Recent Blog Posts
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.
The warm, dry, windy months of October and November are upon us, and they bring increased fire risk across Ohio. That’s why Ohio law prohibits all open burning from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. during October and November. The risk of fire spreading is high during those times and volunteer firefighters with daytime jobs aren’t readily available to respond to the higher fire risk.
Given current drought conditions across Ohio, any open burning at any time is highly dangerous and not advised; waiting to burn in Winter is the best strategy. But Ohio law does allow farmers and farmland owners to burn “agricultural waste” after 6 p.m. in October and November under certain conditions. Some burns may require prior permission or notification to government entities, and burning some substances is illegal due to the environmental harms they cause, such as food waste and materials containing rubber, grease, asphalt and petroleum.
Burning agricultural wastes. Ohio law allows the burning of “agricultural wastes,” which are any waste materials generated by crop, horticultural, or livestock production practices such as woody debris and plant matter from stream flooding, bags, cartons, structural materials, and landscape wastes that are generated in agricultural activities. But note that:
- Agricultural waste does not include buildings; dismantled or fallen barns; garbage; dead animals; animal waste; motor vehicles and parts thereof; or "economic poisons and containers," unless the manufacturer has identified open burning as a safe disposal procedure.
- Agricultural waste does not include "land clearing waste," which is debris from the clearing of land for new development for agricultural, residential, commercial or industrial purposes. Burning of “land clearing waste” requires prior written notification to Ohio EPA.
- If an agricultural waste pile is greater than 20 ft. wide x 10 ft. high (4,000 cubic feet), permission from Ohio EPA is necessary.
The burning location matters. Agricultural waste must be burned on the property where it was generated. It is illegal to take agricultural waste to a different property for burning. It is also illegal to receive and burn agricultural waste from another property. Other laws regulating the location of the burn include:
- A burn must be located more than 1,000 feet from any neighboring inhabited building.
- Burning inside a “restricted area” requires providing a ten day written notice to Ohio EPA. A restricted area is any area inside city or village limits, within 1,000-feet of a city or village with a population of 1,000 to 10,000, or within one-mile zone a city or village with a population of more than 10,000.
Local laws matter too. A local government can also have laws that regulate burning activities, so it’s important to check with the local fire department to know whether any additional regulations apply to a burn.
How to manage the burn. Ohio open burning laws impose practices a person must follow when conducting open burning, which includes:
- Remove all leaves, grass, wood, and inflammable materials around the burn to a safe distance.
- Stack waste to provide the best practicable condition for efficient burning.
- Don’t burn in weather conditions that prevent dispersion of smoke and emissions.
- Take reasonable precautions to keep the fire under control.
- Extinguish or safely cover an open fire before leaving the area.
The risks of violating open burnng laws. Violating state and local open burning laws creates several risks for farmers and farmland owners. First is the risk of enforcement by the Ohio Division of Forestry and local law enforcement, which can result in third degree misdemeanor charges, penalties of up to $500, and a potential of up to 60 days of jail time, depending on the seriousness of the violation.
Enforcement by the Ohio EPA is also possible. The EPA has the authority to issue fines of up to $1,000 per day per offense for an illegal burn. According to the EPA, the most common violations by farmers include burning substances that are not “agricultural wastes,” such as tires and plastics, failing to meet the 1,000 foot setback requirement, and burning waste from another property. EPA enforcement officers regularly patrol their districts, investigate fires they see, and investigate complaints from neighbors or others who report burning activities, so “getting caught” is quite possible.
Most important, however, is the risk of harm to people and property if a burn goes wrong. It’s possible for a fire to escape and burn unintended property, interfere with people, animals, crops, or buildings, or reduce roadway visibility and cause accidents. These situations can easily lead to insurance claims or lawsuits. Because the risk of such harm is high in October and November, waiting until winter to burn agricultural waste is an excellent risk management strategy.
To learn more about Ohio’s open burning laws, visit the Ohio EPA website at https://epa.ohio.gov/divisions-and-offices/air-pollution-control/permitting/open-burning.
Running a farm business is no small job. Between planting, harvesting, caring for livestock, and tracking markets, it’s easy to see why labor and employment laws might not be at the top of your list. But the reality is this: every agricultural operation, big or small, needs to pay attention to these rules. Ignoring them can create major headaches down the road.
We often write about labor and employment laws in agriculture, but we don’t always take the time to talk about the why. Why should farm employers care about compliance? The obvious answer is that failing to follow the law can lead to fines, penalties, or even criminal consequences. But there is another side to it: compliance is also about smart risk management. Too often, that part of the conversation gets overlooked.
In this post, we will dig into why labor and employment compliance matters for every farm employer, no matter the size of your operation, the number of workers you hire, or whether your team is made up of family, neighbors, or seasonal help. We will also be using this post to kick off a new series of posts, where we will break down labor and employment laws into bite-sized, practical pieces. The goal is to help Ohio producers understand their obligations and share best practices that can reduce risks and strengthen their businesses.
Compliance = Risk Management
As we have mentioned before, ignoring labor and employment laws can bring direct legal consequences. But there is another side to compliance that deserves attention: risk management.
Fun fact: not every federal or state labor law applies to every employer. Many laws have size thresholds or exceptions/exemptions for certain types of employers. For example, the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) only applies to employers with 15 or more employees. Similarly, Ohio’s anti-discrimination law generally applies to employers with four or more employees.
So, what about a small farm with three or fewer workers? Technically, some of these anti-discrimination rules do not apply. But that does not mean you are off the hook completely. A job applicant or employee who feels they were treated unfairly because of their race, sex, age, disability, religion, national origin, or military status can still file a complaint with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. Even if the farm is ultimately found not liable, the process of defending against a claim costs time, money, and stress. And in a close-knit farming community, just the perception of discrimination can damage relationships with workers, customers, and neighbors.
There is also the bigger challenge many producers face: finding and keeping a reliable workforce. Workers are more likely to stay, and return season after season, when they feel respected, treated fairly, and confident that their employer is following good practices. Compliance is not just about avoiding penalties; it’s about building a safe, fair workplace that encourages loyalty and productivity.
We have focused here on discrimination laws as an example, but the same principle applies across the board. Many labor laws including wage and hour rules, harassment policies, and safety standards may or may not apply to a particular farm depending on its size or structure. Still, choosing to follow these standards can pay off. Voluntarily adopting recognized best practices provides a layer of protection if disputes arise, shows foresight if laws change, and helps resolve workplace issues before they turn into legal claims.
At the end of the day, following labor and employment laws, even when they do not technically apply, is a smart risk management strategy. It helps farms keep good workers, avoid conflicts, and maintain their reputation as fair, responsible employers. And those benefits can be just as valuable as steering clear of legal penalties.
“Employing” Family Members
As we mentioned earlier, this post kicks off a new blog series for Ohio farm employers on labor and employment law. Our goal is to clear up misconceptions, highlight common assumptions, and break down technicalities in the law so that employers can re-evaluate their practices, stay compliant, and avoid costly headaches.
Our first topic: employing family members.
Many Ohio farms are family-owned and operated, which means it is common to see relatives working side by side. Depending on who you ask, that can be a wonderful experience - or a recipe for disaster. What farmers need to understand, though, is that in most cases, family members are still considered employees.
Yes, there are exceptions depending on the structure of the business, and some family members may be exempt from certain wage or tax requirements. But generally speaking, employing family does not mean you are off the hook for employment law compliance. For example, in Ohio, even one employee triggers the requirement to carry workers’ compensation coverage. Federally, employers typically need to issue a W-2 to family employees. Blood or marriage ties do not erase those obligations.
So, does every farm follow these rules to the letter? Realistically, no. Many well-intentioned family operations are not fully compliant with all applicable labor and employment laws. Why? Two main reasons:
- Limited enforcement. Governmental agencies responsible for enforcing labor and employment laws do not have the resources to audit or investigate every farm. But if you “win” the audit lottery, you will be expected to demonstrate compliance.
- Few complaints. Issues often do not come to light unless a worker files a lawsuit or complaint. And while many assume a family member would never sue, that is not a guarantee. Anyone who has seen family disagreements knows how quickly emotions can escalate.
That is why it is risky to assume family employees are somehow “different.” A dispute between relatives can turn into a legal problem just like any other workplace conflict. Treating family workers with the same seriousness as non-family employees is the best way to protect your farm, your business, and yes - even your family relationships.
Conclusion
In truth, labor and employment compliance might never become an issue on your farm. But as the old saying goes, “never say never.” Following these laws is not just about avoiding penalties – it is also a smart risk management strategy. Compliance can help prevent or quickly resolve disputes that drain time, energy, and already thin margins. Just as importantly, it brings peace of mind, clarity, and stability – intangibles that can be some of your farm’s most valuable assets.
Tags: employment law, Ag Labor, Labor & Employment Law, Hiring Family Members, Ohio Employment Law, Agriculture, Agricultural Law
Comments: 0