCP-215 “Unique
production reporting components of ACRE are that participating
producers may report production to establish
the historical benchmark farm yields and producers must
annually report production beginning in the year
of ACRE participation”. In short, a producer enrolled
in ACRE may choose to provide production evidence to
establish farm benchmark yields or accept county plug
yields. For all production years that producers are
enrolled in ACRE , current and future production evidence
is not an option, but rather a requirement of the contract.
Farm
Service Agency Notice DCP-215 deals with fulfilling
the production evidence requirements both for current
production and past production. Although the document
is 23 pages long, it is fairly readable and adequately
describes most of the situations that Ohio producers
will face in the process of harvesting and handling
grain. The Notice shows form FSA-658 which will be the
new form for reporting production evidence both past
and current. By viewing the form, producers can see
exactly what production information will be requested.
Keep
in mind that having grain measured by FSA or by a crop
insurance representative either in the field or in the
bin has become a very useful approach to providing production
evidence. This is particularly important when the grain
is fed, commingled, used for seed or if the crop is
harvested for hay or silage. If there is ever a question
about how a given commodity will ultimately be used,
be sure to get a measurement in the field or in the
bin to establish an acceptable production record. Once
that record is established, the producer has many options
on the final use of the grain.
Due
to the length of the FSA Notice on production evidence,
it's best to direct you to Farm Service Agency Notice
DCP-215 rather than deal with each scenario individually.
Please
find it online at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_Notice/dcp_215.pdf
or get a copy from your local FSA office. Ask specifically
for Notice DCP-215.
Return
to Top
Dairy
Price Outlook
Cameron
Thraen, The Ohio State University Extension, State Specialist,
Dairy Markets and Policy, The
Ohio State University
The
following paragraph from the USDA Livestock, Dairy and
Poultry Outlook, September 17, 2009 tells the current
and future dairy price story (italics added for emphasis).
"The
August Milk Production report showed U.S.
milk production estimates virtually unchanged
from August a year ago, despite 145,000 fewer
cows in the national herd. For the year to date, milk
production has risen every month compared with the
corresponding month a year ago, while the dairy herd
has shown a decline for every month in 2009 since
March. Continued low prices for milk and dairy products
have not brought a decline in production ,
which would bring milk supplies into line with demand.
Lower prices for feed ingredients, especially corn
and alfalfa
hay, have provided an incentive for producers
to feed for milk production despite
culling.”
While
there is certainly significant financial pain in the
U.S. dairy farm sector, the key fact is that increases
in milk productivity per cow has worked to offset the
largest decline in U.S. cow numbers experienced since
the January 2000 to January 2004 reduction. As we look
ahead to the last quarter of 2009, total U.S. milk production
is expected to be down only 1.6 billion pounds (0.8%)
over 2008 production. Looking ahead to 2010, total milk
production is anticipated to be down another 1.7 billion
pounds (0.9%). These declines are in the right direction
to bring market supply into balance with demand, but
they are nowhere near enough to restore milk prices
to levels experience in 2007 and 2008.
While
rising productivity is mitigating the draw-down in U.S.
milk cow numbers, commercial use (fat-basis) is expected
to increase by 2.7 billion pounds (1.47%) in 2009 over
2008. Looking ahead to 2010, commercial use is not expected
to show much growth. Only 0.1 billion pounds (0.05%)
2010 over 2009. On a skim solids basis, more growth
in commercial use is expected due to some additional
exports of skim milk powder and whey.
With
U.S. milk production not expected to show a significant
reduction in the coming 16 months, milk prices at the
farm are expected to show only a modest rebound for
the remaining quarter of 2009 and on into 2010. The
All milk price average for 2008 was $18.29. At the current
time, it appears that the All Milk price will average
between $12.05 and $12.25 for 2009. Looking ahead to
2010, the All Milk price will strengthen, with a forecast
average of $14.55 to $15.55. The Class 3 price, averaging
$17.44 for 2008, is forecast to be in the $10.65 to
$10.85 range for a 2009 average. In 2010, the Class
3 milk price is expected to average $13.75 - $14.75.
These
prices are not at all stellar when compared to the 2008
and even the 2007 averages. However, as pointed out
in the Livestock, Dairy and Poultry report, feed input
costs have declined significantly from the high values
posted in those years. The uncertainly going into the
last quarter of 2009, and then into 2010 resides with
these input prices. Will a record U.S. corn crop and
a near record U.S. soybean crop push feed prices back
to acceptable levels in 2010? What will happen to other
input costs, such as fuel and energy? If these continue
to moderate, then the All Milk price in the $14.55 -
$15.55 could return net margins to minimally acceptable
levels. However, if a restoration of world economic
growth once again pushes these input prices higher in
2010, more financial pain for the U.S. dairy sector
will likely follow in the coming months.
Return
to Top
Hog
Producers See First Signs of Economic Recovery
Source:
Chris Hurt, Purdue University, Department of Agricultural
Economics, 765-494-4273, hurtc@purdue.edu
Urbana
— The magnitude of losses from pork production
operations is declining and profits are expected to
turn positive in the spring of 2010, according to Purdue
University Extension Economist Chris Hurt.
"On the supply side, the USDA's September 25th
Hogs and Pigs report revealed slightly larger reductions
in the herd than had been expected. The breeding herd
was down 3.1 percent over the past year compared to
an anticipated 2.5 percent. The number of pigs weighing
less than 60 pounds was down 3.7 percent compared to
an anticipated 1.5 percent reduction. The market herd
was down 0.7 percent more than pre-report guesses,"
Hurt said.
The breeding herd declined only 5 percent in the past
two years and has been partially offset by higher weaning
rates and higher market weights. As a result, production
in 2009 dropped only 2 percent with prospects of only
a 1 to 2 percent drop in 2010.
However, improving demand will likely have more positive
implications for hog prices than reduced supply.
"Many economists believe the recession is over.
It is widely anticipated that GDP numbers for the third
quarter of 2009 will be positive, signaling the end
of this long and deep recession. The U.S. estimate will
be released on October 29. While the recovery in the
U.S. economy will be slow with unemployment staying
high, positive growth numbers will tend to help consumers
'free up' spending on meat," Hurt said.
Lower pork prices at the consumer level will also be
positive for pork consumption this fall. "In
the first half of 2009, U.S. pork prices averaged $2.95
per retail pound compared to $2.87 in the first half
of 2008. It was very difficult to sell larger U.S. pork
supplies at higher prices early this year," Hurt
said.
However, a pattern of lower retail prices is expected
through the fall and winter of 2009. "Lower
pork supplies with lower retail prices should strengthen
hog prices and result in a higher portion of the retail
pork expenditures flowing back to producers," Hurt
said.
Exports are expected to strengthen as well.
"World economic recovery is expected to have more
upside potential than the U.S. recovery. In addition,
the value of the U.S. dollar is expected to remain weak
and will be another reason that foreign pork purchases
could increase," Hurt said.
Current USDA forecasts are for pork exports to be up
9 percent over the next nine months compared to the
same period a year earlier.
"Just as the world economic slowdown helped plunge
the animal industries into recession more quickly than
the crops sector, the world economic recovery may help
lift the animal industries out of recession more quickly
than the crops sector," Hurt said. With some reduction
in domestic production and greater exports, per capita
pork availability in the United States will be down
about 3 to 4 percent in the coming nine months. This,
along with lower U.S. retail pork prices, improving
incomes, and improving consumer attitudes will provide
the basis for strengthening hog prices.
"Hog prices are expected to average in the high
$30s on a live-weight basis for the final quarter of
2009. Prices are expected to rise to the low $40s this
winter and then move into the mid-$40s for second quarter
averages. Next summer's prices are expected to rise
into the high $40s for an average and the low $50s for
weekly highs," Hurt said.
Lower corn, soybean meal, and energy prices will be
helpful in reducing losses this fall and winter. Estimated
costs for this time period are in the $44 to $46 range.
Costs may rise to $45 to $47 for the spring and summer
of 2010 using current adjusted corn and soybean meal
futures prices.
"Given these costs and the hog price outlook, farrow-to-finish
producers are expected to lose about $15 per head this
fall and $7 per head in the winter. Margins would turn
to small profits of about $2 a head in the spring and
$12 a head in the summer. For all of 2010, current forecasts
are for about $3 per head of profits versus losses of
$22 per head in 2009 and $17 of loss in 2008,"
Hurt said.
Return
to Top
Ohio
Income Tax Schools to be held in 10 Locations
David
Marrison, OSU Extension Educator
The
Ohio State University 's Department of Agricultural,
Environmental, and Development Economics Department
is pleased to be offering ten OSU Income Tax Schools
across Ohio from November 5 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:
Cincinnati – November 5 (new one day school)
Montgomery Inn
9440 Montgomery Road
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Cleveland (Brunswick) – November 10 (new one day school)
Diamond Event Center
1480 Pearl Road
Brunswick, OH 44212
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
10th
Annual Ohio Farmland Preservation Summit
Peggy
Kirk Hall, Director, Agricultural & Resource Law
Program, The Ohio State University Extension
SAVE
THE DATE
10th Annual Ohio Farmland Preservation Summit
Set for November 5, 2009
http://cffpi.osu.edu/summit09.htm
On
November 5, 2009, the tenth annual Ohio Farmland Preservation
Summit will take place at the new Nationwide and Ohio
Farm Bureau 4-H Center on the Ohio State University
campus. For this landmark anniversary, we offer an exciting
and information-packed agenda. To help us celebrate
a decade of gatherings, The Ohio State University President,
Gordon Gee, will give a welcome and USDA Deputy Secretary,
Kathleen Merrigan, will provide an address via video.
There will also be exhibition space and a fresh produce
market with live music in the afternoon.
You
often hear that farmland provides services beyond food
and fiber production. The morning panel will begin by
addressing the question: How can we begin to value these
services, such as carbon sequestration and nutrient
management and what selling and trading of these services
mean for farmland protection? The afternoon session
focuses on the role of farmland protection in balancing
growth and restoring prosperity to Ohio.
Breakout
sessions are available on a variety of topics ranging
from the basics of preserving the farm business, adapting
to climate change through soil management, using surveys
to gauge support for farmland protection, results from
the latest census, to food policy and Ohio farmland.
WHAT:
10th Annual Ohio Farmland Preservation Summit:
Planting the Seeds of Future Prosperity
WHERE:
Nationwide and Ohio Farm Bureau 4-H Center, Ohio
State University, 2201 Fred Taylor Drive, Columbus,
Ohio 43210
DATE:
November 5, 2008
TIME:
9:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. (approximate)
For
additional information about the conference, go to http://cffpi.osu.edu/summit09.htm
or contact Jody Fife, Ohio Department of Agriculture's
Office of Farmland Preservation, at 614-728-6210 or
farmlandpres@agri.ohio.gov.
It is expected that registration materials will be available
in early September.
Planning
committee organizations: Agriculture & Resource
Law Program, OSU; American Farmland Trust; Center for
Farmland Policy Innovation, OSU; Countryside Conservancy;
Denison University; Marketing Division, ODA; Office
of Farmland Preservation, ODA; Ohio Farm Bureau Federation;
Ohio County Commissioners Association; Ohio Environmental
Council; Ohio Federation of Soil and Water Conservation
Districts; Ohio Planning Conference; Ohio Township Association;
Otterbein University; and Western Reserve Land Conservancy.
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
|
