Recent Blog Posts

By: Barry Ward¹, Eric Richer², John Barker³, Amanda Bennett⁴   Ohio State University Extension 

¹Assistant Professor & Leader, Production Business Management; ²Associate Professor & Field Specialist, Farm Management, ³Assistant Professor, Agriculture/Amos Program, Knox County; ⁴Assistant Professor, Agriculture & Natural Resources, Miami County (Ohio State University Extension) 

Farming is a complex business, and many Ohio farmers utilize outside assistance for specific farm-related work. This option is appealing for tasks requiring specialized equipment or technical expertise. Often, having someone else with specialized tools perform tasks is more cost effective and saves time. Farm work completed by others is often referred to as “custom farm work” or more simply, “custom work”. A “custom rate” is the amount agreed upon by both parties to be paid by the custom work customer to the custom work provider.

Custom rates increased for the majority of field operations in 2026 as compared to surveyed rates in 2024 but the increases did vary by operation. Examples include an increase of 4% for Planting Corn (30 Inch Rows with Fertilizer Application), 11% for Harvesting Corn (Combine, Grain Cart, Haul Local to Farm), 12% for Variable Rate Fertilizer Application, 7% for Spraying (Self-Propelled Sprayer), 9% for Disk Chisel and 16% for Tractor Rental (Tractor/Horsepower/Hour). Some field operations saw no change or even slight decreases from the 2024 survey.

Compared to 2024, custom rates have been impacted by higher machinery and equipment costs, higher labor costs and modestly higher fuel costs.

New field operations in this year’s survey and summary include vertical tillage, weed electrocution, late season nitrogen application with coulters, and trucking for silage and hay.

Ohio Farm Custom Rates

Click here for PDF of the 2026 Ohio Farm Custom Rates 

This publication reports custom rates based on a statewide survey. Surveys were mailed/emailed to past respondents and distributed at various Extension programs through the winter of 2026. The summary information included in this publication is based on the responses of 343 farmers, custom operators, farm managers, and landowners conducted in 2026. These rates, except where noted, include the implement and tractor if required, all variable machinery costs such as fuel, oil, lube, twine, etc., and labor for the operation.

Some custom rates published in this study vary widely, possibly influenced by:

• Type or size of equipment used (e.g. 20-shank chisel plow versus a 9-shank)
• Size and shape of fields,
• Condition of the crop (for harvesting operations)
• Skill level of labor
• Amount of labor needed in relation to the equipment capabilities
• Cost margin differences for full-time custom operators compared to farmers supplementing current income
• Region of Ohio with different custom services supply and demand characteristics

Some custom rates reflect discounted rates as the parties involved have family or community relationships. Discounted rates may also occur when the custom work provider is attempting to strengthen a relationship to help secure the custom farmed land in a future purchase, or rental agreement. Some providers charge differently because they are simply attempting to spread their fixed costs over more acreage to decrease fixed costs per acre and are willing to forgo complete cost recovery.

Charges may be added if the custom provider considers a job abnormal such as distance from the operator’s base location, difficulty of terrain, amount of product or labor involved with the operation, or other special requirements of the custom work customer.

The data from this survey are intended to show a representative farming industry cost for specified machines and operations in Ohio. As a custom provider, the average rates reported in this publication may not cover your total costs for performing the custom service. As a customer, you may not be able to hire a custom service for the average rate published in this factsheet.

It is recommended that you calculate your own costs carefully before determining the rate to charge or pay. It may be helpful to compare the custom rates reported in this fact sheet with machinery costs calculated by economic models. The following resources are available to help you calculate and consider the total costs of a given machinery operation. You may consider using the data contained in multiple publications as a base for future custom rates. Suggested publications are:

• Illinois Farm Management Handbook, available by searching University of Illinois farmdoc.
• Estimating Farm Machinery Costs, available by searching Iowa State University agriculture decision maker and machinery management.

Finally, fuel prices have an impact on custom rates and rates may fluctuate based on large movements in fuel prices. The average price of retail on-highway diesel in 2025 according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) was $3.66 per gallon. The price of Midwest No 2 On-Road Diesel during the survey period (January – April 2026) ranged from $3.36 - $5.81 per gallon. Although geopolitical issues created a surge in energy prices in March and April, the authors assume most of the responses are reported using the assumption of diesel priced in the lower part of this range. Fuel prices at higher levels may create a need for higher custom rates or added fuel surcharges.

The authors would like to thank all the respondents who made time to complete the survey and the Extension Educators and staff who helped collect the data.

The complete “Ohio Farm Custom Rates 2026” publication is available online at the OSU Farm Office website https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-management/custom-rates-and-machinery-costs

Last week, 34 State Certified Mediation Programs gathered for the Coalition of Agricultural Mediation Programs (CAMP) annual conference, including three of us from the Ohio Farm Resolution Services (OFRS) program.  Wyoming's Agricultural & Natural Resource Mediation Program hosted us in Laramie, Wyoming (home of the University of Wyoming College of Law, where I earned my law degree!).  Our OFRS team gained information and insight that will help us help Ohio agriculture. But because our OFRS program is still quite new, many in Ohio agriculture don’t know about it or what the program can do for them. So now is good time to share what OFRS does and what we learned as we met with other state agricultural mediation programs from around the country. Here are several key points:

OFRS is Ohio’s Certified Mediation Program.  The USDA’s Farm Service Agency provides grant funding for each state to establish a certified mediation program to serve agricultural producers. The OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program applied for the USDA grant, and in 2024 was approved to establish OFRS as the Certified Mediation Program for Ohio. The certification and funding allow us to use USDA funds to provide mediation services for no-to-little cost to agricultural producers.

Certified Mediation Programs were born from the farm financial crisis of the early 1980s.  The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 created the framework for state Certified Mediation Programs after widespread foreclosures on farms during the 1980s financial crisis.  The goal was to provide impartial mediators who could help producers and lenders mediate financial issues, prevent litigation, and keep farms in business.

More “covered issues” has expanded the Certified Mediation Program.  Since the program’s origin in 1987, the federal government has expanded the types of “covered issues” a mediation program can help producers with in addition to agricultural loans.  The list of “covered issues” eligible for mediation services now includes compliance with farm and conservation programs, family farm transition, farmer-neighbor disputes, pesticides, wetland determinations, leasing, credit counseling, and other issues a State Department of Agriculture deems appropriate.

Our mediation services are probably broader than you think.  We have quickly learned that mediation is frequently misunderstood and conference attendees joked about the constant confusion with the practice of “meditation.”  For our program, mediation is a broad term that means using a variety of approaches to attempt to resolve agricultural issues and conflicts.  We offer “formal” structured mediations that place an impartial mediator between two parties with the goal of reaching an agreement that resolves a conflict, such as an agricultural credit problem.  But OFRS can also provide “informal” mediation services such as consultation and education, which can help farmers identify solutions for issues and conflicts that are affecting the farm, such as determining how to transition the operation to the next generation or resolve a drainage problem with a neighbor. The common thread is that our staff steps in to share knowledge and strategies to help an agricultural producer make decisions or overcome an issue or conflict, whether formally or informally.  Meditation is not under our mediation umbrella, however.

Mediators must be “qualified.”  USDA requires a mediator in a state mediation program to be qualified either by meeting state mediation licensing or training requirements or, if none, by completing a minimum of 40 hours of approved mediator training and an additional 20 hours of training every two years.  Mediation training emphasizes building skills for listening, maintaining neutrality, facilitating conversations, negotiating conflicts, and enabling problem solving.  We’ve learned, both through our work and from the CAMP conference, that qualified, trained mediators can benefit Ohio agriculture immensely.

Farm stress is a concern among State Certified Mediation Programs.  The CAMP agenda focused largely on helping producers deal with farm financial stress. Keynote speaker and agricultural attorney Sarah Vogel, who navigated producers through the farm financial crisis of the 1980’s, shared insights into the financial challenges today’s farmers may face. Sarah is currently working to encourage Attorney Generals in each state to understand and monitor financial legal developments that could negatively impact agricultural producers in their states.  Other CAMP conference sessions concentrated on developing skills for working with agricultural lenders and understanding how other stressors such as climate and weather can affect agricultural operations.

But family farm transition has become a common mediation service for state programs.  While agricultural credit problems were the impetus for USDA’s Certified Mediation Program, many state programs now spend most of their efforts on meeting farm transition needs. OFRS is one of them.  About 70% of our mediation docket consists of working with families on farm transition and family communication needs. Mediating business practices, farm leases, and farm-neighbor disputes rounded out our mediation work in the first two years of OFRS.

Funding for state mediation programs is usually in jeopardy.  At the conference, longtime mediation professionals shared that because the USDA’s Certified Mediation Program depends upon federal funding, program funding is not stable and instead is on a perpetual roller coaster ride.  The Trump administration, for example, proposed zeroing out funding for the program the past two years, stating that farmers should pay for their own mediation needs.  But Congress disagreed, funded the program in the last budget, and currently proposes continued funding for 2027. For the time being, it appears our OFRS program will have funding for at least for another year.

Do you need our mediation services?  Are you an agricultural producer who's trying to sort through an issue or conflict?  If so, learn more about OFRS and check out our team of five qualified mediators at farmoffice.osu.edu/ofrs.  Consider what we can do for you, and contact us at ofrsmediation@osu.edu. 

Young workers have always been part of agriculture. Whether it’s a teenager helping with chores on the family farm, a neighbor’s child hired for the summer, or a high school student detasseling corn or working the harvest, farms across Ohio regularly rely on youth labor. That reliance raises a practical question for agricultural employers: before a minor can start working, does the law require a work permit?

For most Ohio employers, the answer is yes. For agricultural employers, however, the answer is usually no. This article walks through where Ohio’s work permit requirement comes from, what it is designed to accomplish, and the agricultural exemptions that remove the requirement in most farm employment situations.

Where the Rules Come From

Determining whether a young worker needs a work permit in Ohio requires looking to both federal and state law. Fortunately, the analysis is simpler than it might first appear: federal law is silent on work permit requirements, so there is no question of which law controls. The governing rules are found in Chapter 4109 of the Ohio Revised Code, the chapter of Ohio law that regulates the employment of minors.

The General Rule: A Work Permit Is Required

Under Ohio law, a minor generally may not begin working until he or she provides the employer with an age and schooling certificate, commonly known as a “work permit.” These permits serve several important protective purposes: they verify the minor’s age, safeguard school attendance, document parental consent, and help prevent the exploitation of young workers. 

The Agricultural Exemptions

For agricultural employers, the rules are different. Ohio law carves out meaningful exemptions for youth working in agriculture that effectively eliminate the work permit requirement in most farm employment situations.

The broadest exemption covers family farms. Under O.R.C. § 4109.06(A)(10), a minor employed on a farm operated by his or her parent, grandparent, or legal guardian (who does not reside in an agricultural labor camp) is exempt from Chapter 4109 in its entirety. Because the work permit requirement lives in that chapter, it simply does not apply to these young workers.

Even on farms not operated by a parent, grandparent, or guardian, youth agricultural workers remain exempt from the specific provisions that create and enforce the work permit requirement. Under O.R.C. § 4109.06(B)(3), farms employing these youth are not subject to:

• § 4109.02 – the requirement to obtain an age and schooling certificate
• § 4109.08 – enforcement of the certificate requirement
• § 4109.09 – the notice of nonuse obligation
• § 4109.11 – the related recordkeeping requirements

The bottom line: whether a young person is working on the family farm or hired by a neighboring operation, Ohio law does not condition agricultural employment on obtaining a work permit.

Final Thoughts

Work permits are only one piece of the labor law picture for agricultural employers. Even where the permit requirement does not apply, employers hiring young workers should make sure they remain compliant with other federal and state obligations, including:

• Ohio’s workers’ compensation insurance requirements
• Wage and hour requirements
• Hour restrictions for minors
• Hazardous job restrictions
• Workplace safety requirements
• Other recordkeeping requirements
• New employee verification

On Tuesday, May 26, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a slip opinion, In re Application of Oak Run Solar Project, L.L.C. The decision concerns a proposed 800-megawatt, 6,050-acre solar project in Madison County. The proposed facility would also include a 300-megawatt alternating-current battery-energy storage system and allow for crops and livestock grazing among the solar panels. In 2022, Oak Run applied for approval from the Ohio Power Siting Board to construct their proposed project. Ultimately, the Power Siting Board approved the project, and the Board of Trustees for Somerford, Deercreek, and Monroe Townships, along with the Madison County Board of Commissioners appealed the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court.

What were the local governments’ objections to the project?

The three boards of township trustees and the Madison County Board of Commissioners, which the court refers to as “the local governments,” cited four different reasons why the Ohio Power Siting Board should have rejected Oak Run’s application. Firstly, the local governments asserted that Oak Run failed to take steps to minimize adverse visual impacts as required under the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC), arguing that Oak Run should have included a “vegetative screening plan” and comprehensive outreach to residents regarding the screening plan in its application. Secondly, the local governments argued that the Power Siting Board did not obtain the required visual-impact information to assess the proposed facility from public vantage points, as is required under the OAC.  In their third claim, the local governments alleged that the Power Siting Board erred in approving the project because Oak Run’s application did not contain enough information about how the project would affect water quality, which is required for the Board to make its legally required determination about the environmental impacts of the project. Finally, the local governments feel that because the Power Citing Board did not obtain plant and wildlife information required under OAC, the Board could not make an informed decision about the environmental impacts of the project as required by Ohio law.

How did the Ohio Supreme Court respond to the local governments’ objections?

Ultimately, the majority of the Court only found the second argument persuasive.  OAC 4906-4-08 requires applicants to provide “photographic simulations or artist's pictorial sketches of the proposed facility from public vantage points that cover the range of landscapes, viewer groups, and types of scenic resources found within the study area” when providing information on the visual impacts of the proposed project. You can read the OAC section here.  The local governments specifically pointed out that Oak Run did not provide the Power Citing Board with photographs or sketches showing the project’s substations, with structures ranging in height from 85 to 115 feet.  Without these simulations, the local governments argued that the Power Citing Board could not make the determinations required under the Ohio Revised Code (ORC). ORC 4906.10, available here, requires the Ohio Power Citing Board to determine the nature of the probable environmental impact of a utility facility, whether the facility has the minimum amount of environmental impact possible, and whether the facility will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. In response, Oak Run made several claims, including the argument the substations do not count as “facilities” under Ohio law and the administrative code.

The Ohio Supreme Court rejected Oak Run’s arguments, including their contention that the substations are not “facilities,” noting that  ORC 4906.01 specifically includes “associated facilities” in its definition of a “large solar facility,” and OAC 4906-01-01 specifically includes substations in its definition of “associated facilities.” The Court reasoned that “[w]hen considering these definitions together, it is clear that the substations for Oak Run’s project are facilities and Oak Run was therefore required to provide the board with the visual impact information.”

The Court found that the substations on the Oak Run Project were “facilities,” and for the Power Citing Board to determine the environmental and public impacts of a facility, the administrative rules require those applying to build a solar facility to provide “photographic simulations or artist's pictorial sketches of the proposed facility.”  Since Oak Run did not include photo simulations or sketches of the substations, the Court reversed the Ohio Power Siting Board’s approval of the project, sending the matter back to the Board to obtain more visual information from Oak Run before approval. 

How will this decision affect solar projects going forward?

Although the Ohio Supreme Court’s majority opinion reversed part of the Ohio Power Siting Board’s approval of the Oak Run solar project due to the lack of photographic simulations and pictorial sketches of the substations, the ruling is hardly a strike against all current and future solar projects in Ohio.  The Court remanded the decision back to the Power Siting Board, who will give Oak Run more time to provide photographic and pictorial evidence of all the proposed facilities. If, after considering the additional information, the Power Siting Board determines that the facility has minimal environmental impact and serves public interest, convenience, and necessity, the Board can approve the project and construction can go forward.

To understand how this decision might affect future solar projects in Ohio, it’s also important to examine the other local government claims that the Court did not find persuasive. In particular, the majority opinion’s treatment of the local governments’ claims that Oak Run did not adequately address possible effects on water quality and plants and wildlife is interesting. Although the Court found that visual simulations of all the facilities are required, the same is not the case regarding evidence of water quality and environmental impacts. The Court found that even if Oak Run “did not strictly comply” with the OAC in including all the required information to the Power Siting Board about how the project might affect water quality or plants and wildlife in the surrounding area, the local governments did not show that they suffered harm due to these omissions. This indicates that future groups appealing Power Siting Board solar decisions cannot just rely on the fact that environmental impact information required by the OAC is missing, but that they will have to prove themselves why the project is harmful to local water quality, plant, and animal life.

Finally, it’s important to note that the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in this case was far from unanimous. Only three of the seven justices—Fischer, DeWine, and Deters—completely signed on to the majority opinion.  Justice Hawkins concurred in part and dissented in part, writing that more information on the environmental, water, plant, and wildlife impacts was required by law, and that Oak Run also did not adequately address safety concerns.  Justices Shanahan joined Justice Hawkins, as did Chief Justice Kennedy, who also included her own opinion. Justice Brenner joined Justice Fischer’s opinion in part, but found Oak Run’s visual evidence sufficient.  Given this narrow majority, a Court with a slightly different makeup could result in a completely different ruling on these questions.  

If you’d like to dig in deeper to the case, the Ohio Supreme Court’s slip opinion (“slip” means that it is not final and is still subject to formal revision), is available here.