|
In this issue
-
New Requirements for
Confinement Buildings
-
Corn Farmers Can
Collect From Starlink Suit
-
The Effect
of Hormonal Implants
-
Corn and Soybean
Replant Decisions
-
Loan—LDP Deadline
New Requirements for
Confinement Buildings
by Kris Kohl, ISUE Ag Engineer
If you are planning to
build a new confinement building this year there are three new things to
complicate your plans.
1. EPA storm water
discharge permit is now needed when the construction site is more than
one acre in size. The permit application requires a description of the
construction activity, the slopes, and site maps showing where the run off
water will go. The permit also must name the creek, river, or lake where the
run off will finally end.
The permit applicant
must provide a plan on how to control erosion from the site using silt
fences, dikes, sediment traps or other similar erosion control structures.
The contractor or producer must inspect the erosion control structures and
devices every 7 days or after any ½” rain, to make sure that they are
working ok.
The applicant must
control 3600 cubic feet of runoff for sedimentation for each acre of
disturbed land. If this were a square area, 6” deep, it would be 85ft by
85ft.
The cost for a one-year
permit, which ends in October, is $150.
The applicant must
publish (twice) his intent to construct in the newspaper with the largest
circulation in the county.
2. Master Matrix
Producers who are applying for construction of new confinement buildings
over 1000 animal units will need to use the master matrix to show they are
being good neighbors in siting their new livestock operation. Additional
separation distances from residence, surface waters, and public use areas
give the most points, though there are 44 sections to receive points.
To receive a passing
score, the producer needs to receive ½ the total possible points or 440
points with ¼ of the total possible points coming from the areas of air,
water, and community.
3.
High Quality Water Resources
list has been established by the DNR that have greater separation distances
for surface manure hauling and construction of livestock buildings. Most are
not in NW Iowa, but we do have some. Protected rivers in NW Iowa are: the
Little Sioux River from Spencer to Cherokee; the North Raccoon River in
Carroll County, from Hwy 286 to Lake Panorama; and the East Fork of the Des
Moines River from Co Road 63 in Kossuth County to
the mouth in Humboldt County.
The protected lakes in
NW Iowa are: in Emmett County, Burr Oak Lake and Turtle Lake; Grover’s
Marsh, Big Spirit Lake, East & West Okoboji Lakes, Upper & Lower Gar Lakes,
and Minnewashta Lake in Dickinson County. If you are near these areas there
are additional restrictions.
Corn Farmers Can Collect From Starlink Suit Deadline Is May 31
by Tom Olsen, ISUE Farm
Management Field Specialist
All corn farmers that planted non-Starlink corn can
receive a portion of the court settlement vs. Aventis for damage to the
price of corn (especially in 2000) created by the Starlink problem.
With the $110 million settlement, if every eligible
acre were claimed, the estimated return to the farmer would be approximately
$1/acre. If only half the acres are claimed, the return would be $2/acre.
The primary claim is for the year 2000 corn acres.
However, if a farmer had no corn in 2000 but did in ’98, ’99, 2001,
or 2002, a claim can be filed for a fractional return (ten cents on the
dollar).
Only farmers who have received no other damage
claims from this suit can qualify. This claim must be filed by May 31.
What’s the process?
1.
A claim form and claim number must be
attained. The forms can be received by calling the claims administrator at
1-888-833-4317 OR a request can be made directly via the web at
www.non-starlinkfarmerssettlement.com. Each farmer will receive an
official form with an individual claim number.
2.
The form is filled out listing the
tracts, farm numbers, and the corn acres for the year
2000 (or the other years). This form also releases Aventis from any
future liability.
3.
Supporting documentation for these
corn acres must be included from the FSA office. This would be the form
FSA-578 Report of Acreage (by farm number) for the year claimed and a field
map showing the acres involved. The county FSA offices are now taking
individual requests for these supporting documents.
A court has ruled that Starlink corn did damage to the
corn market. With the investment of a little time and a stamp, many corn
farmers can recoup a little of the damage done.
The Effect of
Hormonal Implants
by Beth
Ellen Doran, ISUE Beef Field Specialist
Does the
repetitive use of hormonal implants affect beef carcass quality, tenderness
and consumer ratings of beef palatability? Colorado State University
researchers investigated this question.
Crossbred
steer calves from five ranches were randomly allocated to one of ten
different lifetime implant strategies or to a non-implanted control group.
The cattle were implanted at some or all of five phases of production
(branding, weaning, backgrounding, feedlot entry or reimplant time).
So what did
they discover? The carcasses from the control group had higher marbling
scores than carcasses from steers in all other treatment groups. However,
implanting steers at branding, weaning or backgrounding versus not
implanting steers at these production stages did not affect marbling
scores. Steers implanted twice during their lifetime produced carcasses
with higher marbling scores than did steers receiving a total of four or
five implants.
Steaks
obtained from carcasses in the control group had lower shear force values
and were rated by consumers as more desirable for tenderness like/dislike
than steaks obtained from carcasses in all other treatment groups.
Implanting steers at branding or weaning production stages did not affect
steak shear force values, consumer ratings for like/dislike of steak
tenderness, or percentage of consumers rating overall eating quality of
steaks as satisfactory. Implanting steers at backgrounding versus not
implanting steers at this production stage increased steak shear force
values, but did not influence consumer ratings for like/dislike of steak
tenderness or percentage of consumers rating overall eating quality of
steaks as
satisfactory. Steaks from
non-implanted steers were rated as more desirable for overall eating quality
than steaks from steers implanted two, three, four or five times.
The use of
implants increased average daily gain by 11.8 to 20.5% from weaning to
harvest compared with non-implanted controls. Implant strategies increased
the hot carcass weight of the steers by 8.9 to 13.8% compared with the
control group. Use of implants also increased the ribeye area and decreased
estimated percentages of the kidney/pelvic/heart fat, but did not affect
dressing percentage or adjusted fat thickness.
Results of
this study suggest that lifetime implant protocols affected both the eating
quality and tenderness of beef and emphasize the importance of choosing
implant programs based on specific marketing targets for cattle. Producers
retaining ownership of steer calves destined for marketing on a
"quality-oriented," value-based grid may choose not to implant cattle until
backgrounding or feedlot entry in order to minimize the risk of detrimental
effects on beef quality associated with "aggressive" lifetime implant
strategies. The effects of lifetime implant protocols on beef acceptability
may be of particular interest to vertically coordinated branded beef
programs interested in maximizing quality, consistency and tenderness of
their beef products.
(Material for
this article was taken from the Journal of Animal Science, Volume 81 -
Number 4 (April 2003), pages 984-996.)
Corn and Soybean Replant Decisions
by Joel DeJong, ISUE Crops Field Specialist
It is still very
early in the growing season, but each spring several calls come in to
agronomists from producers trying to determine if a replant of the crop
needs to happen. To help make this decision, ISU has conducted research for
many years on populations and planting dates to help take the emotion out of
these decisions, and try to replace that with science.
Here's a table
from ISU Extension publication ICM-1, "Field Records for Integrated Crop
Management" that should help you in those decisions.
These numbers
assume reasonably uniform stands. An example: you can expect about a 91%
crop (compared to maximum potential yield) if your remaining stand, which
was planted on May 1, is 18,000 plants per acre. Compare that to replanting
on June 1 – the yield expectation would only be 81% of a full crop yield.
Also remember, if it is a toss up to replant or keep, you might want to
keep the stand because you still have to pay for the replant!
Other factors can
be added to this decision, such as crop insurance coverage, soil conditions,
herbicides on the field, etc. However, these numbers can at least help you
get a handle on what yield expectations might be.
Questions on
planting/replanting soybeans are frequent, too. The following chart might
help with those decisions:
Soybean planting dates - Following is some ISU
research (1995 – 1997) on planting dates in Iowa.
This data and other date of planting research shows
that the preferred planting dates for soybeans are from early May to
mid-May.
Loan—LDP Deadline
By Ron Hook, ISUE Farm
Management Field Specialist
It’s May—time for planting corn and soybeans. However,
don’t forget the marketing side of your farming operation. The price
protection for 2002 crops offered by LDPs and marketing loans ends on May
31.
Prices are currently high enough so no LDP exists,
but remember a few years ago when no LDP existed at the end of May and then
prices fell in June and July. Many bushels were sold below the loan rate
because a marketing loan was not secured before May 31.
In order to have price protection on any 2002 crop corn
and soybeans that remain unpriced, you must secure a marketing loan on that
grain before the May 31 deadline. Then if prices fall you will have secured
a minimum price for those bushels.
View as
Word Document
Back to Field and Feedlot Homepage |
