Recent Blog Posts
A recent decision from the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals involves a farm estate and a lawsuit. The facts are complex, but at its core, the case involves parents who owned and operated a sizeable farming operation and left their assets to their son and daughter. The court’s written analysis makes clear that the siblings do not get along, a factor that likely contributed significantly to their dispute. The case reflects a combination of complex estate planning, family tension, and the parents’ desire to exert control over assets after death. Any one of these factors can increase the risk of estate litigation; taken together, they make a lawsuit far more likely.
The parents’ estate plan, and the litigation that followed, involved all of the following:
- Multiple trusts
- Several LLCs holding farm assets
- Farm leases between entities and family members
- Trustees and trust protectors
- Allegations of self-dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, and lack of cooperation
This list illustrates both the complexity of the parents’ estate plan and the level of conflict between the heirs. While this was an uncommonly complicated plan, it may have been necessary given the parents’ assets, goals, and family circumstances. However, when estate plans become more complex, the potential for misunderstandings, administrative difficulties, and conflict also increases.
There are at least three lessons to be learned from this court case. First, estate plans of this level of complexity are sometimes necessary, particularly for large farming operations or families with unique goals. However, this case serves as a reminder that complexity comes at a cost. When multiple planning strategies and conditions are used with an already strained family relationship, the result can be confusion, administrative difficulties, and litigation. In some situations, a simpler estate plan may better serve both the family and the farm.
Second, complex estate plans can outrun the understanding of the families tasked with implementing them. In other words, does the family truly understand the plan and how it is intended to work over time? As with most things, simpler plans are generally easier to understand and administer. In some cases, attorneys may design technically sound plans that are not fully understood by their clients, increasing the risk of mistakes and conflict after the parents are gone.
The next lesson involves consideration for the non-farming heir. Before her death, the mother changed their estate plan to give the son, the farming heir, significant control over land the daughter was due to inherit. If the relationship between the siblings was already strained, placing one sibling in control of the other’s assets without notification was almost certain to magnify that tension.
Many farm transition plans give the farming heir disproportionate control over assets out of necessity. However, it is critical to consider the impact of that control on the non-farming heir. Was the non-farming heir informed of the extent of the farming heir’s control? In this case, it appears that the son was given control over the daughter’s assets as the result of a trust change that was not disclosed to the daughter, an omission that only added fuel to an already volatile situation. Additionally, if a non-farming heir’s assets are overly restricted within a trust or LLC, their practical value and usefulness can be greatly diminished.
The third lesson is closely related to the first: control from the grave has consequences. In this case, the parents clearly wanted to ensure that the farming heir continued the family farming operation—a common and understandable goal for farm families. To achieve that goal, however, their estate plan allowed little or no control for the daughter over the land she was to inherit.
During their lifetimes, parents are often able to referee disputes between children and maintain at least a measure of peace within the family. When the parents are gone, so too is the referee. Without their presence, the control that parents once exercised directly can manifest very differently after death. In this case, the parents’ attempt to control the operation and use of assets from beyond the grave appears to have caused the daughter significant distress and frustration, ultimately resulting in litigation.
As noted above, complex estate plans are sometimes necessary, and that may have been true in this case. However, whenever possible, farm transition plans should be designed with as much simplicity as circumstances allow. Planners should carefully consider the impact on non-farming heirs and recognize that post-death control mechanisms may not function as intended once the parents are no longer present. Families should ensure that they understand how their plan will work, that it minimizes the potential for family conflict, and that any post-death control is likely to be accepted by the heirs.
Working with an experienced attorney who regularly assists farm families is an important first step in reducing the risk of conflict in an estate or transition plan. A knowledgeable attorney can help design a plan that achieves the family’s goals while minimizing administrative difficulties and the potential for litigation. While no estate plan can completely eliminate the risk of conflict, careful planning and thoughtful design can significantly reduce it.
You can read the relevant court case here.
By: David Marrison, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Farm Management
OSU Extension and the Ohio Farm Transition Network are pleased to be hosting the International Farm Transition Network’s (IFTN) Certified Farm Succession Coordinator Training on April 20-22 in Wooster, Ohio.
Succession planning is not only about the transfer of assets, but also about the transfer of labor, skills, and decision making. It requires financial analysis to ensure the business can support the goals of all the members and requires planning and communication skills. Many farm businesses are realizing the importance of creating a succession plan and the value of a skilled facilitator to lead the process of clarifying their goals and ideas, exploring options, and coordinating communication. A facilitated process can lead to better informed business planning and estate planning decisions. This training will help equip professionals with the tools to work with farm families to strategically plan for the transition of their farm's assets and management.
Training Details
This 20-hour training will offer participants insight into the barriers to farm succession, strategies for working with families, facilitation tools to guide the process, and opportunities to consider real-life examples of farm transfer conflicts. Upon completion of the training, registrants are eligible to complete a certification exam to become a Certified IFTN Farm Succession Coordinator.
The training will be held at the Secrest Arboretum Welcome and Education Center in Wooster, Ohio on Monday, April 20 (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.), Tuesday, April 21 (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) and Wednesday, April 22 (8 a.m. to 12 p.m.). Lunch will be provided each day as well as dinner on Monday. Tuesday evening dinner is on your own.
Instructors for this training include Joy Kirkpatrick (Farm Succession Outreach Specialist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison), Kiley Fleming (Executive Director of the Iowa Mediation Service), and David Marrison (OSU Extension Field Specialist in Farm Management). All have been farm succession instructors for over a decade and have extensive experience in human resources, facilitation, and mediation.
The early-bird registration fee is $900 per person before February 1 and $999 thereafter. The class is limited to the first 30 professionals registered. Pre-registration is required by March 15. The fee covers program materials, lunch each day, dinner on Monday evening, and a complimentary one-year membership to the International Farm Transition Network. Registration can be made at go.osu.edu/IFTN.
Hotel Block
A hotel block has been secured at the Hilton Garden Inn located at 959 Dover Road in Wooster, Ohio for $138/night (plus applicable taxes). Reservations can be made at: group.hiltongardeninn.com/emmmkw or by calling 330-202-7701 using the group code: IFTN.
Sponsors
Sponsors of this event include OSU Extension, Nationwide, Ohio Corn Checkoff, Ohio Small Grains Checkoff, Ohio Soybean Council, Ag Credit, Farm Credit Mid-America, Ohio Farm Bureau and OSU's Farm Financial Management and Policy Institute.
Registration
Click here for Registration and program details can be found at: go.osu.edu/IFTN
Location
Secrest Arboretum Welcome and Education Center 2122 Williams Road Wooster, Ohio
For More Information
More information can be obtained by contacting David Marrison, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Farm Management at 740-722-6073 or marrison.2@osu.edu
We're wishing you a happy holiday season and a great start to the new year!
Since the year is winding down and the holidays are upon us, we're pausing the Ohio Ag Law and Farm Office Blog. We'll resume our work in January, and we look forward to serving your agricultural law and farm managment information needs in 2026!
Happy Holidays,
The OSU Farm Office Team
Robert Moore, Clint Schroeder, Jeff Lewis, Peggy Hall, Barry Ward, Eric Richer, David Marrison, Bruce Clevenger
Absent: Ellen Essman
Tags:
Comments: 0
The Ohio General Assembly wrapped up its legislative session for the year last week, with much of the late-session energy given to property tax relief. The legislature focused on strategies for reducing Ohio property taxes in five bills it just sent to the Governor (see our earlier post). None of the bills addressed farmland taxation, however. But a bill the legislature might consider when it returns in 2026 does propose changes to Ohio’s Current Agricultural Use Valuation (CAUV) Program for farmland property taxes. H.B. 575, introduced by Rep. David Thomas (R-Jefferson) and Bob Peterson (R-Sabina) proposes a number of revisions to the CAUV program.
H.B. 575 doesn’t propose reductions to CAUV taxes, however. Instead, the bill contains changes to how the CAUV program works. The bill is consistent with plans in Ohio’s House for continuing to address property taxes. Rep. Bill Roemer (R-Richfield), chair of the House Ways and Means Committee where H.B. 575 now sits, stated that the five recently passed bills represented most of the “big structural changes” to property taxation and that the legislature’s future focus will be on “fairness and efficiency.” Sponsor Rep. Thomas agreed, stating that “the changes that need to happen now are about the process, helping taxpayers through the process and transparency.” Process and transparency are two themes in H.B. 575’s revisions. Here’s what the bill proposes to change about Ohio’s CAUV program.
Process changes:
- Removes the annual renewal requirement for CAUV. A landowner would not have to submit a renewal each year after initial approval to enroll in the CAUV program.
- Requires county auditors to provide for electronic filing of CAUV enrollment applications.
- Allows a single operation with non-contiguous land in two or more counties to file one application for all parcels in the county where a majority of the land exists.
- Requires that property tax bills separately state the “CAUV savings” for the parcel.
- Mandates that a county auditor must provide notice of the soil types and CAUV values to landowners in reappraisal and update years.
- Allows the county auditor to value residential property and wasteland below the CAUV value.
Eligibility changes:
- Authorizes continued CAUV eligibility for tracts or portions lying idle or fallow in the previous year due to state or federal disaster or state of emergency declarations.
- Allows CAUV eligibility for contiguous land that is incidental to the primary use of the land for agricultural purposes, including areas for driveways, access roads, staging, barns, and farm markets.
- States that the CAUV minimum acreage requirement can include non-contiguous tracts that are part of a single operation within one or multiple counties.
While the proposed changes won’t affect the CAUV formula or reduce CAUV taxes, the revisions in H.B. 575 do solve many of the fairness and efficiency problems we see with Ohio’s CAUV program. But it may take legislators a while to get to the CAUV bill. It’s one of dozens of bills waiting for consideration by the House Ways & Means Committee. Even so, let’s hope 2026 brings changes to CAUV in the New Year.
Read H.B. 575 on the Ohio General Assembly’s website.
Every year, OSU Extension brings farm families together to tackle one of the most important, and often most difficult, tasks in agriculture: planning for the future of the family farm. Our “Planning for the Future of Your Farm” workshops help families navigate farm succession, estate planning, and strategies for ensuring that the farm continues across generations.
For 2025–2026, OSU Extension is offering three learning formats to meet the needs of busy farm families:
- A new asynchronous online course (work at your own pace)
- A live Zoom webinar series in March 2026
- In-person workshops across Ohio in 2025 & 2026
Whether you are beginning the planning process or fine-tuning an existing transition strategy, these programs provide critical information, tools, and structure to help families move forward.
Why Attend?
Transition planning is more than paperwork, it’s a family conversation about goals, legacy, and the future of the business. Our workshops challenge families to think strategically and communicate openly about succession, while providing the legal and financial tools necessary to make informed decisions.
Teaching the program are:
- David Marrison, OSU Extension Farm Management Field Specialist
- Robert Moore, Attorney/Research Specialist , OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program
Topics Covered
Throughout the workshop series and online course, participants will learn how to:
- Develop estate and succession planning goals
- Plan for the transition of management and control
- Communicate effectively and manage family conflict
- Understand legal tools and strategies for farm transition
- Build a professional advisory team
- Get personal and business affairs organized
Schedule and Registration
Registration for the online on-demand program is available here. Full access to the course videos and materials is $149.
The four-part live webinar series will take place on four evenings in March:
March 2, 9, 16 & 23, 2026
6:00–8:00 p.m. via Zoom
Cost: $99 per family
Register for the webinar series at https://farmoffice.osu.edu/PFF-workshops.
The times and locations of the in-person programs are:
- December 11 & 17, 2025 - Lorain County (6:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
- January 14 & 21, 2026 - Logan County (6:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
- February 9 & 16, 2026 - Muskingum County (6:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
- March 3 & 17, 2026 - Washington County (6:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
- March 18 & 26, 2026 - Morrow County (5:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
- December 1 & 8, 2026 - Madison County (6:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
Registration information for the in person workshops is at https://farmoffice.osu.edu/PFF-workshops
For more information or questions, contact David Marrison at Marrison.2@osu.edu or Robert Moore at moore.301@osu.edu.
Tags: planning for the future of your farm
Comments: 0
The holiday season often leaves us short on time, but we hope you’ll have the time to devote to December’s Farm Office Live webinar this Friday, December 12 at 10 a.m. The agenda includes two special guests: Joshua Strine with Purdue’s Center for Commercial Agriculture, who will explain Purdue’s web-based Crop Basis Tool that provides access to corn and soybean basis data for local market regions in the eastern corn belt and Dr. Robert Mullen with Heritage Cooperative, who’ll share his knowledge of fertilizer market information and prices. The Farm Office's Peggy Hall and Barry Ward will also cover legislative and tax updates, and the Farm Office team will overview upcoming winter programs you won’t want to miss.
Attending is a gift of education you can give yourself during this busy time, and one that will keep giving through the coming year. Here’s the complete December Farm Office Live line up:
- Purdue’s Crop Basis Tool with Joshua Strine of Purdue’s Center for Commercial Agriculture.
- Legislative Update from Peggy Hall of OSU’s Agricultural & Resource Law Program.
- Fertilizer Market Info and Historical Fertilizer Prices with Robert Mullen, Vice President of Agricultural Technology for Heritage Cooperative.
- Year End Tax Update from Barry Ward, OSU Income Tax Schools.
- Winter Programs and Classes – Highlighting information on the Farm Office team’s Basics of Grain Marketing course, Planning for the Future of Your Farm Workshops, Food Business Central course, Organic Grains Conference, and Farm On course.
If you’re not already registered for Farm Office Live, follow this link to register for the webinar series: go.osu.edu/farmofficelive. Use the same link to access replays of all of our Farm Office Live webinars.
On November 20 of this year, the U.S. EPA and Army Corps of Engineers submitted a proposed rule which would once again redefine the term “Waters of the United States,” or WOTUS, under the federal Clean Water Act.
WOTUS woes
In 1972, Congress passed amendments to existing water pollution law, resulting in the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Ever since the CWA’s passage in the 1970s, there has been debate over which waters fall under the definition of “waters of the United States” and are subject to federal regulation. The classification of WOTUS is controversial because if a body of water is defined as a water of the United States, the farmers, ranchers, businesses, and other property owners who own the land where the water is located are subject to additional regulations meant to keep the water clean. The fight over the definition of WOTUS eventually made it to the Supreme Court in the early 2000s, and the Court issued tests for determining whether certain bodies of water fell under WOTUS. This was followed by rulemaking from the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations. The Obama administration took a broad view of which waters the federal government had jurisdiction over, whereas the first Trump administration significantly narrowed the definition. The Biden administration proposed a rule that fell somewhere in between the previous administrations’ definitions of WOTUS. In 2023, the Supreme Court once again took up the issue in the case Sackett v. EPA, limiting the number of wetlands that qualify as WOTUS. The newly proposed rule is the latest in the on-going back and forth between court rulings and presidential administrations on how to tackle the definition of WOTUS. For more background on the WOTUS saga, see our numerous blog posts on the topic, available here.
Newly proposed rule open for public comment
The Trump administration’s newly proposed WOTUS rule was published in the Federal Register late last month. The text of the rule is available here, with the discussion of the revised definition beginning on page 52514 of the Federal Register, or page 6 of the linked PDF document. As with the rule submitted in the first Trump administration, the proposed rule would narrow the definition of WOTUS, resulting in fewer waters being subject to the CWA.
The public has the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed rule through January 5, 2026. To submit a comment, go to the Federal Register site for the proposed rule, available here, and click on the “Submit A Public Comment” button, highlighted in green near the top right-hand side of the page.
Providing relief for rising property taxes has been top of mind in the General Assembly this past year. Two weeks ago, the legislature passed four bills meant to tackle this issue. The bills, which each take different approaches to lowering property taxes, are now awaiting consideration by Governor DeWine. But how would each bill address property taxes?
House Bill 129—School District Millage
House Bill 129, available here, was introduced by Representative David Thomas (R, Jefferson). In Ohio, we collect property taxes in units of measure called “mills.” Each mill is equivalent to one-tenth of a cent. In the late 1970s, the Ohio General Assembly passed the “20 mill floor” for school districts, which was meant to guarantee districts a baseline of funding.
However, under current law, not all school district levies count toward the 20-mill floor, which can result in higher property taxes. H.B. 129 would change this by including emergency, substitute, incremental growth, conversion levies, and the property tax portion of combined levies when calculating the 20-mill floor for school districts. The thought is that including more types of levies in the 20-mill floor will reduce property tax rates in school districts with these additional levies. For some more background on school districts and the 20-mill floor, Ohio’s Legislative Service Commission (LSC) has a brief on the subject, available here.
House Bill 186—School District Revenue
House Bill 186, sponsored by Representatives James Hoops (R, Napoleon) and David Thomas (R, Jefferson) also focuses on the 20-mill floor for school districts. The bill, available here, would create a tax credit which would prevent increases in school district property taxes from exceeding the rate of inflation. This would only apply to property owners in a school district on the 20-mill floor. LSC’s analysis of the bill, available here, includes helpful examples of how the tax credit would work.
H.B. 186 also modifies property tax “rollbacks” for residential property, which would ultimately increase the total rollback, or savings, for owner-occupied homes, while eliminating the rollbacks for all other residential property.
House Bill 309—County Budget Commissions
House Bill 309 takes a slightly different approach to lowering property taxes by revising the authority and rules for county budget commissions. Sponsored by Representative David Thomas (R, Jefferson), the bill’s text is available here.
County budget commissions are made up of the auditor, treasurer, and either the prosecuting attorney or tax commissioner in each county. If passed, H.B. 309 would allow county budget commissions to reduce millage on any voter-approved levy if the commission deems the revenue is “unnecessary” or “excessive.” This authority to reduce millage on levies would not include debt levies. Further, county budget commissions would not be permitted to reduce a school district’s operating levy below the 20-mill floor, or to reduce any levy collected below the previous year’s revenue unless they are able to offset the reduction using reserve balances, nonexpendable trust funds, or carryover amounts.
House Bill 335—Property Tax Overhaul
Finally, House Bill 335 was also introduced by Representative David Thomas (R, Jefferson). H.B. 335, available here, would limit inside millage collections to the rate of inflation. This would be accomplished by requiring county budget commissions to adjust the rate of each inside millage levy during the reappraisal of all real property performed every six years under Ohio law, or during the update, which occurs every three years. To see some examples of this language in action, see the LSC’s analysis of the bill, available here.
What’s next?
Each of these four bills aimed at lessening the burden of property taxes have been delivered to Governor DeWine, and await his signature before they can become law. We will certainly keep you updated on what happens with each bill. In the meantime, if you’d like more information about property taxes in Ohio, the Ohio Department of Taxation has a great informational guide here.
Authors: Carl Zulauf, Seungki Lee, and David Marrison, Ohio State University
Click here for a PDF version of this article
2024 crop year payments for corn and soybeans are estimated for ARC-CO (Agriculture Risk Coverage – County version) using USDA, FSA (US Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency) final program parameters, US crop year price, and Ohio county yield.
Caveat: Even though final 2024 program data is used, the county payments in this report are estimates. Currently available data do not break out base acres enrolled in ARC-CO by irrigation –dryland designation while program parameters for some Ohio counties are broken out by this designation. We use dryland values since irrigation is limited in Ohio. Our estimates should be close to the actual values.
ARC-CO Ohio Payment Overview
- Appended Ohio maps present corn and soybean per base acre payment rate and total payment by county. Tables presents the combined corn and soybean payments by county.
- $85 million total Ohio corn payments
- $83 million total Ohio soybean payments
- $168 million combined payments
- $111 per base acre – highest per base acre payment for corn (Ross County irrigated)
- $71 per base acre – highest per base acre payment for soybeans (Mercer County)
- $9 million – highest total county payment for corn (Pickaway)
- $5 million – highest total county payment for soybeans (Mercer)
- $13 million – highest total county payment for corn plus soybeans (Pickaway)
- 34 Ohio counties with corn base had no ARC-CO payments.
- 20 Ohio counties with soybean base had no ARC-CO payments.
- 19 Ohio counties with corn and/or soybean base had no ARC-CO payments.
PLC (Price Loss Coverage), the other widely-used commodity program option, made no payments to corn and soybeans.
Payment Formulas (● = times):
ARC-CO payment rate per base acre = MAX [$0, or 86% times (county benchmark revenue - observed revenue)] ● 85% payment factor. County benchmark revenue = (5-year Olympic average (high and low value removed) of recent US crop year prices ● 5-year Olympic average of recent trend-adjusted county yields). Observed revenue = observed US crop year price ● observed county yield. ARC-CO payment rate is capped at 10% of county benchmark revenue.
PLC payment rate per base acre = MAX [$0, or (US effective reference price – US crop year price) ● FSA farm’s PLC base yield ● 85% payment factor.
Table 1: County-level Total ARC-CO Payments
|
Ohio |
Corn |
Soybean |
Corn & Soybean |
|
Ohio Total |
$85,113,352 |
$82,907,212 |
$168,020,564 |
|
Adams |
$1,953,648 |
$324,772 |
$2,278,420 |
|
Allen |
$252,599 |
$141,765 |
$394,364 |
|
Ashland |
$399,368 |
$766,948 |
$1,166,316 |
|
Ashtabula |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Athens |
$30,400 |
$21,624 |
$52,024 |
|
Auglaize |
$1,366,519 |
$402,078 |
$1,768,597 |
|
Belmont |
$10,284 |
NA |
$10,284 |
|
Brown |
$3,126,417 |
$1,185,187 |
$4,311,604 |
|
Butler |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Carroll |
$541,288 |
$112,885 |
$654,173 |
|
Champaign |
$1,187,042 |
$2,028,502 |
$3,215,544 |
|
Clark |
$1,158,728 |
$1,048,494 |
$2,207,222 |
|
Clermont |
$0 |
$683,633 |
$683,633 |
|
Clinton |
$2,900,900 |
$0 |
$2,900,900 |
|
Columbiana |
$0 |
$339,092 |
$339,092 |
|
Coshocton |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Crawford |
$654,121 |
$386,480 |
$1,040,601 |
|
Cuyahoga |
NA |
$569 |
$569 |
|
Darke |
$0 |
$512,689 |
$512,689 |
|
Defiance |
$2,040,896 |
$2,989,371 |
$5,030,267 |
|
Delaware |
$0 |
$659,315 |
$659,315 |
|
Erie |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Fairfield |
$4,218,282 |
$2,172,969 |
$6,391,251 |
|
Fayette |
$5,432,556 |
$4,982,296 |
$10,414,852 |
|
Franklin |
$957,432 |
$767,856 |
$1,725,288 |
|
Fulton |
$2,250,274 |
$1,970,911 |
$4,221,185 |
|
Gallia |
$287,475 |
$45,979 |
$333,454 |
|
Geauga |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Greene |
$1,904,735 |
$264,520 |
$2,169,255 |
|
Guernsey |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Hamilton |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Hancock |
$542,236 |
$3,035,583 |
$3,577,819 |
|
Hardin |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Harrison |
$262,870 |
$31,661 |
$294,531 |
|
Henry |
$0 |
$2,844,335 |
$2,844,335 |
|
Highland |
$6,860,180 |
$2,300,059 |
$9,160,239 |
|
Hocking |
$0 |
$69,489 |
$69,489 |
|
Holmes |
$0 |
$98,036 |
$98,036 |
|
Huron |
$121,307 |
$2,193,244 |
$2,314,551 |
|
Jackson |
$399,593 |
$34,150 |
$433,743 |
|
Jefferson |
$147,765 |
$8,414 |
$156,179 |
|
Knox |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Lake |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Lawrence |
$94,311 |
$26,654 |
$120,965 |
|
Licking |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Logan |
$1,850,193 |
$3,538,123 |
$5,388,316 |
|
Lorain |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Lucas |
$425,521 |
$989,267 |
$1,414,788 |
|
Madison |
$3,775,050 |
$3,646,972 |
$7,422,022 |
|
Mahoning |
$0 |
$320,334 |
$320,334 |
|
Marion |
$3,530,018 |
$2,878,031 |
$6,408,049 |
|
Medina |
$0 |
$231,935 |
$231,935 |
|
Meigs |
$298,321 |
$37,814 |
$336,135 |
|
Mercer |
$5,433,771 |
$5,293,772 |
$10,727,543 |
|
Miami |
$53,846 |
$262,342 |
$316,188 |
|
Monroe |
NA |
NA |
NA |
|
Montgomery |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Morgan |
$189,834 |
$35,144 |
$224,978 |
|
Morrow |
$513,868 |
$322,816 |
$836,684 |
|
Muskingum |
$755,628 |
$182,953 |
$938,581 |
|
Noble |
NA |
NA |
NA |
|
Ottawa |
$1,271,837 |
$2,047,756 |
$3,319,593 |
|
Paulding |
$0 |
$2,300,111 |
$2,300,111 |
|
Perry |
$239,937 |
$363,609 |
$603,546 |
|
Pickaway |
$9,195,484 |
$4,263,636 |
$13,459,120 |
|
Pike |
$811,750 |
$253,947 |
$1,065,697 |
|
Portage |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Preble |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Putnam |
$491,833 |
$1,658,462 |
$2,150,295 |
|
Richland |
$305,490 |
$298,578 |
$604,068 |
|
Ross |
$4,208,672 |
$1,821,334 |
$6,030,006 |
|
Sandusky |
$0 |
$1,188,464 |
$1,188,464 |
|
Scioto |
$11,482 |
$541,776 |
$553,258 |
|
Seneca |
$416,890 |
$1,347,400 |
$1,764,290 |
|
Shelby |
$3,571,202 |
$2,150,447 |
$5,721,649 |
|
Stark |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Summit |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Trumbull |
$0 |
$20,559 |
$20,559 |
|
Tuscarawas |
$0 |
$236,206 |
$236,206 |
|
Union |
$4,327,797 |
$2,883,452 |
$7,211,249 |
|
Van Wert |
$936,018 |
$524,662 |
$1,460,680 |
|
Vinton |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Warren |
$0 |
$51,288 |
$51,288 |
|
Washington |
$591,708 |
$154,944 |
$746,652 |
|
Wayne |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Williams |
$871,015 |
$1,780,990 |
$2,652,005 |
|
Wood |
$0 |
$4,561,326 |
$4,561,326 |
|
Wyandot |
$1,934,961 |
$4,269,202 |
$6,204,163 |
Note: Counties with NA indicates that they do not have base acres available.
Tags:
Comments: 0
Interested in or growing organic grains? Then be sure to attend the fourth annual Ohio State Organic Grains Conference on January 7-8, 2026, at Kalahari Resort in Sandusky, Ohio. This popular conference offers programming for experienced organic growers, growers transitioning to or considering organic, and consultants or educators who support these growers.
Featured speakers for 2026 include Willie Hughes from W. Hughes Farm in Janesville, Wisconsin; Dr. Matt Ryan from Cornell University; Dr. Aaron Wilson, Ohio State climate and agricultural weather specialist; and Nate Powell-Palm from the Organic Agronomy Training Service (OATS). Additional panelists and speakers will cover a wide range of agronomic and management topics for organic grain farming, including a session I'll teach on Farmland Leasing Options for organic growers.
The conference is presented by our OSU Farm Office and Ohio State’s Organic Food & Farming Education and Research (OFFER) program with input from a planning committee of land grant staff and researchers and organic farmers from Ohio and surrounding states. Pre-registration is $140 per person through December 5, and $175 from December 6 through December 26. Attendees can also pay at the door for an additional fee. Continuing education credits will be available for Certified Crop Advisors. For more information and to register, visit go.osu.edu/OrganicGrains.