Corn Replant Decisions

Consistent rain throughout Knox County has resulted in planting delays.  According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 34% of the corn and 40% of the soybeans have been planted in Ohio, through May 18th .  In  Knox County our corn numbers are higher than that.  For the month of May (through 5/20) we have recorded 7.71 inches of rain at our weather station near Centerburg.  As usual, some parts of the county have received more rain and other areas, not as much.

Some of the corn that has been planted may not survive the cool, wet conditions and therefore may need to be replanted.  Replant decisions in corn should be based on strong evidence that the returns to replanting will not only cover replant costs but also net enough to make it worth the effort.  The following information may help to determine if replanting is justified:

Original target plant population/intended plant stand.  What was your intended plant stand, what is the stand count in the “good” areas of the field.

Plant stand after damage.  To estimate after‑damage plant population per acre, count the number of viable plants in a length of row that equals 1/1000 of an acre and multiply by 1000, for 30 inch rows that would be 17’4″.  Make several counts in different rows in different parts of the field to get a true representation of the field.

Uniformity of plant stand after damage.  If uneven emergence is row to row, that is, most rows are emerged but some are not, replanting will likely not increase yield.  If the delay in emergence is less than two weeks between the early and late emerging plants, replanting may increase yields, but by only 5% or less. Replanting would likely not be economical.  Yet if one-half or more of the plants in the stand emerge three weeks later than the initial plant emergence, replanting may increase yields by about 10%.

Economics – Calculate expected yield from the existing stand and estimated yield from replant.  The table below shows the effect of planting date and plant population on final grain yield. Grain yields for varying dates and populations are expressed as a percentage of the yield obtained at the optimum planting date and population.

For example:   Let’s assume that a field planted on April 20 at a seeding rate sufficient to attain a harvest population of 30,000 plants per acre. On May 28 you determined the stand was reduced to 15,000 plants per acre as a result of saturated soil conditions and ponding. According to the table above, the expected yield for the existing stand (15,000 plants/ac.) would be 81 percent of the optimum. If the corn crop was planted the next day on May 29, and produced a full stand of 30,000 plants per acre, the expected yield would also be 81 percent of the optimum. The difference expected from re-planting is 0 (81 – 81) , which would  not justify replanting costs.  The cost of replanting a field is often the deciding factor. Costs include tillage, seed, fuel (for tillage and planting), additional pesticides, labor, etc. .

Can you get by with replanting certain areas of the field?  This adds several more considerations in addition to those above.  Replanting into existing stands (interseeding) usually creates competition problems with larger plants competing with smaller planes for all needed inputs throughout the rest of the growing season.  Often the smaller plants will turn into weeds.  The best option is usually to destroy the existing stand and start over.

With the continued rains this week it may also be time to consider a Prevented Plant conversation with your crop insurance agent and FSA.

When farm animals escape, who’s liable?

Source: Peggy Kirk Hall, Attorney and Director, Agricultural & Resource Law Program

Recent collisions involving cattle on Ohio roadways raise the question of who is liable when a farm animal causes a roadway accident?  Ohio’s “animals at large law” helps answer that question. It’s an old law that establishes a legal duty for owners and keepers of farm animals to contain their animals.  The law states that an owner or keeper shall not permit their animals to run at large “in the public road, highway, street, lane, or alley, or upon unenclosed land.”  But as with many laws, the answer to the question of “who’s liable” under the law is “it depends.”  Here’s how the law works.

The law applies to both owners and “keepers.”  The animals at large law places responsibility on both the owners and the “keepers” of the animals.  The reference to “keepers” can expand the duty to someone other than the animal owner.  Ohio courts have interpreted the “keeper” language to include a person “who has physical care or charge” of the animal or has “some degree of management, possession, care, custody or control” over the animal.  Whether someone is a “keeper” is a fact specific determination made on a case-by-case basis.

Animals that must be contained.  Several years ago, Ohio legislators added poultry to the list of animals an owner must prevent from running at large.  The full list of animals an owner or keeper must contain now includes horses, mules, cattle, bison, sheep, goats, swine, llamas, alpacas, and poultry.

The law creates both civil and criminal liability.  There are two potential outcomes to violating the animals at large law.   The first is civil liability for “negligently permitting”  animals to run at large.  The owner or keeper who does so is responsible for all damages resulting from injury, death, or loss to a person or property caused by the animal.  The second is criminal liability.  An owner or keeper who “recklessly” permits the animals to run at large can be charged with a fourth degree misdemeanor.

An owner’s negligent conduct creates civil liability.  An owner can be liable for “negligently permitting” animals to run at large, but what does “negligently permitting” mean?  Courts have answered this question by stating that the law requires “negligent conduct” by the owner or keeper and that failing to exercise “ordinary care” to contain animals would be negligent conduct.  As an example, a court determined that an owner who leaned a gate against a barn opening without fastening the gate to the barn or to any fence posts did not exercise ordinary care to contain his cattle.  But the law allows an owner to rebut the presumption that the animals were out because of the owner’s negligent conduct.  An owner can offer proof of “ordinary care” taken to contain the animal, such as maintaining fences, locking gates, or checking animals regularly.  If the owner had exercised reasonable care and the animals escaped for other reasons, such as being spooked by a storm or a gate left open by someone else, the owner might not be liable for the animals running at large. Whether the owner or keeper “negligently permitted” the escape would be a fact specific determination, made on a case-by-case basis.

Reckless conduct can result in criminal charges.  In the example above, the court determined that the owner who merely leaned a gate up against the barn opening behaved “recklessly.”  Legally, recklessness is acting with complete disregard to the consequences.  Reckless behavior can lead to a criminal charge against the animal owner, with a maximum jail sentence of 30 days and a fine of up to $250.

Reducing liability risk under the animals at large law

  1. Regular management practices.  In the court cases that apply Ohio’s animals at large law, the owner or keeper’s management practices are critically important to a liability determination.  Animal owners and keepers can reduce liability risk by following routine management practices and documenting those practices, which include:
  • Regularly checking and maintaining fences.
  • Locking gates.
  • Inspecting and maintaining stalls and similar enclosures.
  • Checking and counting animals regularly, and immediately after a storm or similar event.
  • Installing cameras.
  • Training employees to follow management practices.

2. The fence matters.  It’s also important to build a sufficient fence.  OSU Extension offers helpful resources on fencing in this video on fencing systems by Educator Ted Wiseman and this article on common fencing mistake posted by the OSU Sheep Team.  Be aware that another Ohio law requires a new boundary line fence for livestock to be a certain type of fence.  Ohio’s “partition fence law” requires a new boundary line fence for containing livestock to be:

“a woven wire fence, either standard or high tensile, with one or two strands of barbed wire located not less than forty-eight inches from the ground or a nonelectric high tensile fence of at least seven strands and that is constructed in accordance with the United States natural resources conservation service conservation practice standard for fences, code 382.” If adjacent owners agree in writing, a new line fence to contain livestock can also be a barbed wire, electric, or live fence.

3. Insurance and business entities.  Insurance is necessary risk management tool for farm animal owners and keepers.  It’s important to review all animals and animal activities with an insurance provider and ensure adequate liability coverage.  In some situations, using a separate business entity like a Limited Liability Company might be helpful for liability purposes.  Animal owners and keepers should consult with insurance and legal advisors to determine individual insurance and legal needs.

Ohio’s animals at large law is in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 951.  Ohio’s partition fence law is in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 971.

Farm Office Live to be held on October 20 at 10:00 a.m.

The OSU Extension Farm Office Team is pleased to be offering a “Farm Office Live” Zoom webinar on Friday, October 20 from 10:00 to 11:30 a.m.

This month’s webinar will feature the following topics:

  • Federal Farm Program Assistance Update
  • Legislative Update
  • A Look at Upcoming Farm Management Programs
  • Crop Input Outlook for 2024
  • Handing an Insurance Claim
  • Farm Bill Update

Featured Farm Office Team members include Bruce Clevenger, Jeff Lewis, David Marrison, Eric Richer, and Barry Ward.

To register for this program (or to access replays of previous programs):

go.osu.edu/farmofficelive

More information about this program can be accessed at farmoffice.osu.edu

Farm Insurance: Covering Your Assets

Farms are subject to more risks than ever before. Whether it is the liability exposure of driving equipment on roadways or the potential of property loss due to a barn roof collapse, every farm has multiple sources of risk. While farmers can reduce their risk exposure through good business practices and rigorous safety protocols, there is no way to entirely eliminate risks. For this reason, insurance policies that adequately protect against risks are a necessity for farm operations. Farmers likely understand the important role insurance plays in protecting farm assets. But how many actually read and understand their insurance policies? The failure to read policies is not a result of apathy but more likely due to the almost complex nature of an insurance policy. Reading and understanding an insurance policy is difficult for anyone other than those in the insurance industry. The objective of this publication is to help by providing farmers a basic understanding of insurance policies—from common coverages to policies in preparation for a thorough policy review with the insurance agent. Our information is based on general knowledge as applicable to most policies. Farmers should periodically review their insurance policy, including coverage limits, with their agent to be sure they are fully covered for potential risks.

Click here to view entire document