CFAES Give Today
Farm Office

Ohio State University Extension

CFAES

Recent Blog Posts

For sale sign with "buyer beware" beside it.
By: Peggy Kirk Hall, Tuesday, June 10th, 2025

“Do your due diligence” is the lesson learned from a recent Ohio appeals court decision in a case alleging that a seller fraudulently induced a buyer in a real estate transaction. The Seventh District Court of Appeals rejected the buyer’s claim, stating that the doctrine of caveat emptor or “let the buyer beware” negated the fraudulent inducement argument because it placed a duty on the buyer to examine all “conditions open to observation.”  The court reasoned that the buyer could not blame the seller for fraud because the buyer had the duty to examine public records that provided accurate information about the property.

The case

The conflict arose from the purchase of 143 acres of land in Belmont County, negotiated by two attorneys representing the parties.  The buyer was present throughout the negotiations and read all of the e-mail correspondences between the two attorneys.  The parties agreed to a purchase agreement, the buyer ordered a title search for the property, and the purchase took place.  The buyer later learned, however, that a third party held an easement and right-of-way on the property.  The easement allowed surface activities such as locating pipelines and well pads and restricted some development activities by the buyer.

After learning of the easement, the buyer filed a lawsuit claiming fraudulent inducement by the seller.  A fraudulent inducement claim arises when someone uses a misrepresentation to persuade another to enter into an agreement.  The buyer argued that the seller was fraudulent because the seller’s attorney never mentioned the easement during the purchase negotiations. The trial court agreed and determined that through misstatements and concealment, the seller had committed fraud that was “aggravated, egregious and/or reckless.”

The Court of Appeals disagreed.  The court explained that, despite the seller’s actions, the doctrine of “let the buyer beware” obligated the buyer to investigate and examine “discoverable conditions” about the property.  The easement was discoverable, as it had been recorded in the county public records. Because the easement information was readily available and the buyer had the opportunity to investigate it, the buyer could not successfully claim fraudulent concealment, the court concluded. According to the court, the buyer could not justify reliance on the seller’s omissions about the easement when the easement itself was a public record that was available to the buyer.

What does this decision mean for property transactions?

We’re back to “do your due diligence.”  For property purchases, due diligence is the process of investigating and evaluating the property before finalizing the sale.  A purchase agreement should include adequate time for due diligence after initial terms are agreed upon.  During the due diligence period, a buyer can take a number of actions to evaluate whether or how to proceed with the purchase, such as:

  • Complete visual and physical inspections of the land and buildings.
  • Verify who holds ownership interests in the property.
  • Determine if there are any easements, deed restrictions, covenants, severed mineral rights, pipelines, leases or other types of legal interests and limitations.
  • Identify zoning and access regulations that apply to the property.
  • Investigate environmental issues.
  • Identify availability of water and utilities.

Additional inquiries might be necessary, depending on the type and intended use of the property.  Hiring an attorney and other professionals can ensure that due diligence is thorough and tailored to the type of property at issue. 

The time and cost of due diligence might be painful, but the doctrine of “let the buyer beware” demands it.  As the Court of Appeals stated, “a seller of realty is not obligated to reveal all that he or she knows.  A duty falls upon the purchaser to make inquiry and examination.”

Read the Seventh District’s opinion in Durr Farms, LLC v. Siltstone Resources, LLC on the Ohio Supreme Court’s website at https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/7/2025/2025-Ohio-1942.pdf.

Ohio Statehouse
By: Peggy Kirk Hall, Wednesday, June 04th, 2025

Written by Ellen Essman, J.D., Senior Research Associate with the OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program

Note:  We welcome Ellen Essman to the OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program.  Ellen worked with us previously, and has returned to assist with covering legislation and serving as the Education Director for our Ohio Farm Resolution Services agricultural mediation program. 

The Ohio General Assembly is currently considering several bills that would affect agriculture, farmers, livestock producers, sellers of homemade foods, landowners, and students participating in FFA or 4-H.  Here is an update on the bills we are following, including a few updates on bills we mentioned in our last legislative blog post.

H.B. 10 – Imitation meat and egg products

As we reported in our previous legislative blog post, H.B. 10 would prohibit the sale of foods that are “misbranded” as meat or egg products. Sponsored by Rep. Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Rep. Jack Daniels (R-New Franklin), H.B. 10 defines “misbranded” meat and egg products as those that: contain manufactured-protein food products or fabricated-egg products, are offered for sale by a food processing establishment, and have a package label that includes certain “meat” or “egg” terms.  A food processing establishment that sells misbranded meat and egg products would be subject to a penalty of up to $10,000 per day.  The bill would also require Ohio agencies to request a USDA exemption of cultivated-protein food products and fabricated-egg products from eligibility under SNAP and WIC food programs and would require Ohio school districts and state institutions of higher education to adopt policies preventing the purchase of cultivated-protein food products or foods misbranded as meat or egg products. H.B. 10 is still being deliberated in the House Agriculture Committee. At the bill’s most recent hearing on May 28, there was no opponent or proponent testimony.

H.B. 65 – Agriculture Appreciation Act

The Ohio House of Representatives passed H.B. 65 on April 2, and the bill was introduced in the Senate on April 8. The bill had its first hearing in the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on May 27, where sponsors by Rep. Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Rep. Bob Peterson (R-Sabina) testified on its behalf.  The sponsors cited the importance of agriculture to Ohio’s economy, and the long tradition of agriculture in Ohio as the catalysts for introducing this bill. The act proposes the following official designations:

  • “FFA Week” as the week ending with the last Saturday in February.
  • “4-H Week” as the week ending with the second Saturday of March.
  • “Agriculture Day” on March 21.
  • "National Farmers Market Week" as the first full week of August.
  • “Ohio Stormwater Awareness Week” as the first week of October.
  • “Farmer’s Day” on October 12
  • “Ohio Soil Health Week” as the second full week of November, to celebrate and raise awareness for the importance of soil health and in honor of the birthday of soil pioneer and advocate David Brandt.

H.B. 65 had its second hearing in Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources on June 3, with no in-person testimony. 

H.B. 125 – Excused school absences for 4-H and FFA programs

Introduced in the House on February 24 by sponsors Rep. Thomas Hall (R-Middletown) and Rep. Rodney Creech (R-West Alexandria), H.B. 125 has since had three hearings in the House Education Committee.  The bill would require school districts to grant excused absences for participation in scheduled 4-H and FFA activities or programs to students in grades K-12, and to allow those students to make up any school work missed as a result of that absence. In order to verify absences for 4-H or FFA activities, the school must receive written documentation from 4-H or FFA educators. The bill would not allow for excused absences for 4-H activities during state testing or when a student has been disciplined by, suspended, or expelled from school.

H.B. 134 – Microenterprise home kitchen operation

A bi-partisan bill would add Ohio to the small but growing list of states that have adopted “food freedom laws” to loosen regulations on the sale of homemade foods.  Sponsored by Rep. Jennifer Gross (R-West Chester) and Rep. Latyna Humphrey (D-Columbus), H.B. 134 would create a new “microenterprise home kitchen operation” registration that would broaden the types of foods a person could produce at home and sell directly to customers. Ohio law currently allows a person to sell certain “cottage foods” and “home bakery” foods with minimal regulation but requires producers of other foods to produce the foods in a commercial kitchen and operate under state and local food licenses.  H.B. 134 would remove those requirements and allow a registered microenterprise home kitchen operation to produce and sell any homemade foods (except those containing alcohol or drugs), including items such as canned goods and hot meals.  The annual $25 registration would require an inspection by the Ohio Department of Agriculture to ensure the microenterprise home kitchen operation meets requirements in the law regarding operations, food safety, storage and preparation, and sales and delivery of the food.  H.B. 134 received its second hearing before the House Agriculture Committee on April 9, with two proponents testifying in support of the bill.

H. B. 201 – Allow specified hunting on landowner’s property without a permit

H.B. 201 was introduced in the House on March 26 by Rep. Kevin Miller (R-Newark), and Dani Isaacshon (D-Cincinnati), and had its first hearing in the House Natural Resources Committee on May 7.  The bill would expand the list of relatives that may hunt and trap on an Ohio landowner’s property without purchasing a hunting license, deer or wild turkey permit, or fur taker permit from the Ohio Department of Natural Resource’s Division of Wildlife. The bill would make the following changes:

  • Current Ohio law allows an Ohio landowner’s children and grandchildren under 18 to hunt on the land without a license.  H.B. 201 would extend this to also allow parents of Ohio landowners to hunt without a license.
  • Current Ohio law allows an Ohio landowner’s children to hunt deer and turkey on the land without obtaining permits.  H.B. 201 would also allow the landowner’s parents and grandchildren to do so.
  • Current Ohio law allows an Ohio landowner’s children to hunt and trap fur-bearing animals on the land without a permit. H.B. 201 would expand the current law to allow an Ohio landowner’s parents and grandchildren under 18 to hunt and trap without a permit.

S.B. 60 – Veterinarian Telehealth

Since the Covid-19 pandemic, we have all become familiar with telehealth medical appointments. S.B. 60, sponsored by Sen. Shane Wilkin, (R-Hillsboro), and Sen. Steve Huffman (R-Tipp City), would expand the ability to conduct telehealth appointments to veterinarians with their clients and patients (animals) under certain circumstances.  Current law requires a veterinary-client-patient (VCP) relationship to be established in-person via an examination or visit to the patient.  S.B. 60 would allow VCP relationships to be established via real time telehealth examinations.

The bill would also allow a licensed veterinarian to conduct telehealth services with a client and their animal (the patient) if:

  • The veterinarian obtains the informed consent from the client, including an acknowledgement that the standards of care prescribed by the law governing veterinarians equally apply to in-person and telehealth visits;
  •  The veterinarian provides the client with the veterinarian’s name and contact information and secures an alternate means of contacting the client if the telehealth visit is interrupted; and
  • Before conducting an evaluation of a patient via a telehealth visit, the veterinarian advises the client concerning certain information, including that the veterinarian may ultimately recommend an in-person visit.

Further, the bill would place some requirements on prescribing drugs during a telehealth appointment, including:

  • A veterinarian may issue an initial prescription for up to 14 days. The veterinarian may issue one refill for up to 14 days if the veterinarian sees the patient for another telehealth visit. For additional refills, the patient must visit the veterinarian in person.
  • The veterinarian must notify the client that certain prescription drugs or medications may be available at a pharmacy and, if requested, the veterinarian will submit a prescription to a pharmacy of the client’s choosing; and
  •  The veterinarian must not order, prescribe, or make available a controlled substance unless the veterinarian has performed an in-person physical examination of the patient.

S.B. 60 had its second committee hearing in Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources on May 27.  Senators on the committee discussed amendments to the bill that would make the following changes:

  • For livestock raised as food for human consumption, a VCP relationship must first be made in person before telehealth appointments would be permitted;
  • However, veterinarians may give “tele-advice” prior to VCP being established in person. “Tele-advice” was described as “opinion or guidance from a veterinarian, but not a diagnosis, treatment, or prognosis;”
  • An addition to the bill that it would not invalidate anything from Chapter 956 of the Ohio Revised Code, which governs dog breeding; and
  • Telehealth appointments must occur in within the state where the patient is located.

In the May 27 committee hearing, several proponents of the bill also gave testimony in its favor.  Those testifying cited numerous reasons why passage of the bill would be prudent, including the state shortage of veterinary professionals, the difficulty of people living in rural areas or with a lack of resources to access veterinary care for their animals, the passage of veterinary telehealth laws in other states, and the ability for veterinarians to give faster care in the case of emergencies. They also mentioned that the law would not replace in-person veterinary appointments but instead would be another tool in a veterinarian’s arsenal to care for animals. 

On June 3, the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee held their third hearing on S.B. 60.  There was no in-person testimony, and the Committee favorably reported the bill, with the May 27 changes, out of committee. 

S.B. 122 – Local authority for agricultural land zoning resolutions

This bill was introduced in late February and had its first hearing in the Senate Local Government Committee on March 5 but no hearings since that date.  S.B. 122, sponsored by Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson (D-Toledo), would eliminate the authority of townships and counties to adopt zoning resolutions for agricultural land under certain circumstances. 

The bill eliminates a township and county’s limited authority to utilize zoning to regulate any of the following in a platted subdivision or in an area consisting of 15 or more contiguous lots: 

  • Agriculture on lots of one acre or less;
  • Buildings or structures incident to the use of land for agricultural purposes on lots between one and five acres by setback building lines, height, and size; and
  • Dairying and animal poultry husbandry on lots between one and five acres when at least 35% of the lots in the subdivision are developed with at least one building, structure, or improvement that is subject to real property taxation or that is subject to the tax on manufactured and mobile homes.

Ohio law currently prohibits regulation of agriculture, buildings or structures, and dairying and animal and poultry husbandry on lots greater than five acres. S.B. 122 would broaden that prohibition to protect agriculture on smaller lots, which would be beneficial to those practicing urban agriculture. 

S.B. 100 – Exemption from insurance regulations for nonprofit agricultural membership organizations

This bill would exempt healthcare benefits offered by “nonprofit agricultural membership organizations” from insurance regulations.  The bill passed the Senate in early April and was favorably reported out of the House Insurance Committee on May 27.  S.B. 100, sponsored by Sen. Susan Manchester (R-Waynesfield) would define a “nonprofit agricultural membership organization” as an organization that was incorporated in Ohio on or before December 31, 1919, to promote the interests of farms and that provides contractual healthcare benefit coverage exclusively with members of the organization and their families. Healthcare benefit coverage provided by such an organization, according to the proposal, is not “insurance” and is not subject to insurance regulations. The bill would also allow the nonprofit organizations to assume or reinsure the risks arising out of healthcare benefit coverage with a company authorized to provide insurance in Ohio.

Posted In:
Tags: Ohio legislation
Comments: 0
By: Barry Ward, Monday, June 02nd, 2025

Ohio Crop Returns Outlook for 2025 - Final Crop Enterprise Budgets for 2025

Barry Ward, Leader, Production Business Management

Lower crop prices and a mix of higher and lower input costs have set the stage for another challenging profit outlook for Ohio commodity crops in 2025. Supply and demand fundamentals have both continued to negatively affect commodity crop prices. Some input costs are projected to be higher while some are expected to be steady to lower. The result of this set of economic fundamentals is an outlook for low to negative margins for the 2025 corn, soybean and wheat crops.

Production costs for Ohio field crops are forecast to be steady to slightly higher than last year with higher machinery and equipment costs leading the way. Lower crop protection chemical prices are offset by an expected increase in product need. Fuel and crop insurance costs are also projected to be slightly lower but land rents continue to increase on average.

 Variable costs for corn in Ohio for 2025 are projected to range from $502 to $614 per acre depending on land productivity. The trend line corn yield (190.1 bpa) scenario included in the corn enterprise budget shows an increase in variable costs of 2.4% with an increase in fixed costs of 3.4% due to higher rents and machinery/equipment costs.

Variable costs for 2025 Ohio soybeans are projected to range from $264 to $298 per acre. Variable costs for trend-line soybeans (56.8 bpa) are expected to decrease 2% in 2025 compared to 2024 while fixed costs are expected to increase 2.9% in 2025.

Wheat variable expenses for 2025 are projected to range from $231 to $288 per acre. The trend line wheat yield (81.5 bpa) scenario included in the wheat enterprise budget shows a decrease in variable costs of 2.3% with an increase in fixed costs of 2.7%.

Returns will be mixed depending on crop price change throughout the rest of the year. Grain prices used as assumptions in the 2025 crop enterprise budgets are $4.20/bushel for corn, $10.20/bushel for soybeans and $6.00/bushel for wheat (wheat price set in October using the September ’25 Futures price at that time).

Projected returns above variable costs (contribution margin) range from $137 to $344 per acre for corn and $200 to $398 per acre for soybeans. Projected returns above variable costs for wheat range from $160 to $299 per acre although significant crop price decreases since last fall (when the price was set for this enterprise budget) will likely cause wheat to be less profitable than these return projections indicate.

Return to Land is a measure calculated to assist in land rental and purchase decision making. The measure is calculated by starting with total receipts or revenue from the crop and subtracting all expenses except the land expense. Returns to Land for Ohio corn (Total receipts minus total costs except land cost) are projected to range from -$73 to $118 per acre in 2025 depending on land production capabilities. Returns to land for Ohio soybeans are expected to range from $51 to $237 per acre depending on land production capabilities. Returns to land for wheat (not including straw or double-crop returns) are projected to range from $42 per acre to $171 per acre assuming a planting-time price of $6/bushel. If a current forward harvest price for wheat of $5.25/bushel is used, the Return to Land is in a lower range of -$5 to $101 per acre depending on land production capabilities.

Total costs projected for trend line corn production in Ohio are estimated to be $1021 per acre. This includes all variable costs as well as fixed costs (or overhead if you prefer) including machinery, labor, management and land costs. Fixed machinery costs of $109 per acre include depreciation, interest, insurance and housing. A land charge of $241 per acre is based on data from the Western Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents Survey Summary. Labor and management costs combined are calculated at $84 per acre. Details of budget assumptions and numbers can be found in footnotes included in each budget.

Total costs projected for trend line soybean production in Ohio are estimated to be $677 per acre. (Fixed machinery costs: $88 per acre, land charge: $241 per acre, labor and management costs combined: $50 per acre.)

Total costs projected for trend line wheat production in Ohio are estimated to be $620 per acre. (Fixed machinery costs: $58 per acre, land charge: $241 per acre, labor and management costs combined: $51 per acre.)

Data used to compile these enterprise budgets includes research, surveys, market data, economic modeling, calculations and experience of authors.

Current budget analyses indicates less favorable returns for all three primary commodity crops in Ohio for 2025 but crop price change and harvest yields may alter this outcome. These projections are based on OSU Extension Ohio Crop Enterprise Budgets. Newly updated Enterprise Budgets for 2025 have been completed and posted to the Farm Office website: https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-management/enterprise-budgets

Posted In: Business and Financial, Crop Issues
Tags:
Comments: 0
Legal Groundwork
By: Robert Moore, Thursday, May 29th, 2025

We’re excited to announce the 3rd Annual Cultivating Connections Conference, a joint effort between Ohio State University and Iowa State University. This unique event brings together professionals who are dedicated to the critical work of farm transition planning. Whether you are an attorney, accountant, financial advisor, or educator, this conference is designed to provide you with the tools, insights, and connections you need to support farm families as they plan for the future.

The conference will be held at the FFA Enrichment Center in Ankeny, Iowa. In-person registration is $325, and a virtual attendance option is available for $299. The event will take place over two days and will feature a variety of sessions focused on the legal, financial, and family dynamics of transitioning agricultural operations to the next generation.

This year’s agenda features presentations on new legal tools for the farm transition, counseling farm families through succession planning, and understanding how farm program payments impact the transition plan. Additional sessions will include a 2025 tax update for the farm transition, long-term care planning, and a discussion on the concept of fairness versus equality in farm debt. The second day of the conference will provide real-world case studies.

The Cultivating Connections Conference is more than just a learning event. It is a forum for building relationships, exchanging ideas, and strengthening the professional community dedicated to preserving the legacy and sustainability of family farms. Whether you are just entering the field or have years of experience, we invite you to join us for this important event. Come to gain valuable knowledge, share your own insights, and connect with others who are committed to helping farm families succeed across generations.

Registration is now open at: https://www.regcytes.extension.iastate.edu/cultivating/

For questions, contact Robert Moore at moore.301@osu.edu .

By: Eric Richer, Associate Professor and Field Specialist, Farm Management, OSU Extension; Carl Zulauf, Professor Emeritus, OSU Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics; and Aaron Wilson, Assistant Professor and Field Specialist, Ag Weather and Climate, OSU Extension

According to the May 27 Crop Progress Report by USDA National Ag Statistics Service, Ohio had only 54% of corn planted, well behind the 5-year average of 73% planted. In 2024, 74% was planted by this report date. In 2019, a year with significant planting delay, only 22% of the corn had been planted by this report date. In that year, the wettest spring conditions were confined to northwest Ohio. In contrast, much more of the state has received well above average precipitation in 2025, with areas near the Ohio River and northeast Ohio seeing the largest difference compared to normal.  

The lag in corn planting progress this year has prompted increasing interest in evaluating the Prevented Planting option available through multi-peril crop insurance. The purpose of this article is to walk through the options, mechanics, and economics of electing prevented planting for your corn crop utilizing 2025 values.

We are not crop insurance agents, so our most important message is that for those thinking about prevented planting talk sooner rather than later with your insurance agent.

In Ohio, June 5 is the date at which prevented planting becomes an electable option.  For soybeans, the date is June 20.

As of June 5, a farmer who has individual farm yield (YP) and revenue (RP and RP-HPE) insurance for corn has 3 basic options:

Option 1: Plant corn. Until June 5, you are eligible for your full guarantee at the coverage level you elected. Using the 20-year USDA-NASS Trendline Ohio corn yield of 190 bu/acre as the Actual Production History (APH) insurance yield and the $4.70/bu 2025 projected insurance price for corn, the full guarantee at 80% coverage is $714/acre (190 x $4.70 x 80%). If you elect to plant corn after June 5, your guarantee declines 1% per day through June 25. For example, if you plant corn on June 8, the guarantee formula (190 APH, 80% coverage) would be: 80% x 190 bu/ac x $4.70 x 97% = $693/acre. If you plant after June 25, you can choose not to insure your corn crop or you can insure at the policy’s prevented planting revenue level. Planting dates need to be recorded, as rules apply on a field-by-field and acre-by-acre basis.

Option 2: Switch from corn to another crop, most likely soybeans. You are charged the soybean insurance premium, not the corn premium. A key agronomy question: Did you apply a chemistry that prevents you from planting soybeans? June weather (local and regional), supply/demand economics, geo-political issues, trade policy and input options increase the complexity of this decision.

Option 3: File for prevented planting, assuming corn is not planted by June 5. The mechanics of prevented planting are important. To qualify for prevented planting, a crop must have been planted, harvested, and insured on the acres in question in one of the last four years. Prevented planting acres must total at least 20 acres or 20% of the insured land unit (lesser of the two). Consult your crop insurance agent to determine your total eligible acres, as this is a key question. Also, prevented planting claims can be denied if prevented planting is not common in your area.

A corn policy has a standard 55% prevented planting guarantee (buy-up available to 60%). To be very clear, the Harvest Price Option does not apply. Prevented planting indemnity payments are not re-adjusted to a higher harvest price. Prevented planting does not affect your yield history as long as you do not plant a second crop. 

To continue our example from above, the indemnity payment for prevented planting corn would be: 190 bu/ac x $4.70 x 80% coverage x 55% prevented planting rate = $393/acre. Please remember that this calculation can vary widely based on coverage level elected (50-85%), prevented planting buy up (55% to 60%) and the insured APH yield for the claimed acres. In our example, this $393/acre would also be the amount at which you could chose to insure a corn crop planted after June 25 (versus no insurance at all).

In comparing and evaluating the three options, questions to ask include:

  • What inputs (fertilizer, chemicals, etc.) have already been applied?
  • Will you need to pay ‘restocking fees’ for returned seed or other inputs?
  • Does my applied chemistry limit my options?
  • What are the year-long weed control costs?
  • If utilizing cover crops, what will their cost be?
  • Is the land owned, or cash or share rented?
  • Will the prevented planting indemnity cover costs already incurred and the fixed costs of Land, Labor, and Management?
  • What do I save on machinery wear and tear by not planting and harvesting?
  • What are potential additional drying costs due to late harvesting?
  • What is my expected price at harvest?
  • Are there missed opportunity costs (marketing) because of taking prevented planting?
  • What effect does your crop insurance unit structure have on your decision?
  • What are livestock feed needs?
  • Are there costs associated with not fulfilling forward contracted corn?
  • Do I want to tile the field?

This article does not address these questions, but you should address them and probably already have started to do so.

Prevented planting insurance payments can qualify for a 1-year deferral for inclusion in income tax. If this is a consideration for you, please talk to your insurance agent and tax professional as specific conditions must be met. Check out a previous farm office blog for more insight

A summary comparison is net return to the prevented planting option vs. net return to planting a crop. This comparison involves a number of assumptions about price, yield, and cost. This is decision making under uncertainty. Your assumptions may or may not turn out to be accurate.

Reporting prevented planting acres, should you elect that option, is quite simple. To report prevented planting acres, you first need to turn in a notice (starting June 6) to your insurance agent. Then report prevented planting to USDA Farm Service Agency to get it on your acreage report. Then, work with your adjuster to finalize the claim, which will generally be paid within 30 days. NOTE: total acres of prevented planting corn that you can file in 2025 cannot exceed the greatest number of acres of corn you reported in any of the previous four years (2021-2024).

Every farmer’s situation has unique considerations.  We encourage you to run the numbers for yourself and make an informed farm management decision with the tools you have available and in consultation with your crop insurance agent.

References:

Richer. E., Bruynis, C.  (2019). Prevent plant…What’s That Again? OSU’s Ohio Ag Manager Blog. https://u.osu.edu/ohioagmanager/2019/05/23/prevent-plantwhats-that-again/

Richer. E., Bruynis, C. (2022). Evaluating the Prevent Plant Option. OSU’s Ohio Ag Manager Blog. https://u.osu.edu/ohioagmanager/2022/06/09/evaluating-the-prevent-plant-option/

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (2025). Crop Progress-May 27, 2025.https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/8336h188j/8049j4596/gx41pg805/prog2125.pdf 

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (2019). Crop Progress-May 28, 2019. https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/8336h188j/4b29bg92m/8910k3910/prog2219.pdf

USDA Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (2024).  Prevented Planting Standards Handbook. November 11, 2024. https://www.rma.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2024-11/2025-25370-Prevented-Planting-Standards-Handbook.pdf

 

 
 
 
Posted In:
Tags:
Comments: 0
By: Peggy Kirk Hall, Tuesday, May 27th, 2025

Guest author:  Dr. Carl Zulauf, Professor Emeritus, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Ohio State University.

Note:  The U.S. House of Representatives passed its budget reconciliation bill on May 22, 2025.  Prior to the bill’s passage, the budget reconciliation process required the House Agriculture Committee to reduce spending by $230 billion over the 10-year budget period. The committee’s final proposed provisions for doing so, which represents the Farm Bill attention we’ve long awaited, were included in the budget reconciliation bill passed by the House. Thank you to our guest author and Farm Bill expert, Dr. Carl Zulauf, for the following summary of the House's proposed Farm Bill changes that now move over to the Senate for consideration.

1.  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

  • Secretary of Agriculture shall not increase cost of the thrifty food plan based on a reevaluation or update of its composition.
  • Cost of thrifty food plan indexed for CPI inflation.
  • Work requirements are increased.
  • Required state matching share goes from 0% currently to 5% in Fiscal Year (FY) 2028.  This cuts Federal spending without cutting program benefits.
  • Matching share increases as state’s SNAP error rate increases.  Matching share can be as high as 25%.

2.  Farm Safety Net

Support Prices

  • Separate program for temperate japonica rice appears to have been terminated.
  • Starting with 2031 crop year, prior year reference price increased by multiplying it by 1.005.
  • In no year can a reference price exceed 115% of its 2026-2030 statutory value, so adjustment does not apply if reference price escalator is at its maximum.
  • For long grain and medium grain rice, marketing loans repaid at prevailing world market price.
  • For upland cotton, marketing loans repaid at lowest prevailing world market price. 
  • For upland cotton, a refund shall be provided to producer equal to difference between the lowest prevailing world market price and the repayment amount.
  • For 2026-2031 crop years, upland cotton and extra-long staple cotton shall receive storage payments equal to the lessor of the submitted tariff rate for the marketing year or $4.90 for California and Arizona or $3.00 for other states.
  • Textile mill assistance equals 3 cents / pound until July 31, 2025; 5 cents / pound thereafter.

Additional Base Acres

  • Up to 30 million new base acres can be added by eligible farms. 
  • Only farms that planted or prevent planted a crop over 2019-2023 can add new base acres.
  • An eligible farm is a farm for which 2019-2023 crop year average program commodity acres planted or prevent planted plus lesser of (a) 15% of farm’s total acres or (b) 2019-2023 crop year average acres planted or prevent planted to commodities other than program commodities, trees, bushes, vines, grass, or pasture (including cropland that was idle or fallow) exceeds the farm’s base acres as of September 30, 2024 excluding unassigned cotton base acres. 5-year average includes years with no acres planted or prevent planted. Positive difference is farm’s potential new base acres; includes unassigned cotton base.
  • New base acre are allocated among covered commodities using the ratio of 2019-2023 average acres planted or prevent planted to covered crops on the farm to the 5-year average of covered crops planted or prevent planted plus new base acres.
  • If multiple covered crops were grown on a given acre in any year from 2019-2023 (other than a covered crop produced under an established practice of double cropping), the owner elects which of the covered crop is included in potential new base.
  • A farm’s total base acres after adding new base acres cannot exceed the farm’s total acres.
  • Pro-rating occurs if total eligible new base acres exceed 30,000,000.  Each eligible farm’s new base acres is reduced by an across-the board share so new base acres total 30 milion.
  • Assessment: Farm Service Agency (FSA) reported roughly 270 million base acres for 2019 crop year after excluding unassigned cotton base acres of roughly 3 million.  Sum of average National Agriculture Statistics Service planted acres plus average FSA prevent plant acres to current program crops over 2019-2023 equal roughly 264 million, implying approximately 24 million acres (264 + 30 – 270) of current non-covered crops, including unassigned cotton base acres, could be added to US base acres.  This is a major expansion of commodity program payments to current noncovered crops.

Price Loss Coverage (PLC) Payment Yield

  • Beginning with crop year 2026, PLC payment yields for new base acres on a farm are current PLC payment yields for the farm.  If the farm has no current payment yield for a crop, PLC payment yield for the farm is set equal to average payment yield for the county in which the farm is situated or is determined using existing methods if no PLC yield exists.

Producer Election

  • Annual producer election is extended through 2031 crop year. 
  • If no election is made, default choice is the same coverage for each covered commodity as existed for 2024 crop year.

Agriculture Risk Coverage

  • Coverage level is increased from 86% to 90% beginning with the 2025 crop year.
  • Payment cap per base acre is increased from 10% to 12.5% of the benchmark revenue beginning with the 2025 crop year.

Special Rule for Seed Cotton and Corn

  • In determining the maximum payment rate for ARC-CO and PLC, the current year price can be no lower than $0.30 / pound for seed cotton and ‘$3.30 / bushel for corn.
  • No marketing loan rate can be established for seed cotton.’’

Payment Limits

  • Increases number of potential payment entities on a farm by expanding entities designated as qualified pass-through entities
  • Increases per person payment entity from ‘$125,000 ’to ‘$155,000.
  • Payment limit is indexed to CPI inflation.
  • Payment limit waived if 75% or more of the average gross income of the person or legal entity is derived from farming, ranching, or silviculture activities.

Sugar Program

  • Sets loan rate for raw cane sugar for 2025-2031 crop years at 24.00 cents / pound and for beet sugar at 136.55% of the raw cane sugar loan rate.
  • Adjusts rate for storing sugar forfeited to the government.
  • Changes beet sugar allotments.

Dairy Margin Coverage

  • Updates production history to highest annual milk marketing during any one of the 2021, 2022, or 2023 calendar years.
  • Raises maximum coverage from 5 million to 6 million pounds.

Livestock and Tree Loss Assistance

  • Payment rate for losses due to predation is 100% of market value of affected livestock.
  • Payment rate for losses due to adverse weather or disease is 75% of market value of affected livestock.
  • Adds payment for unborn livestock.
  • For livestock forage disaster program, changes eligibility from 8 consecutive weeks to 4 consecutive weeks or 7 of 8 consecutive weeks.  Payments can be received for 2 months of losses instead of current 1 month of losses.
  • Adds assistance for losses of farm-raised fish due to piscivorous birds.
  • Changes determination of normal mortality rate for tree losses and honeybee colony losses.

3. Crop Insurance

Premium Subsidy

  • Sets highest coverage level at 85% for individual yield or revenue insurance, 90% for individual yield or revenue insurance aggregated across multiple commodities, and 95% for area yield or revenue insurance. 
  • Increases coverage level for Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) from 86% to 90%.
  • Increases premium subsidy for SCO from 65% to 80%.

Administrative and Operating (A&O) Expenses:

  • Beginning with the 2026 reinsurance year, an additional A&O subsidy is to be paid to insurance providers for eligible contracts.  Amount is 6% of net book premium.  Eligible contract is a crop insurance contract in an eligible State.  Excluded are catastrophic risk contracts, area-based or similar contracts; and a contract that the provider does not incur loss adjustment expenses as determined by the Corporation.  Eligible state is a state in Group 2 or Group 3 as defined in the Standard Reinsurance Agreement for reinsurance year 2026) and eligible contract’s loss ratio exceeds 120% of total net book premium written by all approved insurance providers.  
  • Beginning with 2026 reinsurance year, A&O reimbursement to approved insurance providers and agents for Specialty Crops shall be at least 17% of premium used to define loss ratio A&O reimbursements for contracts covering agricultural commodities subject to an increase during 2011-2015 reinsurance years are to be adjusted for inflation in a manner consistent with the 2011-2015 increases.  For 2026 reinsurance year, inflation adjustment shall not exceed the percentage change for the preceding reinsurance year included in Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
  • Increases funds for monitoring program compliance and integrity from current $0.004 billion per FY to $0.006 billion per FY plus $0.01 billion for a related statute for FY2026 and after.
  • Authorizes creation of a Poultry Insurance Pilot Program.  Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi must be included.

Beginning and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers

  • Extends eligibility to 10 years from 5 years.
  • Increases subsidy assistance from 10 percentage points  to 15 percentage points for 1st and 2nd reinsurance years, 13 percentage points for 3rd reinsurance year, 11 percentage points for 4th reinsurance year, and 10 percentage points for 5th - 10th  reinsurance years.

4.  Conservation

  • Authorizes funding for Environmental Quality Incentives Program ($2.7 billion for FY2026 to $3.3 billion for FY2028 – 2031); Conservation Stewardship Program ($1.3 billion for FY2026 to $1.4 billion for FY2029 – 31); Agricultural Conservation Easement Program ($0.625 billion for FY2026 to $0.700 billion in FY2029 – 2031); and Regional Conservation Partnership Program ( $0.425 billion for FY2026 to $0.450 billion for FY2027 – 2031).
  • Authorizes funds for Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention ($150 million / year). Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program ($10 million / year), Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program ($15 million / year), and Grassroots Source Water Protection Program ($1 million through FY2031). 

5.  Trade

  • Authorizes funds through FY 2031 for trade promotion programs: Market Access Program, $0.40 billion / year; Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program, $0.07 billion / year; E (Kika) De La Garza Emerging Markets Program, $0.008 billion / year; Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops, $0.009 billion / year; and Priority Trade Fund, $0.0035 billion / year.
  • Gives Secretary of Agriculture discretion to provide a greater allocation to a program(s) for which amount requested exceeds available funding but should try to support exports of types of commodities that funds were originally allocated.

6.  Research

  • Authorizes funds for Urban, Indoor, and Other Emerging Agricultural Production Research, Education, and Extension Initiative, Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research, Scholarships for Students at 1890 Institutions, Assistive Technology Program for Farmers with Disabilities, Specialty Crop Research Initiative, and Research Facilities Act.
  • Extends certain provisions of Secure Rural Schools & Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.
  • Rescinds unobligated balances of Competitive Grants for Non-Federal Forest Landowners program and State and Private Forestry Conservation Programs.

7.  Energy

  • Extends Biobased Markets Program and Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels through 2031.

8.  Other

  • Authorizes funding for Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention, Specialty Crop Block Grants, Organic Production and Market Data Initiative, Modernization and Improvement of International Trade Technology Systems and Data Collection, National Organic Certification Cost Share Program, and Multiple Crop and Pesticide Use Survey.
  • Authorized funding for Animal Disease Prevention and Management Program and Sheep Production and Marketing Grant Program. 
  • Extends Pima Agriculture Cotton Trust Fund, Agriculture Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund, Wool Research and Promotion, and Emergency Citrus Disease Research and Development Trust Fund through 2031.

 

Tax 2025 image.
By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Esq., Friday, May 23rd, 2025

Income Tax Schools at The Ohio State University Announces Summer Income Tax School Webinar
Barry Ward & Jeff Lewis, OSU Income Tax Schools

An “Update on Current Tax Issues and Law Changes” along with a section on “Taxpayers in Trouble” are the focus of the upcoming Summer Tax School Webinar featured by Income Tax Schools at The Ohio State University.

This webinar is scheduled for August 11th and registration is now open. The registration page can be accessed at: go.osu.edu/summertaxschool.

This Summer Tax School is designed to update tax preparers about current tax issues, new law changes and tax legislation. This school will also include a section on working with “taxpayers in trouble”.

The morning session will focus on update issues and include:

  • Updates on current tax issues at the federal, state and municipal level 
  • Updates on the recently passed legislation and/or progress on pending tax legislation

The afternoon session on working with “Taxpayers in Trouble” will enable you to:

  • Select relevant information from Forms 1099-A and 1099-C
  • Identify the proper IRS form on which to report the deemed sale of the foreclosed property
  • Determine if a taxpayer is insolvent
  • Explain the tax treatment of cancellation credit card and other consumer debt
  • Complete Form 982

Webinar Agenda for August 11th:
9:00 Webinar room opens
9:20 Welcome and introductions
9:30 Webinar begins
Noon Lunch break
12:40 Webinar resumes
2:30 Webinar concludes

Continuing Education Credit Hours: 5
Continuing Legal Education Hours: 4

Instructors for this webinar include Jahn Lawrence and Melinda Garvin.

Registration cost is $200 and includes 5 hours of Continuing Education (CPE) and 4 hours of Continuing Legal Education (CLE). Registration information and the online registration portal can be found online at: go.osu.edu/summertaxschool

Participants may contact Barry Ward at 614-688-3959, taxschools@osu.edu or Jeff Lewis at 614-292-2433, taxschools@osu.edu for more information.

Summer Tax School 2025 Flyer

Posted In: Tax
Tags:
Comments: 0
U.S. Department of Labor website header.
By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Esq., Tuesday, May 20th, 2025

The classification of workers as either independent contractors or employees has once again become a focal point of federal labor policy, reflecting the broader ideological shifts that accompany changes in presidential administrations. With the transition to new leadership in the White House, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has issued new guidance that redefines the criteria used to determine worker status. This latest interpretation marks a departure from the 2024 Democratic rule (the “2024 Rule”), instead embracing a model more consistent with prior Republican approaches. The change has significant ripple effects for employers and workers as it influences everything from wage protections to benefits eligibility and legal liability. 

On May 1, 2025, the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2025-1(the “2025 Bulletin”), offering updated guidance on how to assess whether a worker qualifies as an employee or independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). 

The 2025 Bulletin explicitly states that the WHD will no longer apply the analytical framework established by the 2024 Rule when evaluating worker classification under the FLSA. Instead, the WHD will rely on the standards set forth in Fact Sheet #13 (July 2008) and Opinion Letter FLSA2019-6 (referred to as the “2008 Guidance” and “2019 Guidance,” respectively). However, the 2025 Bulletin clarifies that the 2024 Rule remains applicable in the context of private litigation.

The History of the Independent Contractor Revolving Door
The 2025 Guidance marks the latest development in a long-running pattern of revolving labor policy, reflecting the political priorities of successive presidential administrations. The 2024 Rule had previously replaced the Trump Administration’s 2021 Rule (the “2021 Rule”), which aimed to simplify the employee-versus-independent contractor analysis under the FLSA. The 2021 Rule emphasized two “core factors” of the traditional multifactor economic realities test: (1) the nature and degree of control over the work, and (2) the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss. By prioritizing these elements, the Trump-era rule created a more employer-friendly framework that often favored independent contractor classification. 

The 2024 Rule reinstated the “totality of the circumstances” approach to the economic realities test, treating all factors with equal weight rather than prioritizing any single one. By doing so, the WHD assessed worker classification by holistically evaluating all six factors of the test. This broader, more balanced analysis often leaned toward classifying workers as employees, particularly in cases where multiple factors pointed to economic dependence on the employer.  

While the Trump Administration previously issued a rule emphasizing a two “core factors” approach to worker classification, neither the 2025 Bulletin nor the 2008 and 2019 Guidance documents it references adopt that framework explicitly. Instead, the 2025 Bulletin affirms the DOL’s departure from the Biden-era 2024 Rule and suggests that additional rulemaking may be forthcoming, signaling continued evolution in the DOL’s enforcement strategy. 

DOL Enforcement v. Private Litigation
It’s essential to understand the scope of the 2025 Bulletin’s applicability. As previously discussed, the 2025 Bulletin eliminates the use of the 2024 Rule in WHD investigations and classifications, even though that rule remains effective in private litigation. The distinction between these two contexts – WHD investigations and private lawsuits – centers on who initiates the action, the underlying purpose, and the legal procedures involved. 

WHD Investigation

  • Initiated by: The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division
  • Purpose: To enforce federal labor laws, such as the FLSA, by ensuring employers comply with minimum wage, overtime, and classification rules. 
  • Process: WHD investigators may conduct audits, review payroll records, and interview employees. These investigations can be random, complaint-driven, or targeted based on industry trends. 
  • Outcome: If violations are found, the WHD may seek back wages, penalties, or require changes in employment practices. Employers can settle disputes administratively without going to court. 

Private Litigation

  • Initiated by: An individual worker or group of workers
  • Purpose: To seek compensation for alleged violations of labor laws, such as unpaid wages or misclassification. 
  • Process: The case is filed in court, and both parties engage in litigation, which may include discovery, motions, and potentially a trial. 
  • Outcome: A judge or jury determines liability and damages. The court may award back pay, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, and other relief. 

Practical Implications
For private employment matters, employers should continue to follow the 2024 Rule, as it remains the governing standard in litigation. The 2025 Bulletin applies only in the context of WHD investigations. While future rulemaking could align the DOL’s position more closely with the 2021 Rule – potentially establishing a new nationwide standard – it is essential for employers to stay informed about ongoing developments relating to worker classification. Misclassifying a worker, even unintentionally, can lead to significant financial penalties under both federal and state laws and may jeopardize the long-term stability of your business. 

(Side note: Adding to the complexity of this situation is the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron doctrine and could have far-reaching implications for how the DOL approaches worker classification. However, the full impact of that ruling warrants a deeper discussion – one best served for a future blog post.)

For more information on the 2024 Rule and worker classification, check out our previous blog post here.  

Help wanted sign in front of corn field.
By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Esq., Friday, May 16th, 2025

On April 9, 2025, the Ohio House of Representatives passed its version of the state’s biennial budget, also known as House Bill 96, which introduces substantial revisions to Ohio’s pesticide application laws. These updates aim to bring the state into closer alignment with current federal regulations and carry significant implications—particularly for family farms that involve youth workers. As the school year ends and more minors begin working regularly on farms, the timing of these proposed changes raises concerns about how they may limit the roles young people can legally perform—especially when it comes to pesticide-related tasks. 

Changes on the Horizon?
One of the most notable changes is the proposed restriction that only licensed commercial or private pesticide applicators may “use” Restricted Use Pesticides (“RUPs”). This would eliminate the previous allowance for trained service persons, immediate family members, or employees to apply RUPs under the direct supervision of a licensed applicator.

Additionally, House Bill 96 expands the definition of “use” of RUPs to include not only the act of application but also:

  1. Pre-application activities such as mixing and loading;
  2. The application itself, performed by a licensed commercial or private applicator;
  3. Other pesticide-related tasks, including transporting or storing opened containers, cleaning equipment, and disposing of leftover pesticides, spray mixtures, rinse water, containers, or any materials containing pesticides.

The bill makes clear that no individual may use RUPs unless they are properly licensed under Ohio law, reinforcing the importance of formal certification for anyone involved in pesticide handling.

What Does this Mean for Youth on the Farm?
Under current Ohio law, immediate family members—including minors—are permitted to apply RUPs as long as they are under the direct supervision of a licensed applicator. For years, agricultural families have relied on this exemption to allow youth to assist with farm duties involving pesticide use. However, the proposed changes in House Bill 96 would eliminate this exception by requiring that anyone handling RUPs be individually licensed. Because Ohio law mandates that pesticide applicators be at least 18 years old, minors would no longer be permitted to perform any pesticide-related tasks, even under direct supervision. Of course, this provision is not just geared toward youth on the farm—it also affects employees and trained service persons who previously operated under a licensed applicator’s supervision. If the proposed changes go through, a violation of the law could result in significant civil penalties. 

Given the proposed changes in House Bill 96, it’s an appropriate time to take a broader look at the full range of youth labor regulations that apply to farm work. While pesticide use is just one area impacted by legal restrictions, there are numerous federal and state laws that govern what tasks minors can perform, what equipment they can operate, and how many hours they can legally work—especially during the school year versus summer months. These rules can vary based on the age of the minor and their relationship to the farm owner. With regulatory changes potentially tightening in one area, it’s essential for farm families and employers to ensure they are in compliance across the board to avoid penalties and ensure safe, lawful participation of youth in agricultural work. Read more about employing youth on the farm here

Next Steps
Farm families and employers should begin preparing for the upcoming changes to Ohio’s pesticide rules. While these changes aren't law yet—they won’t take effect until the Governor signs the bill—they are needed to align Ohio’s regulations with federal law. If Ohio wants to keep its authority to enforce the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA"), these updates are a forgone conclusion.

To review the specific pesticide-related provisions in House Bill 96, begin on page 903 of the bill text. Alternatively, for an overview of the proposed budget and potential changes, you can consult the summary prepared by the Ohio Legislative Service Commission.

Authored by: Carl Zulauf, Seungki Lee, and David Marrison, Ohio State University, May 2025

Click here for PDF version of this paper

This paper provides estimates of expected payments by the ARC-CO (Agriculture Risk Coverage – County version) and PLC (Price Loss Coverage) commodity programs for the 2024 crop year. 

Official payment rates are expected in October 2025.  They can deviate notably from estimates as final prices and yields are yet known.  Prices and yields, particularly for ARC-CO, are in a range where small changes can cause large changes in payment rates.  Use the estimates with caution.

The estimates use 2024 crop year program parameters from USDA, FSA (US Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency), and latest available data for 2024 market year price estimates from USDA, FSA and county yield estimates from USDA, NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service).

May 2025 Estimates of 2024 Crop Year Payments:

  1. ARC-CO:  Ohio corn and soybean payments are expected for at least some counties.  As a revenue program, ARC-CO payment calculations include yield.  2024 Ohio weather was highly variable.  Yields and thus county payment rates will be variable.  Some counties have irrigated and non-irrigated base acres.  Payment estimates are calculated only for non-irrigated base since dryland production is far more common in Ohio.  Payment estimates per base acre vary from $0 (21 counties) to $90 (Greene) for corn base and from $0 (13 counties) to $58 (Fairfield) for soybean base (see appended maps).  These estimates include the 85% payment factor (i.e. 15% payment reduction factor).  No estimate is available for corn and soybeans in 24 and 15 counties.  A common reason is that too few farmers in the county responded to the NASS survey to estimate yield with statistical confidence.  County NASS yields are not available for wheat.  Also appended are maps of county gross revenue (estimated price times estimated yield) plus estimated ARC-CO pay rate per acre.  They illustrate that ARC-CO payments are countercyclical to low market revenue (correlation between total revenue and ARC-CO pay rate is roughly -0.30).  Higher revenue/yields are almost always preferred to an ARC-CO payment.
  2. PLC:  At present, no PLC payments are expected for corn, soybeans, and wheat as the current estimate of US market year price is not below the effective reference price:  corn ($4.35 vs. $4.01), soybeans ($9.95 vs. $9.26), and wheat ($5.50 vs. $5.50).

Commodity Program Policy Objective:

  1. ARC-CO provides assistance if a crop’s county market revenue is below 86% of a crop’s county benchmark market revenue for 5 recent crop years.
  2. PLC provides assistance if a crop’s US market year price is below 100% of the crop’s US effective reference price set by Congress. 
  3. ARC-IC provides assistance if an ARC-IC farm’s average per acre revenue from all program crops is below 86% of the ARC-IC farm’s per acre benchmark revenue.

Payment Formulas:

ARC-CO payment rate per base acre = MAX [$0, or 86% times (county benchmark revenue minus observed revenue) times a farm’s PLC base yield times 85% payment reduction factor].  County benchmark revenue = (5-crop year Olympic average (high and low values removed) of recent US market year prices times 5-crop year Olympic average of recent trend-adjusted county yields).  Observed revenue = observed US crop year price times 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 market year price) times a farm’s PLC base yield times 85% payment reduction factor].

ARC_CORN

 

Soybean ARC

 

Corn Revenue

 

 

Soybean Revenue

 

 

 

Posted In: Business and Financial
Tags:
Comments: 0

Pages