Prevent Lady Beetle Invasions to Your Home

Fall brings wonderful colors, the smell of harvest in the air, and the not so great annual invasion of multi-colored lady beetles. Generally in late-September through October the Multi-Colored Asian Lady Beetle begins to seek out shelter where they will spend the winter hibernating. They prefer cavities that stay cool dry and offer concealment. In there native range of Asia the adult beetle seeks out cavities in cliff faces. In Ohio, the multi-colored Asian Lady Beetle adults seeks overwintering sites oriented toward light colored conspicuous objects such as light colored buildings especially on south and southwest sides of walls warmed by the sun.

Before we condemn this beetle as a complete nuisance, keep in mind that the Asian Lady Beetle is an important predator that consumes large numbers of aphids and scale insects on trees, shrubs and agriculture crops through out the spring and summer months. However, their choice of an overwintering location (generally people’s homes) leaves much to be desired. People often express concern and aggravation with these nuisance insects. The beetle will periodically invade living spaces in response to the warm interior temperatures. On warm sunny days they may move about and fly within the home.

When Asian lady beetles are disturbed they defend themselves by exuding a yellow-orange fluid. This fluid has a foul odor and can permanently stain walls, drapes, carpet and clothing. Refrain from crushing or swatting to minimize the release of this fluid. Asian Lady Beetles can bite but generally are not aggressive. Theses “nips” or “pinches” do not usually break the skin. They do not carry disease nor do they have any toxin associated with their mouthparts.

The best management recommendation is to prevent the beetles for entering the home or building. Outdoors check for and seal all obvious cracks and spaces where beetles can gain access. Check attic screens for holes, caulk wherever a utility pipe, telephone or cable enters the siding and make sure the weather seal on doors and windows is tight.

Chemical treatments can provide protection to help prevent pest entry. The pesticide typically is applied to outside walls and siding, as well as around eaves, attic vents, roof overhangs, and doors and windows. Pre-test a small area to ensure that the chemical treatment does not cause staining or discoloration. If using a pesticide, Ohio State University Extension researchers recommend using a pyrethroid insecticide product. Examples of pyrethroid active ingredients include: bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, deltamethrin, etc.

Inside the home the use of a vacuum is the best defense. In small numbers, you may find the use or sticky tape helpful with capturing the flying beetle. Vacuuming is the most efficient and rapid technique. Be sure to empty the sweeper bag or receptacle immediately as the odor from the beetle can be quite unpleasant. Ohio State University’s official FactSheet on Multi-Colored Asian Lady Beetles is available at http://ohioline.osu.edu/hse-fact/1030.html

Tips and Suggestions for Controlling Marestail this Fall

The following is condensed from the October 6, 2009 OSU CORN newsletter written by Dr. Mark Loux on marestail control.

The goal of a marestail management program is to ensure that the combination of fall and spring burndown and residual herbicides results in a weed-free seedbed at the time of soybean emergence, and little to no emergence of marestail between soybean emergence and crop canopy closure. Even the most effective marestail management programs can fail to completely achieve this, but they often keep the populations low enough in the soybeans that they are not problematic.

Marestail plants that emerge in late summer or fall are easily controlled with a fall herbicide treatment. However, it’s essential to realize that a fall herbicide treatment is not likely to accomplish everything that’s needed in an effective marestail management program.

In those marestail-infested fields requiring a fall herbicide treatment for management of other winter annual annual weeds or dandelion, it is essential not to apply all of the residual herbicide in the fall. This also applies to those fields that are typically so wet that soybeans cannot be planted until mid to late May. In this situation, the goal of a fall residual herbicide treatment might be just to ensure that marestail are not too large when burndown herbicides are finally applied in May. Regardless of the type of herbicides applied in fall, an effective rate of a residual herbicide should still be applied in the spring, to maximize control of marestail that emerges in May and June. We suggest one of the following approaches [for marestail control]:

1. Apply a combination of glyphosate and 2,4-D in the fall, followed by application of residual herbicide in the spring prior to soybean emergence. At the time of soybean planting, the field is likely to be infested with marestail that emerged earlier in spring, so include effective burndown herbicides (2,4-D, Gramoxone, glyphosate, or Ignite or some combination as appropriate based on herbicide resistance, plant size and time until soybean planting) to control emerged plants.

2. Apply 2,4-D with Canopy DF or EX at fairly low rates (e.g. 1 oz of EX or 2 oz of DF) in the fall, followed by application of residual herbicide in the spring (with burndown herbicides if the residual from fall does not hold marestail through planting). It is possible to follow the fall Canopy application with a spring application of a chlorimuron-containing herbicide, as long as the total does not exceed the maximum labeled rate of chlorimuron for the soil type.

3. In ALS-resistant populations where Canopy will fail to provide any residual control of marestail, it may be possible to substitute a combination of 2,4-D with metribuzin in the fall. This combination should control most emerged winter annuals, but can be weak on dandelion. Follow with application of residual herbicide in the spring (with burndown herbicides if the residual from fall does not hold marestail through planting).

Full podcast here:

Certified Professional Soil Scientist Designation

As an ARCPACS certified soil scientist and member of Ohio’s Board of Soil Science Certification, one of my personal commitments is to expand the number of certifications.  To that end, I have been working alongside several colleagues to promote the certification. Below are two presentations that have been used. The certification program is administered by the Soil Science Society of America.

This presentation was developed and narrated by me (Andy Kleinschmidt):

.

The second presentation was developed by Frank Gibbs:

Ohio Issue 2 – OSU Fact Sheet on Legal Questions

Peggy Kirk Hall, Director of Ag Law at OSU, has prepared the below fact sheet to answer legal questions about Issue 2, the Livestock Care Standards Board ballot issue. The fact sheet explains the ballot initiative process and the actual language of the joint resolution that created Issue 2.

If you have other legal questions about Issue 2, please leave the questions here in a comment and they will be answered.

Issue2FactSheet.pdf

Increase Wheat Seeding Rate If Late Planting Becomes a Concern

The following is from the October 6, 2009 issue of the OSU CORN newsletter. The article is written by: Pierce Paul, Jim Beuerlein, Edwin Lentz, and Dennis Mills.

The prospect of a late soybean harvest again this year already has some Ohio wheat growers concerned about having to plant wheat later than recommended (Hessian Fly Safe date; between September 22 for northern counties and October 5 for the southern-most counties). Ideally, all the wheat should be planted by the second week of October in order to ensure adequate tiller development before winter dormancy. Due to late soybean harvest, growers in some areas will more than likely be planting wheat well into October. Wheat planted late is at greater risk for poor stand establishment (fewer tillers per foot of row), increased winter kill, and spring heaving. However, this all depends of the weather conditions during the fall and early winter. In any given year, if warmer-than-usual conditions occur during late fall-early winter (freezing weather delayed until early December), even wheat planted as late as the first week of November may still do fairly well.

If late planting becomes an issue, growers should plant at a higher seeding rate than the regularly recommended rate of 1.2 to 1.6 million seeds per acre for 7.5-inch rows (that is about 18 to 24 seeds per foot of row with normal sized seed) to compensate for fewer tiller development in late-planted wheat (during the third and fourth week after the fly-safe date). Plant at a rate of 1.6 to 2.0 million seed per acre instead of the normal seeding rate. The number of seeds per pound and germination rate are important for determining the correct seeding rate and drill calibration. There are fewer seeds per pound of large seeds than per pound of small seeds. The number of seeds per pound can be found on the seed bag. Additionally, late planting also means plants will be smaller than normal when entering dormancy, have smaller and more shallow root systems than normal making them more susceptible to heaving next March. The best heaving control is to place the seed between 1.0 and 1.5 inches deep and to plant no-till. These two practices combined will reduce heaving potential by more than 95 percent. Also, do not increase your fall N rate in an attempt to get more tiller development or larger plants. The recommended 20 to 30 pounds of N will be adequate even at the later planting date. Larger N rates will most likely be lost and not benefit the crop.

Full podcast here:

Ohio State Unviersity President Gordon Gee Talks about Issue 2

In this video clip provided by Ohio Farm Bureau, Ohio State University President E. Gordon Gee discusses Ohio Issue 2 and animal welfare.  Gee: “I’m voting for it.” Click on the video clip below to hear Dr. Gee address Issue 2 Ohio:

more about “Ohio State Unviersity President Gordo…“, posted with vodpod

Regulation of Farm Pesticide Applications, Change May be Coming

The following is written by 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 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.

Purdue: Soybean Rust Confirmed in Indiana

From: Purdue Plant & Pest Diagnostic Lab (http://www.ppdl.purdue.edu/PPDL/soybean_rust.html)

Soybean rust was confirmed in Indiana September 30th on soybean leaves collected in southeast Posey county.  Posey County is in the extreme southern and western part of Indiana. The soybean field where rust was found was at R7 and rust was detected at very low levels. Pustules were observed on 14 out of 100 leaves. Severity was low, with 1-2 pustules on each infected leaf.

In 2009, soybean rust has been found in 14 states and 293 counties in the United States, and in two states and five municipalities in Mexico.

Soybean rust was found in 392 counties in the United States in 2008. This is the highest number of counties reporting the disease since it was first discovered in the continental U.S. in 2004.

Unfortunately, there are additional hosts that can serve as overwintering reservoirs for the pathogen and allow for build-up of inoculum, in those environs free from freezing temperatures. The pathogen is well adapted for long-distance dispersal, because spores can be readily carried long distances by the wind to new, rust-free regions.

Although impossible to find symptoms this late in the year in Ohio (thanks to the October 1 killing freeze) the latest soybean rust information can always be found at corn.osu.edu

Full podcast:

Graphical Display of Major US Crops, 2009

Please click on the image for a larger view:

Some Thoughts on Ohio Issue 2

The following is a summary of Issue 2 Ohio from Brian Roe, AED Economics, Ohio State University. One of the most common questions relates to compensation for board members. I have placed the compensation issue at the end of the post (thanks to Peggy Kirk Hall, OSU Director of Ag Law Program).

.

October 26, 2009 Update: The Ohio Issue 2 Factsheet is now available at: http://agvanwert.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/ohio-issue-2-osu-fact-sheet-on-legal-questions/

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 Ohio Issue 2 if it should happen to pass and if it should happen to fail.

Given the novelty of the Issue 2 Ohio 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 Ohio Issue 2

A.  What happens if Ohio 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 Ohio 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).

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 Ohio Issue 2 passes, does it mean that future ballot initiatives aimed at banning certain animal care practices are impossible?

• Passage of Ohio 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 Ohio 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.  This in 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 goods.

2.   How much the costs and efficiencies for alternative production systems improve 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.

Financial Compensation for Board Members and Financial Operation of the Board

Ohio’s Office of Budget and Management has prepared a fiscal analysis of the proposal, located here:  http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2009/2-analysis.pdf

A few quick points from OBM’s analysis:

• Assumes that the board members will serve voluntarily.
• Predicts that the state will require two full-time staff persons to administer a program.  This amount does not include any regulatory staffers to ensure compliance, since the proposal does not state that it requires compliance.
• Estimates annual operating expenses for the Board at $176,703 for the first year and $162,280 for subsequent years.
• Assumes that funding will derive from the state’s General Revenue Fund, since the proposal does not designate a funding source.

.

Before you comment, you may want to review my blog policies. Comments that do not follow the policies will be deleted. I simply ask that individuals keep comments within the bounds of respectful civil discourse. (updated by A. Kleinschmidt 10/20/09)

.