Recent Blog Posts
By: Eric Richer, Aaron Wilson, Mike Estadt, Garth Ruff - Ohio State University Extension
It is no secret that hay producers and pasture managers in Ohio have experienced lower production in the past two years than the previous several years due to significant drought in parts of the state. Similar to row crop production, weather risk can present significant challenges for our livestock producers who produce their own forages and/or graze livestock. Those producers may consider Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage (PRF) Insurance as part of their risk management strategy. Enrollment in this insurance product closes December 1st each year.
The Basics
PRF is a single-peril (rainfall only) and area-based insurance product. Area-based means that indemnity payments will not be based upon individual producer’s experience, rather, payments will be based upon a grid’s deviation from historically normal rainfall. It covers less than average rainfall levels in a particular grid up to the level of coverage that a farmer selects. Rainfall is measured through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate Prediction Center (NOAA CPC). A producer will have to make several choices including the coverage level of forage production they wish to insure, the rainfall index months to cover, the productivity level of the field or fields they wish to enroll and the number of acres they wish to insure.
In order to be eligible for coverage, a producer must first have documentation indicating shares and acres that are grazed or used in forage production. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) 578, Report of Acreage, is helpful in determining shares and acres but needs to be used in conjunction with a lease, grazing permit, or ownership records. Farm serial numbers from FSA can be helpful in identifying the grid where your forage or pasture is located. A grid in PRF insurance is approximately 16-17 square miles (depending on location). Here is RMA’s grid locator tool.
Unlike many other crop insurance policies, you only need enroll a portion of your documented acres. For example, if you only want to enroll 10 acres out of 100 total alfalfa acres, you can. Total documented PRF acres will limit your maximum enrollment.
The product then requires you to select at least two but no more than five, 2-month periods in which you want covered. No one month can be selected in more than one period (ex. you must select June-July or July-August; July cannot be selected twice). Finally, these 2-month periods do not need to coincide with normal forage or pasture production months.
After selecting the insurance periods, a producer will need to customize their policy by crop in each grid with a productivity index (PI) ranging from 60% to 150% of the county-based value of production. For example, a pasture may get a lower PI than a highly productive forage alfalfa crop. Lower PI’s translate into lower premiums and protection, and higher PI’s to higher premiums and protection, relatively speaking. Selecting a PI of 100% would assume that you want to insure “normal” production. The county base value per acre is specified in the county actuarial documents for each crop type. That value is established by RMA and is the same for all producers in that county for a given crop type and regardless of individual production history.
Finally, a producer will need to select a coverage level from 70%-90% in 5% increments, like other crop insurance products. Coverage levels can vary by crop (ex. Alfalfa for forage can have different coverage than red clover for forage). The dollar amount of protection is then calculated by multiplying the county base value per acre by the coverage level selected.
An Example
Let’s look at an example of how a beef producer in the hard hit drought area of Eastern Ohio might have benefited from PRF insurance in 2024. This is an example, and your farm may vary. Meeting with a crop insurance provider will give you the most accurate estimate of premium costs and potential indemnity.
First, Selection of your grid. This is the Eastern Ohio Research Station near Belle Valley, Ohio. (Image 1). 
Second, take some time to study the historical indexes of rainfall for this grid. This data can be compared monthly going back to 1948. You have the option to download this to a CSV file if you enjoy using spreadsheets to make the most informed decision. You are looking for the months that are below 100% of normal. For this example, indexes on 5,10-, and 25-years periods were analyzed. The three driest 2-month blocks were July-August (94.63), Jun-Jul (96.72) and Jan-Feb (99.98).
Third, you will now make your coverage levels, months covered, productivity index, and how much of your acreage within the grid you want to insure. (Image 2) For this example, we will select the months of Jan-Feb and Jul-Aug. Allocating 60% of value to the driest months (Jul-Aug) and the remaining 40% to Jan-Feb. Based in this specific location, the maximum percentage of value in any single interval cannot exceed 60%.
Now click the calculate button to see the amount of premium that is owed and what the indemnity for this insurance product would have paid.
In the case of this example. The producer insured his 100-acre pasture at the 90 % coverage level at a productivity factor of 100%. The higher the productivity index and the coverage level, the higher the premium paid by the producer. In this example the premium paid by the producer was $614 for the 100 acres.
If a rainfall index falls below 100 for the two-month index interval block, an indemnity will be triggered. In this example, there was no indemnity for the Jan-Feb window as rainfall index for this unit was 126.8. On the other hand, the Jul-Aug index interval was measured at 42, trigging an indemnity of $1642.
Overall, the PRF insurance product allows for significant customization by crop, grid, productivity index, and coverage level. It is important to remember that it only protects against low rainfall periods, not periods of excess precipitation. PRF adoption (all coverage levels) has grown in Ohio from 71 policies in the first year offered (2016) to 214 policies in 2020 to 622 policies in 2025.
RMA does provide a decision support tool to evaluate historic weather data by grid and month and potential premiums and indemnities. Decision Support Tool. We encourage you to meet with your crop insurance agent to learn more about this product and if it fits your operation. Reminder that enrollment for 2026 forage and grazing acres closes on December 1st, 2025.
A 2026 Weather Outlook from a 10,000-foot view.
NOTE: The following is intended to highlight national climate outlook products. The information in this article is NOT A FORECAST and should not be considered as such when deciding on an individual’s participation in the PRF insurance product.
Predicting the weather more than a few days out comes with a high degree of risk, and using historical observations under certain conditions in the past does not guarantee the same outcomes under similar conditions in the future. However, meteorologists analyze long-term weather patterns to get a sense of what might be expected when similar conditions are present.
As we move into the winter season 2025-26, tropical sea surface temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean off the coast of South America are cooler than normal. We refer to these conditions as La Niña. This climate pattern, when strongly coupled with the atmosphere typically brings an active storm track across the Ohio Valley during the December-March period. Whether this leads to rain or snow is dependent on whether cold air is in place as systems move through the region. Predicting this impact has a much shorter lead time, on the order of 10-14 days, as a weak or strong jet stream in the Arctic region (referred to as Artic Oscillation) controls the magnitude and extent of cold air spilling into the eastern United States. At the time of this writing, we are predicting our first negative Arctic Oscillation set-up around November 10, 2025, and the Ohio Valley’s first Arctic front with high temperatures in the 30s and 40s and snowflakes in the air. When combined with La Niña, we typically see highly variable winter weather with large swings in temperatures week to week and above normal precipitation. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently released its 2025-2026 U.S. Winter Outlook and for more information on La Niña, please visit NOAA: National Ocean Service.
Current predictions show a trend toward neutral tropical Pacific conditions by late winter/early spring which offers little guidance on the impact to the overall weather conditions in Ohio beyond winter. However, considering back-to-back extreme to exceptional drought conditions in Ohio (2024 and 2025), first in southeast and then in northwest Ohio, deeper soil moisture is severely lacking across the state. A wetter-than-normal winter would help replenish soil moisture, but if this does not occur this coming winter or spring, then our risk for drought conditions increases once again in the summer of 2026. Overall trends show that even with ample spring rainfall (8th wettest April-July for Ohio in 2025), drought conditions can still follow (driest August on record in 2025), as Ohio experiences more rapid oscillations between extreme wet and dry patterns. Current Climate Prediction Center outlooks for spring, summer, and fall 2026 show the following probabilities:
- Spring 2026: Temperatures and precipitation leaning above normal
- Summer 2026: Temperatures and precipitation leaning above normal
- Fall 2026: Temperatures leaning above normal but no strong signal either direction for precipitation
Finally, it is important to note that these are climate average probabilities (three-month averages) and do not reflect the magnitude for which temperatures or precipitation may be above or below normal. It also does not assume that weather conditions for the three-month period will not vary considerably. For monthly and quarter climate summaries, please visit the State Climate Office of Ohio.
References:
Richer, Eric; Estadt, Mike; Wilson, Aaron. “Pasture, Rangeland and Forage (PRF) Insurance Enrollment Closes December 1.” Ohio Ag Manager. Department of Extension, College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, Ohio State University. November 21, 2023. https://u.osu.edu/ohioagmanager/?s=pasture+range+forage+insurance
“Pasture, Rangeland, Forage Frequently Asked Questions.” United States Department of Agriculture-Risk Management Agency. November 4, 2025. https://www.rma.usda.gov/en/News-Room/Frequently-Asked-Questions/Pasture-Rangeland-Forage
“Summary of Business.” United States Department of Agriculture-Risk Management Agency. https://www.rma.usda.gov/tools-reports/summary-of-business
“NOAA Releases 2025-2026 Winter Outlook” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Climate Prediction Center. https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/
Tags:
Comments: 0
A trio of senate bills related to agriculture were introduced in the Ohio General Assembly this month. The bills touch on a variety of topics, from CAUV recoupment charges, to training an agricultural workforce, to creating a state food and agriculture policy council.
Senate Bill 285, available here, was introduced by Senator Tim Schaffer (R-Lancaster) on October 8 and referred to the Senate Ways and Means Committee. The bill would exempt certain conservation uses from recoupment charges when land is converted from an agricultural use. Typically, if agricultural land is converted to another use, it is subject to a recoupment charge equal to the previous three years of tax savings it received because it was valued using its current agricultural use value (CAUV). SB 285 would not require a recoupment charge to be paid if the agricultural land is acquired by a conservation organization and is used for certain environmental response projects related to water quality or wetlands, or if it is used for an H2Ohio water project. That being said, if the land ceases to be used for conservation, recoupment charges would apply. SB 285 had its first hearing in the Senate Ways and Means Committee on October 28.
Sponsored by Senator Paula Hicks-Hudson (D-Toledo), SB 287, entitled “Farming And Workforce” was introduced on October 8, and had its first hearing in the Senate Finance Committee on October 28. The bill, which is available here, would create the Farming and Workforce Development Program. This program would provide training for Ohio residents between 16 and 35 years of age to prepare them for employment in seasonal crop farming. The program would not exclude people who have been convicted or pled guilty to a felony from eligibility. The bill would require Ohio State University Extension and Central State University Extension to develop guidelines and policies for the application process, coursework, and running of the Farming and Workforce Development Program, and would appropriate $500,000 from the state general revenue fund to get the program started.
Finally, Senate Bill 288 was also introduced on October 8. Also sponsored by Senator Hicks-Hudson, the bill, available here, would create the Ohio Food and Agriculture Policy Council. The Council would be tasked with making recommendations to the General Assembly that strengthen Ohio’s food and farm economies, engaging in advocacy, education, and policy work for the health of Ohio’s citizens and the sustainability of the state’s natural resources. Specifically, the Council would be charged with delivering an annual report to the General Assembly detailing its recommendations on:
- Food security;
- Food access;
- Food production and distribution;
- Food waste;
- Economic development;
- Food procurement;
- Food chain workers; and
- Food systems resilience.
The Council would be housed under the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA). The Director of ODA would serve on the council, as well as the following members, who would be appointed by the Governor:
- One member who is a representative of the Ohio Hospital Association;
- One member from Ohio State University Extension;
- One member from Central State University Extension;
- Three members from Ohio Farm Bureau;
- One member who represents urban farming;
- One member who represents rural farming;
- One member who represents statewide food banks; and
- One member who is a registered lobbyist representing Ohio Cooperatives.
Senate Bill 288 would appropriate $500,000 to create the Ohio Food and Agriculture Policy Council and has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee.
Be sure to stay tuned to the Ag Law Blog for continuing updates on Ohio Legislation affecting agriculture!
Tags: Ohio legislation, conservation, H2Ohio
Comments: 0
A bill authorizing the capture and storage of carbon dioxide via underground storage wells has passed the Ohio House of Representatives. The nearly unanimous vote by the House now advances H.B. 170 to the Ohio Senate.
We’ve reported previously on the prospect of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) coming to Ohio. CCS is one part of a strategy to reduce airborne CO2 emissions. It’s of high interest to hard-to-abate emission sources, such as ethanol, steel, chemical, and concrete production facilities. Rather than reducing the CO2 in their emissions, CCS allows such sectors to capture CO2 from emissions and store the CO2 in pore spaces far beneath the land’s surface. But landowners must be willing to lease their “pore space” for CO2 storage. If passed, then, CCS legislation will create pore space leasing opportunities and challenges for Ohio landowners.
Refer to our Ag Law Blog posts explaining CCS and discussing how CCS requires landowners to lease “pore space.” We also reviewed the first CCS bills in Ohio, proposed last legislative session, in a third blog post. Those bills did not pass, and H.B. 170 represents a new version of the proposals, developed after additional consideration by interested parties.
What’s in H.B. 170?
H.B. 170 sets up a state regulatory framework that authorizes the storage of capture carbon dioxide into subsurface “pore space” via Class VI injection wells, which are regulated by the U.S. EPA under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection Control Program. The bill addresses several
- Agency authority and rules. Delegates regulatory authority over CCS to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management and directs the Chief to adopt rules that carry out the legislation.
- “Pore space” interests. Defines “pore space” as the subsurface cavities and voids that are suitable for use as storage areas for CO2, outlines procedures for severing and conveying pore space, clarifies the relationship between pore space, surface rights, and mineral interests, and limits the liability of pore space owners for the injection of CO2 into their pore space.
- CCS projects. Lays out the components of “carbon sequestration projects,” which includes “storage facilities” operated by “storage operators” who inject CO2 into pore space via injection wells.
- “Pooling” of pore space. Authorizes the pooling or “statutory consolidation” of pore space for carbon sequestration projects if the storage operator obtains the consent of owners of at least 70% of the pore space and establishes rights and responsibilities for statutory consolidation.
- Project completion and closure. Provides procedures for “certificates of project completion” that apply to the closure of storage facilities and a transfer of responsibility and liability to the State.
- Fees and penalties. Establishes fees for storage facilities and funds to pay for current and post-closure care program costs and sets civil and criminal penalties for violation of CCS regulations.
- Limitations on damages. Limits claims for damages dues to injection or migration of CO2 to claims that establish direct physical injury to persons, animals, or property, limits claims to diminution of value caused by the injection or migration and prohibits punitive damages in such cases.
What’s next for CCS?
The Ohio Senate now has its turn to consider H.B. 170. The Senate President referred the bill to the Senate Energy Committee, which already has a CCS bill before the committee. The Senate’s version of CCS, S.B. 136, was introduced last March but has not received any hearings.
S.B. 136 mirrors the version of H.B. 170 first introduced in the House. But amendments to H.B. 170 occurred in the House Natural Resources Committee that created differences between the two bills. It will be up to Energy Committee Chair Brian Chavez to determine which bill to advance, if any.
For a comparison of the original introduced bills (H.B. 170 and S.B. 136) and the substitute bill for H.B. 170 that passed the House of Representatives, refer to this synopsis by the Legislative Service Commission that highlights the differences.
H.B. 170 is a step toward “primacy”
Ohio is already on its way toward seeking approval from the U.S. EPA to regulate Class VI injection wells within the state, a concept referred to as “primacy.” State-based regulation of the well permitting program would speed up the permitting process for CCS, according to proponents of primacy. However, the state regulatory program must be at least as stringent as federal requirements before the U.S. EPA will delegate the Class VI program to the state. H.B. 170 and its resulting regulations will be reviewed by the U.S. EPA when Ohio submits its application for primacy to the U.S. EPA.
To date, only five other states have obtained primacy over Class VI wells. Six other states are currently in the process of applying for such approval. By obtaining primacy, Ohio could be ahead of many states in encouraging CCS development, proponents state.
Implications for Ohio landowners: pore space leasing
We’ve heard that some companies are already out with offers of “pore space leases” to Ohio landowners. Some are offering around $25 per acre for the right to use pore space for CCS. But now is the time for caution. The legislation is necessary to clarifying legal interests in pore space and how CCS development will occur in Ohio—both important issues landowners need to know before entering into pore space leases. A third important issue in need of clarification is the value of pore space, and it’s still too early to have firm answers to that question. Experience from oil and gas leasing teaches us, however, that early lease payment offers tend to be lower than later offers.
Landowners who want to move forward now on pore space leases, however, would be wise to work with an attorney. Some attorneys across the state are already reviewing and negotiating pore space leases on behalf of the landowners. Contact the agricultural law team for help with identifying attorneys knowledgeable in this area.
Watch for more resources on CCS and pore space leases coming to our program soon.
Tags: CCS, carbon capture and storage, carbon sequestration, class VI injection
Comments: 0
Barry Ward & Jeff Lewis, Income Tax Schools at The Ohio State University
Are you a farmer or farmland owner wanting to learn more about recent tax law changes which were a part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act? If so, join us for a live webinar on Friday, November 14, 2025, from 10:00 a.m. to noon, as part of our Farm Office Live Series.
To register visit: https://go.osu.edu/register4fol
This webinar will focus on issues related to farmer and farmland owner income tax returns as well as the latest news on CAUV and property taxes in Ohio. This two-hour program will be presented in a live webinar format via Zoom by OSU Extension Educators Barry Ward, David Marrison, Jeff Lewis, and Robert Moore. Anyone who operates a farm, owns farmland, or rents agricultural property will benefit from this timely update.
Topics to be discussed include:
- Tax Provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act:
- Changes to Section 179 Expensing and Bonus Depreciation
- Changes to 1099 Thresholds
- Changes to Estate Tax Exemption
- And many more….
- Tax Planning in Low Income Years
- Residual Fertility / Excess Fertility Deduction
- Research & Development Tax Credit
- Sale of Inherited Farm Assets
- Valuation of Unharvested Crops
- Special Use Valuation
- Income Tax Issues for 4-H & FFA Projects
- Ohio Tax Update (CAUV/Property Tax Update, Income Tax Changes)
Registration: https://go.osu.edu/register4fol
For more information, contact Barry Ward at ward.8@osu.edu or Jeff Lewis at lewis.1459@osu.edu
Tags: One Big Beautiful Bill, tax law, Tax Update, Ag Tax, Agricultural Tax, Farm Tax, Farmland Owner, Farmer, Income Tax
Comments: 0
By: Carl Zulauf, Professor Emeritus, Ohio State University; and Eric Richer, Associate Professor and Field Specialist , Ohio State University Extension, October 2025
Net return to storing Ohio corn and soybeans since 1973 is examined. Cash storage of Ohio corn and soybeans after June is generally not profitable as prices decline on average and in a majority of years. Net returns to cash and futures hedged storage ending no later than June do not differ statistically from zero, indicating returns just cover total storage cost. Nevertheless, this findings is consistent with building on-farm storage because on-farm storage offers other opportunities to improve farm profits. They include faster harvest, thus less harvest loss, and more flexible post-harvest marketing, such as location of cash sales. Although not statistically different, net returns have generally been higher for storing Ohio soybeans than corn. This is consistent with soybeans’ more rapid growth in consumption. Hedged storage has the advantage of lower net return risk, especially at longer storage periods.
Ohio Corn Price Seasonal
Although Ohio cash corn price has averaged nearly the same in October ($3.02) and November ($3.03) since 1973, October is used as the harvest low price month. The decision in part reflects that October is the harvest low for soybeans (see next section). Average Ohio cash corn price increased through June, peaking at 117% of its October price (see Figure 1). Price increased the most (4 percentage points) from November to December. It declined on average after June. Largest decline was from August to September. Ohio cash price was higher in roughly one-third of the years after June, specifically, 37%, 31%, and 30% of the years for July, August, and September, respectively. For a brief discussion of data sources and procedures, see Data Note 1.
Ohio Soybean Price Seasonal
The Ohio soybean and corn cash price seasonal are largely similar (see Figures 2 and 1). Average cash price is highest in June. Largest average decline is from August to September. Soybean cash price did increase more consistently from its October low, specifically one to two percentage points per month through May and had a lower and less definitive peak. Average soybean price for June and July all rounded to 113% of the October low. Corn’s peak was 117% in June. Ohio soybean’s August and September cash price both exceeded its July price in 22% of the years.
Net Return to Storing Ohio Corn and Soybeans
Net return to the two most common storage strategies, cash storage and storage hedged with futures, is examined for storage periods from October (lowest cash price) to June (highest cash price). Net cash storage return per bushel equals (a) Ohio cash price for the end-of-storage month (for example, December) minus (b) October Ohio cash price minus (c) interest opportunity cost of storing instead of selling at harvest minus (d) physical storage cost at commercial facilities to keep the crop in useable condition. Net futures hedged storage return per bushel equals (a) net return to cash storage plus (b) change in futures price over the storage period minus (c) cost of trading futures. Since price and storage cost have increased over time, net return is expressed as a percent of the October price. Data Note 2 further discusses the procedures and data sources.
Average net return to cash storage expressed relative to the October price does not differ statistically from $0 for both corn and soybeans for all 8 storage periods. Thus, from a statistical perspective, returns just cover total storage cost. However, average net return above total cash storage cost is close to or exceeds 3% of October price for Ohio corn stored to February and beyond and for Ohio soybeans stored to March and beyond (see Figure 3). Such returns are high enough to perhaps have economic meaning even if they lack statistical significance. Return to storage is nominally higher for soybeans than corn, with soybean’s advantage increasing for storage beyond March.
Net return to futures hedged storage generally averages close to $0, especially as the storage period lengthens. The advantage of hedged storage is that risk of net return variation is lower for it than cash storage. This advantage becomes notable for storage beyond January (see Figure 4). Combining Figures 4 and 3 suggest that the higher average net return for cash storage beyond January can be viewed as a compensation for the higher risk of cash storage beyond January.
Summary Discussion
Cash storage of Ohio corn and soybeans after June is generally not profitable as prices decline on average and in a majority of years.
Net return to cash and futures hedged storage Ohio corn and soybeans that ends no later than June does not differ statistically from zero. Stated alternatively, on average, returns to storage just cover the total cost of storage.
The preceding finding is however consistent with building on-farm storage since on-farm storage provides other opportunities to improve farm profitability. They include faster harvest due to longer harvest days plus less travel and wait time in getting a crop stored. Faster harvest can reduce harvest loss due to inclement weather. On-farm storage also gives more flexibility to post-harvest marketing, especially the location of cash sales.
Although not statistically significant, return to cash storage has been nominally higher for Ohio soybeans than corn. This finding should not be surprising as consumption has increased percentage wise much more for soybeans than corn. As price increases to stimulate future soybean production to satisfy growing demand, storage is more likely to be profitable.
A clear advantage of hedged storage is a lower risk of net return variation than cash storage, especially over longer storage periods. This finding was expected since it is well documented in the literature.
Data Notes:
- Cash price in this study is the average monthly price paid to Ohio farmers by first handlers as reported by USDA, NASS (US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service). Starting the study with the 1974 marketing year postdates the early 1970s increase in price variability (Kenyon, Jones, and McGuirk). The last complete marketing year is 2024.
- Physical storage cost is from USDA, Commodity Credit Corporation through the 2005 marketing year. Thereafter, it is from an Ohio country elevator, cross checked with another Ohio first delivery point. Opportunity storage cost is measured using the October secondary market 6 month US Treasury bill rate, discount basis. Six months is the Treasury bill maturity closest to the 8 month October-June storage period examined in this study. Source is the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. The Chicago July futures contract is used for the storage hedge. It is the first corn and soybean futures contract maturity after June. For each month, average July futures settlement price is calculated using prices from Barchart.com. Hedge storage cost is brokerage fee plus liquidity cost for the futures trade. Brokerage fee is assumed to be $50 for a round trip buy and sell of a futures contract based on inquiries of brokers. Liquidity cost arises since the price at which a futures trade is executed usually differs from the price when the trade is placed (i.e. execution is not instantaneous). Based on Brorsen and Thompson and Waller, liquidity cost is $25 per futures trade made before February 1 and $12.50 thereafter. Liquidity cost is less after February 1 since trading volume increases as contract maturity nears. For an in-depth discussion of storage and trading cost, see Zulauf and Kim (2020).
References and Data Sources
Barchart.com. 2025. Futures price data. https://www.barchart.com/
Brorsen, B. W. 1989. Liquidity Costs and Scalping Returns in the Corn Futures Market. Journal of Futures Markets 9(3): 225-236.
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. September 2025. Federal Reserve Economic Data. https://fred.stlouisfed.org
Kenyon, D., E. Jones, and A. McGuirk. 1993. Forecasting Performance of Corn and Soybean Harvest Futures Contracts. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75(May): 399-407.
Ohio Country Elevator. 2006-2025. Personal inquiry of annual corn and soybean storage rates.
Thompson, S. R. and M. L. Waller. 1987. The Execution Cost of Trading in Commodity Futures Markets. Food Research Institute Studies Vol. XX, No. 2: 141-163.
US Department of Agriculture, Commodity Credit Corporation. 1978-2007. Annual personal inquiry.
US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. September 2025. QuickStats. http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/
Avoiding probate should be a primary goal in nearly every estate plan. It reduces legal fees, shortens administration time, and prevents unnecessary disruption for heirs. For most assets, avoiding probate is straightforward. Bank accounts, life insurance, and retirement accounts can pass by beneficiary designation. Real estate can transfer through a transfer on death affidavit.
For farm families, however, two types of assets are often overlooked and end up forcing an estate into probate: trailers and cooperative ownership.
Trailers
Most farms own one or more trailers, and many of those trailers have titles. In Ohio, trailers with a gross vehicle weight rating over 4,000 pounds must be titled. Trailers under that weight are only registered. Because trailers are often viewed as farm equipment rather than vehicles, they are frequently left out of estate planning.
A trailer that is titled but has no transfer on death (TOD) beneficiary cannot transfer after death without probate. This is true even if the trailer does not have a license plate. If it has a title in the individual’s name and no beneficiary, probate will be required to transfer ownership.
Adding a beneficiary is simple. The owner can visit the title office and complete a TOD designation. The title office will provide the form, notarize signatures, and issue an updated title at the same appointment. The filing fee is minimal and is far less than the cost of probate.
Trailers held by a trust or business entity do not need TOD designations. Because the trust or entity does not die, those assets are not subject to probate.
Cooperative Ownership
Membership interests in agricultural cooperatives are also commonly overlooked. Many farmers hold shares, certificates, or patronage equities through grain or supply cooperatives. These interests are assets and must be transferred after death.
How a cooperative handles ownership at death depends on its bylaws. Some cooperatives allow transfer to a surviving spouse or child outside probate. Others require the owner to file a beneficiary form during life. Without planning, heirs may be unable to access the cooperative account until a probate estate is opened.
The solution is to contact each cooperative where membership is held and request its procedures for estate transfers. The cooperative can provide forms or instructions to ensure that ownership passes without probate. This is a routine issue for cooperatives and can usually be resolved with a single call.
Conclusion
When reviewing your estate plan, do not overlook titled trailers and cooperative ownership. Both assets are easy to plan around, but without attention they can delay the settlement of an estate and create unnecessary expense. A few small steps now will help your heirs avoid paying thousands of dollars in probate costs to transfer assets that may have modest value.
For more information on avoiding probate, see Legal Tools for Avoiding Probate available at farmoffice.osu.edu.
October's Farm Office Live webinar will kick off with the ever popular Dr. Carl Zulauf, who will discuss an issue on the minds of many farmers today: grain storage costs and returns. Join us on Friday, October 17 at 10:00 a.m. for Dr. Zulauf's insights, and a full agenda presented by the Farm Office team of experts:
- Grain Storage Costs and Returns - Carl Zulauf
- Legislative Update - Peggy Kirk Hall
- PRF Insurance Considerations - Eric Richer
- Avoiding Probate: Two Commonly Overlooked Assets - Robert Moore
- Crop Input and Margin Outlook for 2026 - Barry Ward
- Conversations from the Buddy Seat - David Marrison
- Upcoming programs and events
Register for our free Farm Office Live webinars or watch webinar replays at go.osu.edu/farmofficelive.
Are you a new owner of farmland? Whether inheriting or purchasing farmland for the first time, a new farmland owner must choose what to do with the land. Farm it, sell it, lease it, preserve it — all are viable options that require an understanding of economic considerations and legal requirements.
Our upcoming webinar for the National Agricultural Law Center can help. Join me and Robert Moore on October 15, 2025 at Noon EST as we present "So Now You Own a Farm: A Beginner's Guide to Farmland Ownership."
Based on our recently published Beginner’s Guide to Farmland Ownership, this webinar will provide practical insights and strategies on new farmland ownership. We'll cover topics such as:
- Estimating the value of farmland;
- How to sell, lease, manage, or preserve the land;
- Protecting the farmland from risk.
The session can help both new farmland owners and the professionals who advise them better navigate the responsibilities, options, and decision-making that comes with farmland ownership. Register for the free online webinar at https://nationalaglawcenter.org/webinars/beginners-farmland-ownership/.
Tags: beginning farm, beginning farmer, farmland ownership, new farm, new farmer
Comments: 0
By: Carl Zulauf, Professor Emeritus, Ohio State University; and Eric Richer, Associate Professor and Field Specialist , Ohio State University Extension, October 2025
The cost of storing the average Ohio corn and soybean bushel since 1973 is examined. Storage cost is measured three ways: per bushel, relative to harvest price, and per acre of production. All three measures are at or near post 1973 highs as total costs to store corn and soybeans have roughly doubled since 2020 and now exceed $1 per bushel for both corn and soybeans over a 12 month storage period. This notable increase occurred after a long period (1974-2019) during which declining interest rates and thus interest opportunity storage cost per bushel largely offset increasing physical storage cost per bushel. These storylines underscored the important role of interest rates and thus interest opportunity cost in offsetting or reinforcing on-going increases in physical storage cost. The reinforcing role has been especially noticeable since 2020.
Procedures:
Starting this study with the 1974 marketing year postdates the increase in price variability that occurred in the early 1970s (Kenyon, Jones, and McGuirk). The study ends with the last complete marketing year, 2024. Cash price is the average monthly price paid to Ohio farmers by first handlers as reported by USDA (US Department of Agriculture), National Agricultural Statistics Service. Storage starts in October, the month with the lowest average cash price. Storage cost includes (a) physical storage cost at commercial facilities to keep the crop in useable condition and (b) interest opportunity cost of storing instead of selling at harvest. Annual physical storage cost is from USDA, Commodity Credit Corporation through the 2005 marketing year. Thereafter, it is for an Ohio country elevator, cross checked with another first delivery point. Interest opportunity storage cost is calculated by multiplying (a) the October Ohio cash price times (b) the average one year US Treasury bill rate quoted on an investment basis for October as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
Physical storage cost for corn and soybeans can vary, even within a state, across different local markets in any year due, in part, to different local supply and demand conditions for storage. Moreover, the structure of commercial storage cost for corn and soybeans often varies from year to year. Common structures are (a) monthly or daily charge per bushel, (b) monthly or daily charge per bushel plus an upfront charge, and (c) an initial charge for a period, for example 3 months, then a monthly or daily charge per bushel. To create a standard format across years, physical storage cost were converted into a cost for the year (i.e., 12 months of storage).
Corn Storage Cost per Bushel per Year since 1973
Total storage cost per bushel for Ohio corn changed little from 1974 through 2005 as declining interest rates and thus interest opportunity cost per bushel offset a small, on-going increase in physical storage cost per bushel (see Figure 1). Between 2005 and 2020, a somewhat larger annual increase in physical storage cost per bushel was mostly, but not completely, offset by an interest rate and thus interest opportunity cost per bushel that approached zero. Since 2020, both storage cost components have increased, pushing total storage cost to a post 1973 high. For the 2024 marketing year, total storage cost for corn for one year was $1.46 per bushel divided into $1.30 of commercial physical storage cost and $0.16 of interest opportunity cost.
Soybean Storage Cost per Bushel per Year since 1973
Total storage cost per bushel for Ohio soybeans exhibited no trend from 1974 through 2020. Lower interest rates, thus interest opportunity cost per bushel, offset increasing physical storage cost per bushel, even after physical storage cost increased faster after 2005 (see Figure 2). Since 2020, total cost per bushel has reached a post 1973 high as both storage cost components increased. For the 2024 marketing year, soybean storage cost for one year totaled $1.72 per bushel divided into $1.30 of physical storage cost and $0.42 of interest opportunity cost.
Total storage cost per bushel was higher for soybeans than corn in every year, averaging 37% higher since 1973. The reason is that, while physical storage cost per bushel is usually similar for corn and soybeans, interest opportunity cost per bushel is higher for soybeans due to the price of soybeans being roughly 2.5 times higher than the price of corn. Total storage cost per bushel for soybeans and corn was most similar during the 2009-2021 marketing years when interest rates were near zero.
Total Annual Storage Cost per Bushel Relative to Harvest Price
Because price and storage cost per bushel have increased for corn and soybeans since 1973, it is useful to examine the ratio of total storage cost per bushel to October harvest price. By this measure of total storage cost per bushel, storing soybeans is cheaper than storing corn (see Figure 3). The reason is that physical storage cost per bushel has usually been larger than interest opportunity cost per bushel while price is roughly 2.5 times higher for soybeans than corn. Relative to the October price, total storage cost has averaged 20% for corn with a range of 6% (2012) to 38% (2024) vs. 11% for soybeans with a range of 3% (2012) to 21% (1981). The low ratios for 2012 reflect low interest rates and low physical storage cost, with the latter reflecting competition among commercial storers for the drought reduced 2012 crop. The ratio for 2024 is the high for corn (38%) and near the high for soybeans (17%).
Cost to Store One Acre of Production for One Year
Another perspective on storage cost is the total cost to store one acre of production for one year. Despite increasing yields per acre, this cost measure barely changed from the late 1970s through 2005 (see Figure 4). It then began to move higher as yield and storage cost increased. The increase surged post 2020. For the 2024 marketing year, total cost to store one acre of Ohio production for one year was $258 for corn and $86 for soybeans, which are somewhat below their highs in the 2023 marketing year.
Summary Observations
Ohio corn and soybean storage cost is measured three ways: per bushel, relative to harvest price, and per acre of production. For all three ways, total storage cost has roughly doubled since 2020 as both commercial physical storage cost per bushel and interest opportunity storage cost per bushel have increased. Total storage cost is at or near post 1973 highs no matter how it is measured.
The post 2019 increase comes after an extended period of time, 1974 – 2019, when declining interest opportunity cost per bushel due to declining interest rates mostly offset increases in physical storage cost per bushel.
The preceding two points underscore the important role of interest rates and thus interest opportunity cost in offsetting or reinforcing the on-going increase in physical storage cost. The reinforcing impact has been especially noticeable since 2020.
Since 1973, on a per bushel basis, it has on average been more expensive to store soybeans than corn; but, when total storage cost is expressed relative to corn and soybean price, it has been more expensive to store corn than soybeans. These finding may seem at odds but they reflect the interaction of a roughly 2.5 times higher price for soybeans with a usually similar physical storage cost per bushel for corn and soybeans. In short, whether corn or soybeans is more expensive to store, depends on how total storage cost is measured.
References and Data Sources
Barchart.com. August 2025. Futures price data. https://www.barchart.com/
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. September 2025. Federal Reserve Economic Data. December. https://fred.stlouisfed.org
Ohio Country Elevator. 2006-2017. Personal inquiry of annual corn and soybean storage rates.
US Department of Agriculture, Commodity Credit Corporation. 1974-2007. Annual personal inquiry.
US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. October 2025. QuickStats. http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/
Tags:
Comments: 0
By: David Marrison, OSU Extension Field Specialist – Farm Management
OSU Extension has a long history of helping farm families with transition and estate planning. While most would agree this kind of planning is vital for the future success of the farm, it often gets delayed or doesn’t happen at all, for a variety of reasons.
So why the delay?
- Families often cite reasons such as:
- Not enough hours in the day to get everything done.
- Not comfortable talking about death.
- Don’t know how to develop a plan.
- Don’t understand all the legal jargon.
- Legal and tax professionals are too expensive.
- We don’t agree on what to do.
- It might cause family conflict.
- Our family communication about sensitive topics is poor.
So, what would be on your list? For most, the top two reasons are the lack of time and a history of poor communication around difficult topics. So, how can we overcome these obstacles? Maybe one strategy this fall is to use the buddy seat to our advantage.
Buddy Seat
A buddy seat, sometimes called a passenger or instructional seat, is an extra seat inside the cab of farm equipment like a combine or tractor. It is there so someone else (like a child, grandchild, trainee, or helper) can ride along safely with the operator. It is a great way to teach someone the ropes or spend some quality time together during long hours in the field.
I recently read an article by Raney Rapp called “The Buddy Seat Barometer” which explores how the buddy seat has become an informal rite of passage in farm dating. Rapp explained that a few minutes or hours in a buddy seat can show you a lot. You will see the good, how someone handles stress, and how the family works together. Rapp remarked that the buddy seat is a good barometer to see if this life and person might be the right fit.
So, beyond the dating world, could the buddy seat be used to create deeper connections? What if we used the buddy seats in our combines, trucks, and tractors as places to have more intentional conversations?
Levels of Conversations
First, let’s look at the level of conversations we typically have. In his book "Why Am I Afraid to Tell Your Who I Am?” John Powell outlines five levels of communication (See Table 1). Most of us tend to stay at levels five and four, the safer levels of cliché or factual conversations. These conversations are safe and polite with little emotional risk.
As conversations progress to levels three and two, conversations become more personal as we begin to share what we think or feel. Peak communication or level one communication is rare and precious. It occurs when people feel safe enough to be deeply honest and to share fully. It requires trust, respect, and love.
So, where would you rank your communication with family members and your farm team?
Table 1: Levels of Communication
| Level | Type | Description | Farm Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Cliché | Small Talk |
“Looks like we’ll get rain this weekend.” “Boy, the corn market is down.” |
| 4 | Facts | Giving Updates |
“We vaccinated the calves this morning.” “We’ve only had 1 inch of rain since July 1” |
| 3 | Ideas and Judgements | Sharing Thoughts |
“I think switching to organic would allow us to increase our return per acre.” “I don’t think my brother is ready to manage the farm in the future.” |
| 2 | Emotions | Sharing Feelings |
“I’m tired of feeling like I’m not heard.” “It hurts that Dad doesn’t ask for my input before buying new equipment.” |
| 1 | Peak Communication | Deep honesty |
“I worry I’ll be the one who loses the farm.” “I fear our family dynamics might push my spouse away.” |
From “Why Am I Afraid to Tell Your Who I Am?” – John Powell
Elevating Your Buddy Seat Conversations
Of course, the top priority during harvest is to get the crop harvested and to do it safely. However, buddy seat conversations can offer opportunities for deeper, more intentional communication.
One strategy is for both the driver and the buddy to be more intentional in the questions they ask. During our “Planning for the Future of our Farm” workshops, we encourage families to plan their farm’s future through questions as a discussion guide. Here are some ideas for questions to get conversations going this fall.
The Legacy of the Farm
The buddy seat is a great place to reflect on the history of the farm. These reflections can build understanding and appreciation for the sacrifices which got the farm to where it is today. Some questions that can help family members examine farm legacy could include:
- How did the farm get started and who were the first family members involved?
- What are you most proud of when you think about our farm’s history?
- What values or principles have guided the way you have operated the farm?
- How did the farm shape the way our family grew up and lived?
- What were some of the biggest challenges you faced over the years, and how did you overcome them?
- What have been the hardest weather events or years? Can you tell me about the blizzard of 1978?
- Who have been your best mentors in farming and what did they teach you?
- How have farming practices changed since you started and which changes were hardest to adapt to?
- Were there times you considered walking away from farming? What made you stay?
- What advice would you give the next generation of farmers in our family?
- What do you hope the next generation understands or carries forward?
Our Farm’s Future
Most farm families hope to see the operation successfully pass to the next generation. The buddy seat can be a great space for generations to talk about the future. These conversations can be vital as the family develops its transition plan.
- What are your vision and goals for the farm in the next 10, 20, or 50 years?
- What parts of the farm operation are you most passionate about? What would you change or grow?
- Are there new technologies, crops, or practices you are interested in exploring?
- What kind of support or guidance would help you take on more responsibility?
- What traditions or values are most important for you to continue?
- What concerns or worries do you have about taking over the farm?
- In what areas would you like more training?
- What do you want your kids or nieces/nephews to understand about the farm?
- How do you see personal and family life fitting in with the future of the farm?
- What will success look like to you as the future leader of this operation?
Family Relationships
Farming is more than land, crops, and livestock. It is deeply tied to family. Honest conversations among siblings, spouses, and generations are crucial to avoid conflict and to build trust. Buddy seat conversations can also be a natural space to check in.
- What are three things you are grateful for?
- What’s something I say or do that makes you feel appreciated?
- What’s your role on the farm and do you feel it’s recognized?
- What has been your happiest day on the farm?
- How do you prefer to communicate when something’s wrong or frustrating?
- Are there ways we could better divide responsibilities to avoid stress?
- Do you feel heard and respected in farm decisions?
- How would you prefer to handle conflict when it comes up?
- How can we better balance work and family life, especially during busy seasons?
- How do you see us as siblings, spouses, or family involved in the farm’s future?
- What is on your bucket list?
Our Farm as a Workplace
Conversations with employees can also help create a healthy, respectful, and productive work culture. When employers ask for honest feedback, it improves morale, retention, and day-to-day operations. Here are a few questions to ask employees this fall:
- What do you enjoy most about working here?
- What do you see as our farm’s strengths?
- What is one change that could make the farm more efficient?
- Are there any safety concerns we should address?
- Is communication clear about your tasks or expectations? How could we improve?
- Are there any tools, equipment, or systems that you think could help us work more efficiently?
- What kind of support, such as training, equipment, or scheduling would help you succeed?
- What would make this job more satisfying or sustainable long-term?
- Is there anything you would like to learn or grow into here?
- What task or tasks do you enjoy the least on the farm?
- As an employee, are there any additional benefits that you would like us to consider?
Put The Buddy Seat to Work This Fall
As we settle into another harvest season, the buddy seat gives us more than just a place to ride. It offers a chance to connect, reflect, and look ahead. Whether you are talking about the farm’s legacy, its future, or just checking in on one another, buddy seat conversations matter. So, this fall, let’s turn our buddy seats into spaces of meaningful dialogue. Because the best place to start planning for the future of the farm... is one honest conversation at a time.
References
Powell, John. Why Am I Afraid to Tell You Who I Am? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. ISBN: 000-628105-2
Raney Rapp, “The Buddy Seat Barometer” (September, 2025). Farm Progress. Accessible at: https://www.farmprogress.com/commentary/the-buddy-seat-barometer
OSU Farm Office Resources. Planning for the Future of the Farm. Resources accessible at: https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-transition
The author would like to thank OSU Extension colleagues and AI-assisted drafting tools for helping refine the ideas presented in this article.