NEWS & VIEWS continued...
Equestrian Center in the study, this study au- tomatically excludes the large equestrian shows that require the use of the entire facility. T e economic spinoff s of these large shows with thousands of horses and competitors who stay for several days would not be included. No event can be held at the Arena without adequate parking, which requires land at the surrounding Equestrian Center. If there is a large equestrian event at the same time as a large Arena event, parking will be limited as large horse trailers and vans will be using the available space. Any study should include the entire facility so con- fl icts can be avoided. Our Park and Planning Commission has al-
ready requested that the Stadium Authority con- duct two studies—one to evaluate the economic fi scal market and impact of the entire facility and the other to review and evaluate the operational and managerial structure. T ese studies would be for the Show Place Arena and the surrounding Prince George’s Equestrian Center—the exist- ing show rings and barns, parking areas, and the abandoned Marlboro Race Track and infi eld. T e Commission is also in the process of devel- oping a Master Plan to utilize the entire area for equestrian and other purposes and is arranging a drainage system for the infi eld. Prince George’s County is aware that the po- tential of this facility has not been reached. T e County Council formed an Equine Industry Task Force, of which I was co-chair, to study the benefi ts, requirements and potential of the equine industry in the county. T e Task Force recommended that a Master Plan be prepared for the Prince George’s Equestrian Center to determine its full potential. T e Task Force also recommended a marketing and “branding” plan for the entire facility and for the equine industry. T e Senate should support the County’s decision to have the Stadium Authority con- duct studies on the Prince George’s Equestrian Center, and it can do so by opposing this bill.
MDA Rejects Environmentalist Ma- nure Study
Manure management has been one that
brought criticism to MDA from a variety of ag-related groups (included horse groups). Now, instead of trying to propose increased
regulations regarding manure and nutrient management, MDA is having to protect farm- ers from attacks by environmental activists. Specifi cally, Environment Maryland has issued a report titled “An Unsustainable Path: Why Maryland Manure Pollution Rules are Failing to Protect the Chesapeake Bay” that is appar- ently so critical of Maryland farmers that it has gotten MDA’s dander up. In January, Maryland Agriculture Secretary Buddy Hance issued the following statement: Agriculture is a leading industry in Mary- land and the single largest land use. Maryland farmers play a key role in protecting our state’s
84 | THE EQUIERY | FEBRUARY 2012
natural resources, especially the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland farmers are required by law to follow nutrient management plans, which are science-based documents that help farm- ers manage fertilizers, animal waste and other nutrient sources more effi ciently to meet crop needs while protecting water quality in streams, rivers and the Chesapeake Bay. Discussions are underway with agricultural and environmental groups, municipal interests, and Governor Martin O’Malley’s staff to iron out additional changes to the proposed nutrient management regulations that will make them both more eff ective at protecting water quality and easier to implement. T e proposed changes aim to adopt the latest science and technology into our regulatory framework. Ultimately, the goal of the revised regulations is to help Mary- land meet nitrogen and phosphorus reduction goals spelled out in its Watershed Implementa- tion Plan (WIP) for the Chesapeake Bay. Compliance assurance and enforcement of
Maryland’s Nutrient Management Law are key features of Maryland’s WIP. Currently 99.9 per- cent of the state’s 1.3 million acres of crop land and 99.9 percent of the state’s 5,700 eligible farmers are complying with the state’s nutrient management law requiring farmers to have a plan. MDA is currently pursuing enforcement actions against two farmers who have not submitted nu- trient management plans for 132 acres. A number of environmentally sound nutrient management alternatives are being studied for feasibility and implementation both on farms and as separate business enterprises. Eff ective December 31, 2000, all contract feed produced in Maryland for chickens must include phytase (or another enzyme/additive) to reduce phosphorus to the maximum extent feasible. Perdue Agri- Recycle’s multipurpose facility includes numer- ous technologies (pelleting, composting, etc.) for the production of products from poultry waste, providing alternatives to land application of this material. Additionally, the State of Maryland is reviewing proposals for alternative energy uses for animal manure including a 10-megawatt facility. Since 1999, through Maryland’s Ma- nure Transport Program, 719,000 tons of excess poultry litter and manure have been transported from areas with excess manure or high soil phos- phorus levels to other farms or alternative-use facilities that can use the product in an environ- mentally sound manner. Well-managed agricultural land provides many
more environmental benefi ts than developed land. At a time when development pressure may be at its greatest, it is in the Bay’s best interest for Maryland to keep farmers farming the land. T e poultry industry is Maryland’s leading
agricultural sector, accounting for $691 million (40 percent) of farm income in 2010. Maryland broiler production ranked eighth among states in broilers produced in 2010. Most of the grain grown on Maryland’s Eastern Shore is used for
chicken feed. According to the Delmarva Poul- try Industry, Inc., poultry companies operating on the Delmarva Peninsula employ 14,700 peo- ple. T ere are over 1,660 family farms that raise chickens in association with the fi ve poultry in- tegrators operating on the Delmarva Peninsula.
Tax Increase Affects Horse Businesses
From the American Horse Council Despite the acrimony and brinksmanship,
Congress eventually passed an extension of the payroll tax reductions in late December maintaining the 2% reduction in payroll taxes for workers and the self-employed. T e relief is good for two months, through February, 2012. Negotiations are already underway between the House and Senate to fi nd a way to extend pay- roll tax relief through 2012. But the bill ultimately passed by Congress did not extend the Section 179 expense deduction or 100% bonus depreciation at the 2011 levels. Both provisions have returned to prior lower levels.
Section 179 Expense Deduction T e expense deduction has returned to $125,000 for 2012 and phases out dollar-for- dollar once purchases of depreciable property reach $500,000. T e 179 expense deduction applies to horses, farm equipment and other depreciable property used in a business and permits a horse owner or breeder to write off up to $125,000 in assets purchased and placed in service in one’s horse business in 2012. T e expense allowance for 2010-2011 was $500,000 and phased out after purchases ex- ceeded $2 million.
Bonus Depreciation In addition, bonus depreciation has returned to 50% for 2012. Bonus depreciation allows horse owners and other horse businesses to write off 50% of the cost of “new” capital assets, including horses, when purchased and placed in service in 2012. To be eligible for bonus de- preciation the original use of the property must commence with the taxpayer. Any prior use makes the property ineligible. Bonus depreciation was 100% for eligible as- sets purchased and placed in service from Sep- tember 8, 2010 through 2011. Both provisions can be used together.
Retroactive Change is Possible “It is possible that the higher levels could be
reinstated retroactively to January 1, 2012. In fact, the House-passed payroll tax bill extended 100% bonus depreciation through 2012, even though the Senate bill did not,” said AHC president Jay Hickey. “T e negotiations be- tween now and the end of February on the one- year extension of the payroll tax reduction could include other changes to the tax code, such as the expense deduction or bonus depreciation. But this is speculation at this point.”
800-244-9580 |
www.equiery.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104