Ag Connection
Your link to the Universities for ag extension and research information

Volume 7, Number 10
October  2001


This Month in Ag Connection

2001 - 2002 Missouri Beef Cattle Steer Feedout

Gain valuable feedlot performance and carcass information by participating in retained ownership without the investment and risk of feeding an entire pen of cattle. A minimum of 5 steers born after January 1, 2001 can be entered. Deadline for entry is October 15, 2001. Steers are required to be weaned and meet the immunization program. For more information and entry forms contact your local Outreach & Extension office.

(Author: Wesley Tucker, University Outreach and Extension Farm Management Specialist)



[This Month in Ag Connection] [Ag Connection - Other Issues Online]

Timely Reproductive Tips For Care of Broodmares

Ideally mares should be checked for pregnancy two weeks after ovulation and again at 30 and 90 days of pregnancy. The sooner you know which mares are not pregnant the sooner you can address the reasons why they are not. If you did not previously check for pregnancy, work with your veterinarian to do so now.

A number of factors can prevent a mare from becoming pregnant and maintaining the pregnancy. The easiest factors to address are management practices.

Open mares, especially mares that have been barren for more than two years, should be examined by a veterinarian to determine if reproductive problems exist.

Mares that do not show strong signs of estrus (heat) may be overlooked and assumed in foal.

Lower pregnancy rates can result from breeding only in the early part of estrus. Timely insemination is critical for conception. Mares typically ovulate during the latter part of estrus and most semen only remains viable for 72 hours in the uterus. Research has demonstrated that breeding a mare every other day from the day she will stand to be mounted until she refuses the stallion is the best protocol for natural service.

Teasing mares for only one cycle after they have been bred can cause you to overlook open mares.

The greatest percentage of mares that do not settle is due to early embryonic loss.

Uterine infection, which can be present before breeding or can be caused by breeding makes embryo survival impossible. Some mares are more prone to these types of infections due to poor reproductive conformation. Reproductive conformation is determined by looking at the angle of a mare’s vulva. The more a mare’s vulva slopes inward toward the anus the greater the chance fecal material will enter the vagina and lead to uterine infection. To reduce the chance of this type of uterine infection, check with your veterinarian about performing a Caslick’s procedure and the extra management needed.

Poor reproductive conformation is not limited to the external genitalia. The vagina often slopes forward causing urine to pool in the uterus resulting in uterine infection.

Uterine infections can be determined by an ultrasound examination.

Consult your veterinarian about any mare that has bred, not maintained the pregnancy and subsequently remained barren for two or more years.

Rhinopneumonitis (equine herpesvirus type 1) is the leading cause of late term abortion in mares. This virus is transmitted via respiratory secretions and/or airborne viral particles. Good management practices will aid in preventing this disease in your broodmare band.

Do not introduce new mares into the band after the 5th month of pregnancy.

Keep your horses that travel to shows, rodeos etc. away from your broodmares.

The best defense against infection is vaccination using a killed virus EVH-1 vaccine. Use of a vaccine containing a live virus has been known to cause abortion in mares. There are two killed virus products available which require multiple boosters – read and follow label directions. Take a preventative approach -- waiting to vaccinate until a mare aborts will not allow time to build immunity in other mares.

Consult your veterinarian for information on diseases endemic to you area. Some of the common vaccines given to broodmares include eastern and western equine encephalomyelitis, tetanus, influenza, equine pneumonitis, and Potomac horse fever.

(Author: Preston R. Buff, Student, University of Missouri-Columbia)

[This Month in Ag Connection] [Ag Connection - Other Issues Online]

Missouri's New Fence Law -- What Does It Mean To You?

For all but thirteen counties in Missouri, the fencing and boundary law changed on August 28, 2001. This will be the first change in the law for these counties in over 100 years.

The main updates include: 

  1. defining a legal fence as a fence as one that consists of posts and wire or boards at least 4 feet high with fence posts no more than 12 feet apart with no stays (braces) or 15 feet apart with one stay between posts. The new law allows landowners to agree on something other than a defined legal fence as long as the Circuit Judge in your county agrees. This means that a high-tensile or woven wire fence could be legal, assuming the judge agrees to it beforehand. The new law allows both parties to decide that no fence is needed, if neither party has a need for one. 

  2. The new law further defines who is responsible for building and maintaining a boundary fence. Owning or running livestock appears to be the only reason you would be required to build and maintain a boundary fence. In the new law, your portion is that portion of the division fence which is on the right of each owner as they face the fence line while standing at the center of their common property line on their own propertyUp until this law, the right ˝ was tradition only and not law. It states further that existing agreements not consistent with the above (right ˝ again) shall be in writing, signed by the agreeing parties (this would include spouses and any partners in the land) and be recorded in the recorder of deeds office in the county or counties where the fence line is located. This agreement (no matter which way it is) shall bind the makers (those doing the initial agreement or fence), their heirs and assignees (purchasers or otherwise owners of the land further down the road).

    Another issue that was previously a problem was the situation where one landowner built a fence on the property line and the other put livestock on his land later on. Now, if one landowner builds and pays for a boundary fence, he/she may report the cost to the circuit court judge who then may authorize the recording of that amount on both deeds. If the other property owner later puts livestock on the property, the landowner who paid the original cost will be reimbursed for ˝ of his/her cost.   

  3. If two landowners cannot agree on which ˝ to maintain or build, the judge can still appoint 3 disinterested persons to look over the disputed area and help determine whose portion is whose. Those persons will now be paid $25 per day for these services.

What are the potential problems with this new law? While this law has certainly fixed some of the problems we’ve been dealing with for many years, it leads to several other questions. First, will judges interpret the law differently in different counties? The law says that if 2 landowners have a need for a fence, both must build one in a reasonable amount of time. What is reasonable and will it be the same in every county? Second, why does the law have the circuit judge record the cost onto both deeds? How long will it take after it is taken to their office to be recorded and what if it doesn’t get done? Who will be liable in that situation later on? Third, will the landowner who later puts livestock on his land have to pay for ˝ of the building cost no matter how many years later it happens? Does a judge have any right to adjust this (it would appear not)? Other issues will likely come up.

If you own land in Bates, Clinton, Daviess, Harrison, Knox, Linn, Mercer, Newton, Schuyler, Scotland, Shelby, Sullivan or St. Clair counties, the law there is very different.

View web sites listed below for further information:

(Author: Joseph W. Koenen, Farm Management Specialist, University Outreach and Extension )

[This Month in Ag Connection] [Ag Connection - Other Issues Online]

Taxation Tidbits:  Installment Sale to a Related Party 

An installment sale is the disposal of property where the seller receives at least one payment after the tax year of sale. The installment method cannot be used to report a loss. Utilizing installment sales allows cash-basis taxpayers to report portions of gain to multiple tax years as the installment payments are received. For the installment sale provision related parties are defined as: spouses, children, grandchildren, brothers, sisters, and parents. Additionally, a partnership or corporation in which the taxpayer has a controlling interest, or an estate or trust with which the taxpayer has a connection, can also be considered a related party. Two special rules apply to an installment sale between related parties.

Rule #1: This rule applies when property sold and reported under the installment method to a related party – is disposed of within 2 years of the first sale. This rule requires the original seller to report gain on the property disposed of by the related party in the year of the second disposition – whether or not the installment payments to the original seller are accelerated.

Exception to Rule #1: The provisions of this rule will not apply if the taxpayer can show, to the satisfaction of the IRS, that neither of the dispositions (first and second) had tax avoidance as one of the principal purposes for the disposal. Involuntary conversion is a type of disposition that will generally qualify as an exception. Another possible exception is when the disposition is also an installment sale with terms that are substantially equal or longer than those of the first sale.

Rule #2: Unless the exception provided below applies, the sale of depreciable property to a related party cannot be reported using the installment method. Depreciable property, for this provision, is considered any property the purchaser can depreciate.

Exception to Rule #2: The seller may use the installment method if they can show to the IRS’s satisfaction tax avoidance was not one of the principal purposes of the sale.

A depreciation recapture rule, with or without a related party, requires the recapture of depreciation for Section 1245 (personal property) and Section 1250 (real property) assets as ordinary income in the year of sale. Thus, the installment method of reporting sales of depreciable property will normally be advantageous only if the sale price is substantially greater than the original cost.

Important Note: Raised breeding livestock sold to a related party would be captured under Rule #2 – since the breeding livestock would be depreciable by the purchaser.

(Author: Parman R. Green, University Outreach and Extension Farm Business Management Specialist)

[This Month in Ag Connection] [Ag Connection - Other Issues Online]

Comparative Value of Feeds for Beef and Dairy

If you will be buying forages or supplements this winter, try using the Comparative Value Spread Sheets available on the Ag Electronic Bulletin Board. Click here to view the beef spread sheet.  Click here to view the dairy address.  These reports are updated weekly and can be used to compare the costs of purchased forages, by-product feeds and traditional corn/soy bases supplements.

You can click here to download both spreadsheets to your computer and then you can input your own corn and soybean meal prices for an individualized comparison.

Feeds Used to Calculate Value of Nutrients
(prices for 9/20/2001)

Item  Energy  Protein  Calcium  Phosphorus
Feed Corn, Crkd   48% SBM Limestone  Dical
Cost $ 2.22 $/Bu 193.5 $/Ton  4.74 $/cwt 17.82 $/cwt
Calc $/cwt $3.96 $/cwt 9.68 $/cwt    
D.M., %  85.00 89.00 98.00  98.00
C.P., %  10.00  53.90    
NE Mcal/lb 0.84  0.88    
Ca, % 0.03  0.30  36.00  23.00
Phos., % 0.29  0.68    18.00


Example Reports






$/ Ton
As Fed**
Composition % of Dry Matter
Alfalfa Mid Bloom  91.0  30.0  33.0  1.50   0.33 $7.04  $128.11
Brewers Grains, Dried 92.0 25.4 0.41 0.33 0.55 $5.59  $102.89
Corn Gluten Feed, Dried  90.0  23.0  0.59  0.36   0.82 $6.18  $111.32
Soy Hulls 91.0  12.1  0.59  0.49  0.21  $4.19  $76.17
Soybeans, Whole 92.0 42.8 0.71 0.27 0.65 $9.23 $169.76

(Author: Mark Stewart, University Outreach & Extension Livestock Specialist)

[This Month in Ag Connection] [Ag Connection - Other Issues Online]

University Outreach and ExtensionAg Connection - Ag Connection Newsletter,  October 2001 -- Revised: September 30, 2002