2025 Fourth Quarter Fertilizer Prices Across Ohio

Authors: Amanda Bennett, Eric Richer, Clint Schroeder, OSU Extension

Click here for PDF version of this article

The 2025 fourth quarter results from a survey of Ohio fertilizer retailers showed prices in Ohio were somewhat varied when compared to the national averages reported by Progressive Farmer – DTN (Quinn, October 2025). The survey was completed by 32 retailers, representing 19 counties, who do business in the
state of Ohio. Respondents were asked to quote spot prices as of the first day of the quarter (October 1st) based on sale type.

The survey found that the average prices of fertilizers were lower in Ohio compared to the national prices for all major fertilizers except NH3 (Anhydrous Ammonia), DAP, Urea and MAP. Only one was significantly lower (more than 5%) than the national average prices; UAN at 14% less than the national average. The national average price for DAP and MAP was nearly the same as in Ohio.

When compared to prices from last quarter’s Ohio survey, several fertilizers were down in Q4. Several were down significantly (more than 5%): UAN (9.9%), Urea (6.3%), AMS (23.3%) and ATS (17.4%). MAP and DAP both increased significantly by 6.5% and 9.3% respectively.

When compared to Quarter 4 of 2024 average Ohio prices, the 2025 Q4 data average Ohio prices were significantly higher for all fertilizers measured in the survey. UAN28 and DAP both saw the most significant increases over 2024 prices in the same quarter, coming in at changes of 26% and 22% respectively. Urea, MAP, potash and AMS all came in at more than a 12% increase over the same 2024 period.

The chart below (Table 1.) is the summary of the survey responses. The responses (n) are the number of survey responses for each product. The minimum and maximum values reflect the minimum and maximum values reported in the survey. The average is the simple average of all survey responses for each product rounded to the nearest dollar. We recognize that many factors influence a company’s spot price for fertilizer including but not limited to availability, geography, volume, cost of freight, competition, regulation, etc.

Table 1. Fourth Quarter 2025 Ohio Fertilizer Prices

 

Product Responses (n) Sale Type Min

$/ton

 Max

$/ton

 Avg

$/ton
NH3 5 FOB Plant 685 890 802
UAN 28-0-0 19 Direct to Farm 330 455 367
Urea 46-0-0 13 FOB Plant 590 685 627
MAP 11-52-0 16 FOB Plant 849 955 926
DAP18-46-0 8 FOB Plant 850 970 911
APP 10-34-0 9 Direct to Farm 600 700 653
Potash 0-0-60 23 FOB Plant 399 510 477
Ammonium Sulfate 21-0-0-24 (AMS) 19 FOB Plant 450 590 492
Ammonium Thio-Sulfate 12-0-0-26 (ATS) 9 FOB Plant 355 440 395
Poultry Litter 9 Delivered and applied, < 25 miles 50 67 57
Farm Diesel (ie. off-road diesel) 5 Direct to Farm, $/gallon 2.45 3.05 2.80

If you are a retailer interested in participating in this study, please contact Amanda Bennett at bennett.709@osu.edu.

Previous versions of the report can be accessed at: https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-management/quarterly-fertilizer-price-summary

Thank you to the following Extension Contributors: TJ Wells and Dean Kreager, OSU Extension ANR Educators

References

Quinn, R. 2025. DTN Retail Fertilizer Trends. DTN Progressive Farmer. Accessed online October 7,2025 at https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/crops/article/2025/10/01/dap-leads-fertilizer-prices-higher

Bennett, A., Richer, E., & Schroeder, C, (2025). 2025 Third Quarter Fertilizer Prices Across Ohio. Farm Office Blog. https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-management/quarterly-fertilizer-price-summary

Bennett, A., Richer, E., & Schroeder, C, (2024). 2024 Fourth Quarter Fertilizer Prices Across Ohio. Farm Office Blog. https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-management/quarterly-fertilizer-price-summary

History & Tough Reality: When Payments Do More Harm Than Good, Consider Other Options

Jonathan Coppess, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois and Otto Doering ,Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University

Note: This article is being shared as a repost of the Farmdoc Dairy Article (15):176 which was published on September 25, 2025 at: 

Maybe history can provide handrails in turbulent, difficult times. For many farmers, this harvest season threatens such times. Some of the crops being combined in fields lack the market demand expected at planting because the Trump Administration’s tariff policies and trade conflicts have damaged commodity exports (farmdoc daily, September 22, 2025; Huneke and Johnson, September 20, 2025; Bradner, Seger, Robertson, and Herb, September 20, 2025; Rappeport, September 15, 2025; Cao, Thukral, and Plume, September 10, 2025; Bradsher, September 4, 2025; Thukral and Cao, August 13, 2025; Gowen and Carioti, May 21, 2025; Rappeport, April 10, 2025; American Soybean Association, August 20, 2025; Huneke and Johnson, August 30, 2025; Morgan, August 27, 2025). Unfortunately, the only response at the ready in national conversations appears to be the siren’s call for additional payments to farmers.

The discussion that follows summarizes much previous work on the history of the Farm Bill and the conservation policies in it (Coppess, 2018; Coppess, 2024; Schertz and Doering, 1999), as well as covered in previous farmdoc daily articles too numerous to cite. At the core are sincere concerns with issuing more payments. This discussion seeks to apply lessons from history to the tough reality in American agriculture today. The timing is notable: Tuesday, September 22, 2025, marked the fortieth anniversary of the first Farm Aid concert, which was held at Memorial Stadium in Champaign Illinois, on September 22, 1985 (see e.g., Spurlock Museum of World Cultures, “Songs of Solidarity: The 1985 Farm Aid Concert”). We have seen this play out before and should avoid repeating past mistakes that make matters worse.

Identifying the problem at hand is key to the discussion. It begins with basic economics and imbalances between supply and demand. Generally, expectations for markets are that when there is too much supply prices drop, reducing supplies and restoring balance. The tough realities of agriculture and farming complicate this basic expectation. Among these realities are those involving the land—land in production tends to stay in production, there is little incentive to leave it idle even when prices are low—and the biological nature of production prevents simply (or easily) curtailing supply when demand is lost, especially once the crop is planted or livestock has been bred.

This is not a new problem, nor one unique to today. Since its founding, the United States has usually produced a surplus of basic agricultural commodities over and above the demand from its citizens. This has penalized American farmers and led to multiple farmer movements from the National Grange to the American Agricultural Movement. At various points in history, farmers have tried to reduce supplies but with little success given the many individual decisionmakers who all have a motivation to let others reduce their production (i.e., the free rider problem). The federal government has tried as well, also with limited success. On the demand side, farmers and government have tried to increase exports but those efforts have faced numerous geopolitical and other challenges throughout history. Both have also attempted to increase domestic demand, from bourbon, to the school lunch program and Food Stamps, to the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS).

For many good reasons, these realities have driven a belief among farmers that the economy treats them unfairly and that government should assist them through policies. Often, this gets narrowed by self-interested actors to simply issuing payments that appear to alleviate some of the pain. Payments do not address the basic supply/demand problems. Payments also cause problems for farmers and have long-term impacts on the agricultural sector. In general, payments become capitalized into the value of the land, impacting both purchases and annual leases. Payments can also keep input costs (seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, etc.) high, giving suppliers more pricing power and preventing adjustments in those markets. Increased costs for land and inputs can escalate the demands for government payments, and so forth.

Additionally, payments scaled to farm size reinforce existing competitive advantages for large farms compared to moderate and small sized farms. For example, larger farms with owned acres can leverage those acres into additional land purchases while also cutting better deals with input suppliers based on scale. The most disadvantaged by government payments are those in the earlier stages of their careers and those desiring to enter farming who face land prices and other costs elevated by government subsidies. Payments can also entrench existing production systems and punish or stifle innovation.

History’s reminders run with the land. Federal policies and payments can have outsized impacts on the land use decisions of farmers. Figure 1 provides an historical overview of agricultural acreage. It combines the total acres of cropland used for crops reported by ERS (USDA-ERS, “Major Land Uses”) with the planted acres data reported by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), grouped into feed grains (corn, barley, oats, rye, and sorghum), wheat, southern crops (cotton, rice, and peanuts), and soybeans (USDA-NASS, Quickstats). Total acres removed from production by federal policy are also included (green area), such as acres enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program since 1985, the Soil Bank previously, as well as the acreage reduction programs of the 1960s and 1980s (see e.g., USDA-ERS, “Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, Chapter 1.1”; Bigelow and Borchers, 2017; USDA-FSA, “Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Statistics”).

Stacked area chart showing historic agricultural acreage overview from 1910-2024, displaying total cropland acres used for crops and planted acres of major row crops according to USDA data.

The 1920s and the 1970s present prominent warnings. In both eras, international demand drivers led to significant acreage expansion that caught farmers when demand faded. First with World War I, wartime demand collapsed after the war due to devastated export markets for U.S. grains in Europe. Second, brief export enthusiasm in the early 1970s resulted from changes in monetary policy, the controversial grain deal with the Soviet Union, and other anomalies. Congress moved farm policy to a payment design in August 1973, just before the OPEC oil embargoes began in October. Before the decade ended, the U.S. placed an embargo on the sale of grains to the Soviet Union and the Fed drastically raised interest rates to combat inflation. In each episode, the fallout fell on farmers, in terms of bankruptcies and lost farms, but also on the land, with the Dust Bowl and an erosion crisis in the 1970s and 1980s.

In between, Congress enacted the Soil Bank in 1956. It was a response to growing surplus commodity problems after a brief demand boost from the Korean War collided with increasing production under the technological revolution in farming—technology rendered acreage allotment policy designed in the Depression more ineffective. The Soil Bank combined both a temporary acreage reserve that annually diverted excess acres out of production and into conservation, along with a long-term conservation reserve. Southerners in Congress, led by Representative Jamie Whitten (D-MS), sabotaged the program but subsequently applied the acreage reserve policy to feed grain acres beginning in 1961. That policy became the set-aside acreage policy in 1971 that was eliminated in the 1973 Farm Bill.

A final era offers another useful comparison. The free trade exuberance of the early 1990s boosted crop prices, impacting development of the 1996 Farm Bill. In that Farm Bill, Congress decoupled farm subsidy payments from production decisions and market prices. Those drastic changes to farm policy were followed by damaged export markets from the Asian financial crisis that began in 1997. Congress responded with what was then considered massive ad hoc payments (essentially doubling the annual direct payments), but did not reattach payments to planted acres. Potentially more important, any acreage expansion was muted by CRP, and total acres in production declined after 1997.

For most of the last 20 years, American farmers have experienced a relatively anomalous period of high crop prices and strong incomes. The RFS has been a massive domestic demand driver for corn. At the same time, China’s increasing demand for soybeans has exerted a strong export pull on that crop. Acres for both have increased, pulling acres from other crops, creating competition for acres that lifted prices for all crops. Those times have likely ended. Farmers face the potential loss of the Chinese export market for soybeans (and other crops) to tariffs and Brazil for the foreseeable future. New domestic demand drivers, like the RFS, are not on the horizon, while questions swirl around the existing policies (see e.g., farmdoc daily, February 5, 2025; Neely, September 16, 2025; EPA, August 22, 2025; Kaiser and Parga, 2024; Ramsey et al., 2023).

The direction of farm policy in this perilous moment tends to treat the farmer as a pass-through entity, with each additional round of payments simply extracted from the farmer by land and input costs. Farm program payments have remained decoupled from planting decisions but the extraordinary ad hoc and supplemental payments in recent years have all been tied to planted acres. An increasingly generous crop insurance program further complicates matters. By necessity, it is directly coupled to planting decisions. The design of crop insurance may also have unintended consequences that lock farmers into production systems or rotations, limiting their ability to innovate, adjust and adapt to changing circumstances. Worse, Congress has been driving the program more in the direction of over-insuring the highest risk areas and crops.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Like it or not, supply-side policy responses always arise at some point after demand-side problems rip through the farm economy; the question is not if, but rather when and how drastic. The New Deal policies after 1933 provide one reminder. The temporary Payment-in-Kind (PIK) program created by the Reagan Administration, which paid farmers to remove nearly 80 million acres from production in 1983, another. Considering options other than more payments to farmers should begin sooner rather than later to avoid more drastic responses down the road.

History has not been kind to supply-side policies. Farmers often reduce the least productive acres for the policy benefit and maximize production on the remaining acres. Maximization through intensification has considerable consequences, including increased costs to the farmer for inputs, as well as the resulting costs to natural resources. It also diminishes or completely offsets any potential reductions in supply, wasting federal support and failing to achieve its purposes. The worst of these policies have been commodity-specific because they also spread surplus problems to other commodities, farmers, and regions.

Supply-side policies have come close to effectiveness when the designs incorporated conservation. This was the legacy of the Soil Bank and the set-aside, although those policies encountered fierce opposition and tended to be short-lived. More consequential, Congress enacted the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and conservation compliance in the landmark Food Security Act of 1985. For the entire forty years since, CRP has provided an important acreage buffer against unfortunate increases in acres by farmers under financial stress. Its protections are at serious risk, however, because Congress did not reauthorize the CRP in the Reconciliation Farm Bill this year and it is scheduled to expire next week.

If payments were the answer, then the problems should be solved by now. At the end of last year, Congress authorized over $30 billion in ad hoc/emergency supplemental payments, including $10 billion for economic assistance (farmdoc daily, January 7, 2025). Out of that $10 billion, USDA created the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP) and began the process of providing assistance in March (USDA-FSA, ECAP). USDA reports that more than $8 billion in payments have been made to farmers under ECAP (USDA-FSA, ECAP Dashboard).

Since 2018, USDA and/or Congress have paid nearly $176 billion (real 2025) in inflation-adjusted economic assistance to farmers. Those payments amount to an average of $6.5 billion per year from the commodities subsidy programs and an astounding $15.5 billion per year in ad hoc or supplemental assistance (USDA-ERS, Farm Income and Wealth Statistics). On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21), which included the Reconciliation Farm Bill’s massive increase in commodities subsidies (farmdoc daily, July 15, 2025). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the changes to just one subsidy program—the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program—would add $5 billion per year on average in direct payments to farmers starting in October 2026 (CBO, July 21, 2025). Figure 2 provides a snapshot of the last 50 years of federal farm payments, adjusted for inflation by USDA’s Economic Research Service.

Stacked bar chart showing fifty years of total direct government payments to farmers from 1975-2025 according to USDA ERS data, measured in thousands of real 2025 dollars.

Ultimately, federal taxpayer-funded payments are no match for the tough reality of lost demand or damaged markets. For example, in 2024 alone, the U.S. exported almost $176 billion worth of agricultural products; soybean exports that year were $24.6 billion, followed by corn at $14 billion (USDA-ERS, Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United Status (FATUS); USDA-FAS, “Soybeans”; farmdoc daily, February 20, 2024). If this latest round of trade and tariff conflicts have substantially damaged export markets for the foreseeable future—ceding them to competitors or worse—then farmers are going to need adjustments more than payments, beginning with the costs farmers manage to produce crops. Allowing farm price and income declines to force adjustments, which often involve many farm foreclosures and bankruptcies as in the mid-1980s, is not politically palatable. Doing so is also likely to fall hardest on early-stage farmers and those adopting conservation. Policy should respond without preventing timely and manageable adaptations, innovations, and adjustments. Policy responses, like payments, that keep costs high while prices and incomes drop are paying farmers to drive combines over the proverbial cliff and into crisis. Can we do better this time around?

References

American Soybean Association. “Soybeans Without a Buyer: The Export Gap Hurting U.S. Farms.” August 20, 2025. https://soygrowers.com/news-releases/soybeans-without-a-buyer-the-export-gap-hurting-u-s-farms/.

Bigelow, Daniel and A. Borchers. “Major Land Uses of the United States, 2012.” U.S. Dept. of Agric., Economic Research Service. EIB-178. August 28, 2017. https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details?pubid=84879.

Bradner, E., A. Seger, N. Robertson, J. Herb. “’Tidal wave of problems’: With harvest here, Trump’s trade war pushes some US farmers to the brink.” CNN. September 20, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/20/politics/us-farmers-trump-tariffs-dire-consequences.

Bradsher, Keith. “In Tariff Standoff With Trump, China Boycotts American Soybeans.” The New York Times. September 4, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/04/business/china-soybeans-trump-tariffs.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare.

Cao, Ella, N. Thukral, K. Plume. “US misses out on billions of dollars of China soybean sales midway through peak season.” Reuters. September 10, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/us-misses-out-billions-dollars-china-soybean-sales-midway-through-peak-season-2025-09-10/.

Colussi, J. and M. Langemeier. “U.S. Soybean Harvest Starts with No Sign of Chinese Buying as Brazil Sets Export Record.” farmdoc daily (15):173, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, September 22, 2025.

Colussi, J., G. Schnitkey, J. Janzen and N. Paulson. “The United States, Brazil, and China Soybean Triangle: A 20-Year Analysis.” farmdoc daily (14):35, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, February 20, 2024.

Congressional Budget Office. “Estimated Budgetary Effects of Public Law 119-21, to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title II of H. Con. Res. 14, Relative to CBO’s January 2025 Baseline.” Cost Estimate. July 21, 2025. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61570.

Coppess, Jonathan. Between Soil and Society: Legislative History and Political Development of Farm Bill Conservation Policy (University of Nebraska Press, 2024). https://www.nebraskapress.unl.edu/nebraska/9781496225146/between-soil-and-society/.

Coppess, Jonathan. The Fault Lines of Farm Policy: A Legislative and Political History of the Farm Bill (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2018). https://www.nebraskapress.unl.edu/nebraska/9781496205124/the-fault-lines-of-farm-policy/.

Gowen Annie, R. Carioti. “A Kansas family farm, barely getting by, grapples with Trump’s cuts.” The Washington Post. May 21, 2025. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2025/small-farms-trump-government-cuts/.

Huneke, Andrew and L. Johnson. “China Halts U.S. Soybean Purchases as Harvest Starts, Sparking Concerns Over Storage and Prices.” Successful Farming. September 23, 2025. https://www.agriculture.com/partners-china-stalls-u-s-soybean-buys-as-harvest-begins-raising-storage-and-price-risks-11813791.

Huneke, Andrew and L. Johnson. “U.S. Farmers Face Trade Strains, Record Crops, and Market Uncertainty.” Successful Farming. August 30, 2025. https://www.agriculture.com/partners-u-s-farmers-face-trade-strains-record-crops-and-market-uncertainty-11800795.

Irwin, S. “Ethanol Demand Destruction 2.0?” farmdoc daily (15):22, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, February 5, 2025.

Kaiser, Harry M. and Parga, Joaquin Mould, “The Impacts of Transitioning to Electric Vehicles on U.S. Ethanol and Corn Markets.” Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4859989 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4859989.

Morgan, Tyne. “$8 Soybeans? That’s the Reality for Some Farmers as China Remains Absent from Buying.” Farm Journal/Ag Web. August 27, 2025. https://www.agweb.com/news/crops/soybeans/8-soybeans-thats-reality-some-farmers-china-remains-absent-buying

Neely, Todd. “EPA Proposes RFS Reallocation Options.” DTN/Progressive Farmer. September 16, 2025. https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/business-inputs/article/2025/09/16/trump-administration-proposes-rfs.

Paulson, N., G. Schnitkey, C. Zulauf and J. Coppess. “Impacts of Economic Assistance Payments.” farmdoc daily (15):4, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, January 7, 2025.

Ramsey, Steven, Brian Williams, Philip Jarrell and Todd Hubbs. “Global Demand for Fuel Ethanol Through 2030.” U.S. Dept. of Agric., Economic Research Service. BIO-05. February 7, 2023. https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details?pubid=105761.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “EPA Announces Action on Small Refinery Exemptions, Continues Work to Get Renewable Fuel Standard Program Back on Track.” EPA Press Office. August 22, 2025. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-action-small-refinery-exemptions-continues-work-get-renewable-fuel.

Rappeport, Alan. “China’s Snub of U.S. Soybeans Is a Crisis for American Farmers.” The New York Times. September 15, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/15/business/china-us-soybeans-farming.html.

Rappeport, Alan. “Deepening Trade Fight With China Poses New Threat to U.S. Farmers.” The New York Times. April 10, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/10/business/economy/trump-tariffs-china-farmers.html.

Schertz, L. and O.C. Doering III. The Making of the 1996 Farm Act (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1999).

Schnitkey, G., N. Paulson, C. Zulauf and J. Coppess. “Impacts of the Commodity Title Changes Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) for Midwestern Farms in 2025.” farmdoc daily (15):128, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, July 15, 2025.

Thukral, Naveen and E. Cao. “US losing out on China soybean sales as Brazil fills key supply period.” Reuters. August 13, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/us-losing-out-china-soybean-sales-brazil-fills-key-supply-period-2025-08-13/.

Spurlock Museum of World Cultures. “Songs of Solidarity: The 1985 Farm Aid Concert.” Dan Gilbert, curator. College of Liberal Arts & Sciences. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. https://www.spurlock.illinois.edu/exhibits/profiles/farm-aid.html.

U.S. Dept. of Agric. Economic Research Service. “Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, Chapter 1.1.” https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/41964/30086_landuse.pdf.

U.S. Dept. of Agric. Farm Service Agency. “Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP).” https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/emergency-commodity-assistance-program.

Complete Article Citation

Coppess, J. and O. Doering. “History & Tough Reality: When Payments Do More Harm Than Good, Consider Other Options.” farmdoc daily (15):176, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, September 25, 2025.

Planning for the Future of Your Farm Online Farm Transition and Estate Course Now Available

OSU Extension is pleased to announce that a new online self-paced course titled “Planning for the Future of Your Farm” is now available through OSU’s Professional and Continuing Education platform. This course is designed to help farm families navigate the complex process of farm transition and estate planning.

Using OSU Extension’s structured five-phase approach, participants explore strategies for transferring ownership, management, and assets to the next generation. The course emphasizes effective family communication, legal and financial planning tools, and proactive decision-making.

Whether your farm is large or small, this course provides the guidance that will help you to create a customized transition plan that reflects your family’s goals and values. Families are encouraged to participate together to develop a shared vision for the future.

Specifics of the Course

This course is organized into the following four modules:

  • Introduction to the Course
  • Farm Transition Planning
  • Legal Tools for Farm Transition Planning
  • Farm Transition Strategies

The course is available fully online with no scheduled class sessions or fixed due dates. Coursework can start at any time and be completed independently within the timeframe designated. Online modules include readings, lecture videos, assignments, quizzes, and more. In this course, participants will:

  • Apply the OSU Extension Farm Transition Planning Approach across the Discovery, Dream, Dialogue, Design, and Destiny phases
  • Evaluate the legacy, structure, and future goals of the farm business using reflection and strategic planning tools
  • Facilitate effective family communication and establish practices for family business meetings
  • Design and implement a transition plan including managerial succession, contingency planning, and asset distribution
  • Identify and apply legal tools such as powers of attorney, wills, trusts, and probate-avoidance tools
  • Assess risks to keeping farmland in the family and maintaining a viable farm operation
  • Evaluate estate planning strategies to minimize tax liabilities and protect farm assets
  • Conduct long-term care risk assessments and explore strategies to protect farm and family assets

Instructors

The instructors for this course are David Marrison, OSU Extension Field Specialist in Farm Management and Robert Moore, Attorney with the OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program. Both are nationally recognized for their work in farm transition planning.

Cost and Registration

Full access to the course videos and materials is $149. Enrollment for this section of the course will closed on September 14, 2026 and enrolled participants will have until March 14, 2027 to complete the course.

Enroll in this course at go.osu.edu/MyFarmsFuture

Thank you

OSU Extension is thankful for the financial support which Ohio Corn and Wheat provided for the development of this course. Members of Ohio Corn and Wheat can receive an $100 enrollment discount code by contacting Ohio Corn and Wheat prior to enrolling.

 

2025 Southern Ohio Small Farm College to be held in Piketon

By Amanda Perkins, OSU Extension Educator – Pike County

OSU Extension invites small farm owners to attend the 2025 Southern Ohio Small Farm College this fall in Piketon, Ohio.

The Small Farm College is a 10-hour college designed to help landowners examine potential ways to increase profits from their small acreage properties. The program is open to all new or aspiring farmers, new rural landowners, small farmers and farm families looking for new ideas. During this college, participants will be challenged to develop realistic expectations for their new farm business. They will receive information about getting started, identifying the strengths and weaknesses of their property, and developing a farm business plan. Five sessions are planned:

  • Session I: October 15, 2025 – “Getting Started on Your New Farm Business”
  • Session II: October 22, 2025 – “You Can’t Measure What You Don’t Track” (Farm Recordkeeping, Budgets and Taxes.)
  • Session III: October 29, 2025 – “The Legal Side of Small Farm Management”
  • Session IV: November 5, 2025 – “Money, Money, Money! The Financial Side of Small Farm Management”
  • Session V: November 12, 2025 – “Small Farm Reality Simulation”

All sessions will be held from 6:30p m to  9:00 pm at OSU South Centers located at 1864 Shyville Rd, Piketon, OH 45661.

The cost to attend is $80 for the first family member; additional family members can attend at a reduced cost of $40 per person. Each family receives only one binder of resources.

Click here for a program brochure

Registration can be completed at go.osu.edu/southernohiosfc by October 10, 2025.

Additional information about this program can be obtained by contacting Amanda Perkins, Extension Educator for Agriculture and Natural Resources OSU Extension Pike County at perkins.715@osu.edu or by calling OSU Extension Pike County at 740-289-4837.

2026 Crop Insurance Decision – a cut and paste from last year or not?

By Clint Schroeder, Program Manager for Ohio Farm Business Analysis Program and Eric Richer, Field Specialist, Farm Management

Note: this article was originally published on the Farm Office Blog on September 16, 2025

With the projected price discovery period now closed for winter wheat Ohio farmers have until September 30, 2025, to select the crop insurance coverage that best suits their operation. However, the decision on policy type and coverage levels for 2026 crops could be impacted by the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). Signed into law on July 4, 2025, OBBBA offers higher area-based policy coverage levels, increases premium support, and expands support for beginning farmers and ranchers. This article will highlight these key changes so that producers can make more informed decisions for 2026 production on their farm.

Previously, producers that wanted to purchase Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) as part of their policy were required to enroll those base acres in the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program. The OBBBA has decoupled SCO from the traditional Farm Bill decision allowing farmers to enroll in either the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) or PLC program. Additionally, premium support, the subsidy for SCO has increased from 65% to 80%. In 2027 SCO coverage will also increase to 90%, up from the current 86% revenue benchmark. This band of coverage is currently available in the form of the Enhanced Coverage Option (ECO). ECO is currently available at two coverage levels, 86% to 90% and 90% to 95%. The premium support for these policies also increased to 80%. It is important to note that SCO and ECO provide coverage above the individuals’ underlying Multi-Peril Crop Insurance (MPCI) policy but are based off of the county’s production for that year. That is to say, SCO and ECO do not provide additional protection at the unit level for each farm, field and crop.

Premium support across all Basic and Optional Units was also increased by 3 to 5 percentage points. While OBBBA did not specifically raise the premium support for Enterprise Units, the increased subsidy for Basic and Optional Units affects the calculation the Risk Management Agency (RMA) uses to set premium support levels for Enterprise Units. Table 1 outlines the premium support for each coverage level under prior legislation compared to current support under the OBBBA.

Table 1: Premium Subsidy Rates: Prior Legislation vs OBBBA
Prior Legislation OBBBA
Coverage Level Basic and Optional Units Enterprise Units Basic and Optional Units Enterprise Units
50% 67% 80% 67% 80%
55% 64% 80% 69% 80%
60% 64% 80% 69% 80%
65% 59% 80% 64% 80%
70% 59% 80% 64% 80%
75% 55% 77% 60% 80%
80% 48% 68% 51% 71%
85% 38% 53% 41% 56%

 

Beginning farmers will also receive an increased subsidy that is tiered based on their years of farming. A Beginning Farmer or Rancher (BFR) is now defined as an individual who has not actively operated and managed a farm or ranch in any state, with an insurable interest in a crop or livestock as an owner-operator, landlord, tenant, or sharecropper for more than 10 crop years. Under prior legislation BFRs received premium support of 10%. The OBBBA increases the subsidy amount to 15% for the first two years, 13% in year three, and 11% in year four. Years 5 through 10 will remain at the 10% additional premium support level.

Implications

The 2026 projected winter wheat price for Ohio is now set at $5.76 per bushel, down from $6.06 per bushel in 2025. The volatility factor for 2025 was .23 and decreased slightly to .20 in 2026. The 2026 MPCI wheat policies will use this price and volatility factor to determine producer premiums. SCO and/or ECO area-based policies can then be added as options, if desired. The corn and soybean projected prices will be determined from February 1-28, 2026 with an insurance signup deadline of March 15.  Farmers should consult with their crop insurance agent to receive a quote tailored to their crop, county, unit structure, and approved yield. In some instances, reducing individual coverage and purchasing SCO or ECO may provide additional risk protection at a lower cost.

References

https://www.rma.usda.gov/news-events/news/2025/washington-dc/usda-delivers-president-trumps-promise-put-american-farmers

https://www.rma.usda.gov/policy-procedure/bulletins-memos/managers-bulletin/mgr-25-006-one-big-beautiful-bill-act-amendment

 

 

 

Ask the Expert Sessions at the 2025 Farm Science Review

By: Josh Winters, OSU Extension Agriculture & Natural Resources Educator, Jackson County and Wm. Bruce Clevenger, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Farm Management

Reliable and trusted advisers.  Farm managers need to seek out the best people and gather tailored information for their own farm operation.  Seldom does one answer fit all.   Agriculture is impacted by local, regional, and global forces that are often unforeseen leaving the farm manager with mixed messages. Who should you ask for trusted answers?  Ask The Experts at Farm Science Review!

Three days of Experts have been scheduled to take center stage again this year at the 2025 Farm Science Review.  This conversational dive explores hot/current topics between the moderator, Experts, and the audience.  The 30-minute sessions give 15-20 minutes of information from the Experts and 5-10 minutes of Q&A with the audience.  It is the best place to stop and take a sit-down break at FSR.  Grab some food and enjoy.  Experts include ag economists, weather scientists, women in ag leaders, veterinarians, ag attorneys, forestry specialists, agronomists, animal scientists, and farm management specialists.

2025 Topics include:

Beginner and Small Farm Colleges, Cattle Markets, Global Trade, Ohio Farm Income, Weather Risk, Crop Inputs, Farmland Values/Rents, Tax Law, Farm Lease, Harvesting Timber, Solar Grazing research,  Labor Laws, Farm Legacy Planning, Ohio Quarterly Fertilizer Price Survey, Grain Markets, Farm Diversification with Specialty Crops, Network Building, Using Incentive Trusts in Farm Succession, and much more!

Returning for 2025!  Student spotlight hours on Tuesday and Wednesday from 10:00 am to 11:00 am.  Youth will learn about getting started in a farm business, beef economics, and career exploration in veterinary medicine.

Plan your day(s) at Farm Science Review at:

https://fsr.osu.edu/

2025 Ask the Expert Schedule
Time Speaker Topic
9/16/2025
10:00 Trevor Corboy Student Spotlight Hour: Getting Started in a Farm Business – Beginner and Small Farm College
10:30 Garth Ruff Student Spotlight Hour: Beef-o-nomics: Understanding Cattle Markets
11:00 Seungki Lee, Margaret Jodlowski, Ian Sheldon; mod Amy Ando Economic Crosswinds: What’s Driving Your Bottom Line?
12:00 Dr. Ani Katchova Ohio Farm Income & Financial Conditions
12:30 Dr. Aaron Wilson Weather Risk & Resilience in 2025
1:00 Barry Ward Crop Inputs, Farmland Values/Rents, Tax Law – 2025 & Looking Ahead
1:30 Peggy Hall Farm Smarter: Farm Lease Lessons That Pay Off
2:00 Jim Downs Harvesting Timber – What You Need to Consider
2:30 Dr. Brady Campbell Harvesting Sun and Grass: New Insights into Solar Grazing
9/17/2025
10:00 Dr. Luciana Da Costa Student Spotlight Hour: Education Requirements for Veterinary Medicine
10:30 Dr. Luciana Da Costa Student Spotlight Hour: Careers in Veterinary Medicine
11:00 Jeff Lewis Know the Farm Labor Laws: Stay Legal, Safe, and Productive
11:30 David Marrison Beyond the Land: Preparing Leaders for the Next Generation of Farming
12:00 Amanda Bennett Ohio Quarterly Fertilizer Price Survey
12:30 Dr. Aaron Wilson Weather Risk & Resilience in 2025
1:00 Barry Ward Crop Inputs, Farmland Values/Rents, Tax Law – 2025 & Looking Ahead
1:30 Clint Schroeder Profit-Driven Farming: Navigating Financial Health in Ohio Agriculture
2:00 Dr. Seungki Lee Grain Market Crossroads: What’s Now, What’s Next
2:30 Dr. Logan Minter Farm Diversification: Specialty Crops to Strengthen your Bottom Line
9/18/2025
10:00 David Marrison Stepping Up or Stepping Aside: Readiness for Farm Succession
10:30 Marlene Eick How to Network Like a Pro
11:00 Robert Moore Using Incentive Trusts in Farm Succession: Cultivating Good Decisions
11:30 Christopher Dean LIVE! Field Data/Monitoring: Real-time from FSR Demo Plots to Ask The Expert Tent
12:00 Barry Ward Crop Inputs, Farmland Values/Rents, Tax Law – 2025 & Looking Ahead
12:30 Dr. Aaron Wilson Weather Risk & Resilience in 2025
1:00 Gigi Neal & Heather Neikirk A Decade of Outreach and Impact: Ohio Women in Agriculture Network
1:30 Dr. Laura Lindsey, Taylor Dill, Barry Ward Agronomy + Economics = Agronomics. What Should Come First?

 

Ask The Experts is located at the corner of Kottman and Friday Avenues, Exhibit Area 425, across from the Firebaugh building.  Seating is available under the tent.

In addition to the Ask The Expert sessions, Review goers can explore OSU Extension Farm Management Resources in the Firebaugh building across from Ask The Expert area all-day, each day of the Review.  OSU Extension Farm Management resources can also be found online at: https://farmoffice.osu.edu/

 

 

Watch Farm Office Live Webinar – Live from the 2025 Farm Science Review on September 18

The sixth season of our Farm Office Live webinar will kick off at the Farm Science Review next Thursday, September 18, 2025.  Join us from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon for updates from the legal, tax, and farm management experts on OSU’s Farm Office team.

The topics which we will address live from the Farm Science Review will include:

  • Using Incentive Trusts in Farm Succession
  • Corn and Soybean Budget Outlook  – Including Input and Cash Rents  
  • Profit-Driven Farming: Navigating Financial Health in Ohio Agriculture 
  • Planning for the Future of Your Farm – New online course available 
  • Farm Smarter: Farm Leases that Pay Off
  • Highlights of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act
  • Financial Recording Highlights – Quicken Workshops and Ag Lender Seminars, Importance of Financial Record Keeping going into 2026
  • Know the Farm Labor Laws: Stay Legal, Safe, and Productive

Featured speakers include  Farm Office Team members Bruce Clevenger, Peggy Hall, Jeff Lewis, David Marrison, Robert Moore, Clint Schroeder and Barry Ward.

Register for our Farm Office Live webinars, which will continue through next April, through this link on farmoffice.osu.edu.

2025 Reconciliation Farm Bill – Summary Overview

by: Carl Zulauf, Emeritus Professor, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Ohio State University, September 5, 2025

This article was originally published on July 11, 2025 on the Farm Office blog. This is an updated version published on September 5, 2025

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SNAP)

For Thrifty Food Plan specifies household size adjustment factors relative to 4-person household.

Starting October 1, 2025, cost of Thrifty Food Plan is indexed annually for CPI inflation.

Makes it more difficult for reevaluations of the Thrifty Food Plan increase cost more than inflation.

Expands SNAP work requirements to adults age 55-64 and adults with children age 14-17.

Restricts availability of standard utility allowance and prohibits use of internet expenses.

If a state’s SNAP payment error rate exceeds 6%, requires state matching share of 5% to 15% depending on error rate. (ASSESSMENT:  reduces Federal spending more than benefits.)

Reduces Federal share of administering SNAP from 50% to 25% starting FY (Fiscal Year) 2027.

Eliminates National Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program ($550 million / year).

Reduces access to SNAP for non-US citizens by specifying groups that have access.

Funds Farm to Food Bank Projects under Emergency Food Assistance Program through FY2031.

 

COMMODITY SUPPORT PROGRAM PRICES THROUGH 2031 CROP YEARS

    2024 2025   2024 2026  
Statutory Statutory Loan Loan
Reference Reference Percent Rate Rate Percent
Commodity Unit Price Price Increase Price Price Increase
               
Wheat Bushel $5.50 $6.35 15% $3.38 $3.72 10%
Barley Bushel $4.95 $5.45 10% $2.50 $2.75 10%
Oats Bushel $2.40 $2.65 10% $2.00 $2.20 10%
Peanuts Pound $0.268 $0.315 18% $0.178 $0.195 10%
Corn Bushel $3.70 $4.10 11% $2.20 $2.42 10%
Grain Sorghum Bushel $3.95 $4.40 11% $2.20 $2.42 10%
Soybeans Bushel $8.40 $10.00 19% $6.20 $6.82 10%
               
Dry Peas Pound $0.1100 $0.1310 19% $0.0615 $0.0687 12%
Lentils Pound $0.1997 $0.2375 19% $0.1300 $0.1430 10%
Canola Pound $0.2015 $0.2375 18% $0.1009 $0.1110 10%
Large Chickpeas Pound $0.2154 $0.2565 19% $0.1400 $0.1540 10%
Small Chickpeas Pound $0.1904 $0.2265 19% $0.1000 $0.1100 10%
Sunflower Seed Pound $0.2015 $0.2375 18% $0.1009 $0.1110 10%
Flaxseed Bushel $11.28 $13.30 18% $5.6504 $6.22 10%
               
Mustard Seed Pound $0.2015 $0.2375 18% $0.1009 $0.1110 10%
Rapeseed Pound $0.2015 $0.2375 18% $0.1009 $0.1110 10%
Safflower Pound $0.2015 $0.2375 18% $0.1009 $0.1110 10%
Crambe Pound $0.2015 $0.2375 18% $0.1009 $0.1110 10%
Sesame Seed Pound $0.2015 $0.2375 18% $0.1009 $0.1110 10%
               
Rice (long grain) Pound $0.1400 $0.1690 21% $0.0700 $0.0770 10%
Rice (med/short grain) Pound $0.1400 $0.1690 21% $0.0700 $0.0770 10%
Rice (temperate japonica) Pound $0.1730 not given $0.0700 not given
Seed Cotton Pound $0.3670 $0.4200 14% $0.2500
Upland Cotton Pound $0.45-$0.52 $0.55
Extra Long Staple Cotton Pound $0.95 $1.00 5%
               
Graded Wool Pound $1.15 $1.60 39%
Ungraded Wool Pound $0.40 $0.55 38%
Mohair Pound $4.20 $5.00 19%
Honey Pound $0.69 $1.50 117%

 

COMMODITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

 

Price Loss Coverage (PLC) Reference Prices

Starting with 2031 crop year, prior year’s statutory reference price is increased by multiplying it by 1.005.

Increases effective reference price escalator formula from 85% to 88% of 5-year Olympic average market year price.  Effective reference price cannot exceed 113% (was 115%) of statutory reference price.

 

Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC)

Increases ARC guarantee to 90% from 86% of benchmark revenue starting with 2025 crops.

ARC payment band increased to 12% from 10% starting with 2025 crop year

Allows producers to buy SCO (Supplemental Coverage Option) crop insurance if enrolled in ARC (not currently allowed).

 

Commodity Program for 2025 Crop Year

For crop year 2025 only, program participants receive higher of ARC or PLC payment.  (ASSESSMENT:  likely done since Congress altered 2025 crop year program parameters; but may signal a potential program provision in the next farm bill.)

 

Cotton

Increases payment rate for storage cost of upland and extra-long cotton under loan.

Upland cotton marketing assistance loan is repaid through 2032 at lower of (a) loan rate plus interest or (b) lowest world market price over a 30-day period starting the day the loan is repaid.  Lowest market price is an average of the 3 (replaces 5) lowest-priced growths.

For Extra Long Staple Cotton, loan repayment rate is lower of (a) loan rate plus interest or (b) world market price, adjusted for U.S. quality, location, and transportation costs.  Further adjustments are possible if the Secretary of Agriculture determines any one of a list of conditions in the legislation is met.

Assistance for textile mills increases from 3 to 5 ¢ / pound of upland cotton on August 1, 2025

 

Long Grain and Medium Grain Rice

Marketing loans repaid at lower of (a) loan rate plus interest or (b) world market price.

 

Commodity Program Payment Limits

Increases payment limit for Title I programs from $125,000 to $155,000 per payment entity starting with the 2025 crop year.

Payment limit is indexed to CPI inflation starting with the 2025 crop year.

Adds (1) certain partnerships (subchapter K of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), (2) certain S-Corporations (section 1361 of IRS Code, and (3) certain Limited Liability Companies  that do not affirmatively elect to be treated as a corporation to joint ventures and general partnerships as a “qualified pass-thru entities” eligible to receive government program payments.  Qualified pass-through entities are eligible for ARC and PLC payment limits equal to the payment limit per person multiplied by the number of eligible persons or legal entities that own the qualified pass-through entity.

Allows producers and business entities with Average Gross Income (AGI) from agricultural activities exceed $900,000 to participate in certain disaster assistance and conservation programs if 75% or more of their AGI is derived from eligible agricultural activities.

 

 

 

New Base Acres

Up to 30 million new base acres can be added by eligible farms effective the 2026 crop year.

For a FSA (Farm Service Agency) farm to be eligible,

  1. A current covered program commodity must have been planted some year during 2019-2023.

For an eligible FSA farm,

  1. For a FSA farm, planted acres must exceed total base acres for all covered program commodities, excluding unassigned generic cotton base, in effect on September 30, 2024. Planted acres equal
    1. 2019-2023 average, all years included, of acres planted or prevented from being planted to program commodities on the FSA farm; plus
    2. lesser of
      1. 15% of total acres on the FSA farm or
      2. 2019-2023 average, all years included, of acres planted or prevented from being planted to eligible noncovered commodities.

Eligible noncovered commodity acres are acres planted or prevented from being planted on a farm to commodities other than covered commodities, trees, bushes, vines, grass, or pasture (including cropland that was idle or fallow), as determined by Secretary of Agriculture.

  1. New base acres = [(planted plus prevent planted acres calculated as above) plus (unassigned generic cotton base acres) minus (total base acres as of 9/30/2024)].
  2. No new covered commodities are created. New base acres are added to base acres of a current covered commodity planted on the FSA farm over 2019-2023 using the following ratio:

[(2019-2023, all years included, average of acres planted or prevent planted to the given covered commodity) to (2019-2023, all years included, average of total acres planted or prevent planted to all covered commodities on the farm)].

  1. Other than under an established practice with FSA of double cropping covered commodities, an owner must elect what covered commodity planted or prevent planted on the same acre is used to calculate the 5-year average.

Limits

  1. A FSA farm’s total base acres cannot exceed its total acres.
  2. New base acres are capped at 30 million for the US. If the cap is effective, an across-the-board, pro-rated reduction is applied to all eligible new base acres.

 

PLC Payment Yield for New Base Acres

  1. A FSA farm’s current PLC yield for a crop is used. If the farm has no PLC yield for the crop, average PLC yield for the county in which the farm is situated or current FSA methods for this situation will be used.

ASSESSMENT:  A major expansion of commodity program payments to current non-program crops even though no new program commodities are created.  Base acres are added to base acres of existing program commodities but can be added for acres in current non-program crops.  Hay, the third largest US field crop, benefits the most.

 

 

Sugar Program

Increases the 2025-2031 crop year loan rates for raw cane sugar and for refined beet sugar.

Increases storage rate paid for sugar forfeited to the government.

If marketing allotments are increased, prioritizes beet sugar processors with available sugar.

Requires upfront reallocation of a TRQ (Tariff Rate Quota) shortfall when quota year starts and subsequent reallocation of any remaining shortfall to quota holding countries by March 1.

Requires a study of whether additional conditions are needed for refined sugar imports.

 

Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC)

Updates production history to highest annual milk marketed during any one of the 2021, 2022, or 2023 calendar year.

Raises maximum coverage from 5 million to 6 million pounds of milk.

Extends 25% discount on DMC premiums if coverage is locked in from 2026 through 2031.

 

Livestock Loss Assistance

Payment rate is 100% of market value of loses from predation by federally protected species.

Payment rate is 75% of market value of losses from adverse weather or disease.

Secretary of Agriculture may consider regional price premiums when assessing market value

Adds a supplemental payment for loss of unborn livestock effective January 1, 2024.

For livestock forage disaster program, provides 1 monthly payment for county having US Drought Monitor rating of D2 (severe drought) intensity in any area of county for at least 4 consecutive weeks during county’s normal grazing period. Two monthly payments can be received if D2 occurs any 7 of 8 consecutive weeks during the normal grazing period.

 

Farm-Raised Fish, Honey Bee, and Tree Loss Assistance

Adds assistance for losses of farm-raised fish due to piscivorous birds.

Sets standard mortality rate at 15% when determining honeybee colony losses.

For Tree Assistance Program, losses are triggered if normal mortality rates are exceeded.  Reimbursement rate increased from 50% to 65% of pruning, removal, and other costs.

 

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 SCO (Supplemental Coverage Option) coverage level from 86% to 90% and premium subsidy rate from 65% to 80%.

Increases premium subsidy for basic and optional units as follows:

Coverage Level CAT 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85%
Current Subsidy 100 67 64 64 59 59 55 48 38
New Subsidy 100 67 69 69 64 64 60 51 41

NOTE:  Higher premium subsidies for basic and optional units could potentially require USDA to increase premium subsidy schedules for some enterprise and whole farm units.  Reason is U.S.C. §15018(e)(5) requires USDA to pay premium subsidies for enterprise and whole farm units that provide the same dollar amount of premium subsidy per acre as provided for the equivalent basic or optional units, up to a maximum of 80% of the total premium rate.

 

Administrative and Operating (A&O) Expenses

Starting with the 2026 reinsurance year, states that have loss ratios greater than 120% for insurance contracts that exclude catastrophic and area insurance contracts are eligible for additional A&O reimbursements equal to 6% of net book premium.

Starting with the 2026 reinsurance year, specialty crop policies under the A&O cap will receive a minimum reimbursement of 17% of the premium.

Starting with the 2026 reinsurance year, A&O reimbursement cap is indexed to CPI inflation.

 

Beginning Farmers and Ranchers

Extends eligibility to 10 years from 5 years, and increases subsidy rate for them by 5 percentage points (pp) for 1st and 2nd years, by 3 pp for 3rd year, and by 1 pp for 4th year.

 

Other

Increases funds for monitoring program compliance and integrity from current $0.004 billion / FY to $0.006 billion / FY plus $0.010 billion for a related statute for FY2026 and after.

Requires index-based Poultry Insurance Pilot for contract poultry growers to insure weather risk that raises utility costs.

 

CONSERVATION

Rescinds unobligated funds for conservation programs appropriated by IRA (Inflation Reduction Act of 2022).

Increases Farm Bill baseline spending for … (only FY2026 and FY2031 amounts listed (billion $))

FY2026          FY2031

EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program)                $2.655           $3.255

CSP (Conservation Stewardship Program)                           $1.300           $1.375

ACEP (Agricultural Conservation Easement Program)          $0.625           $0.700

RCPP (Regional Conservation Partnership Program)            $0.425           $0.450

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention                         $0.150           $0.125

Provides funds for (1) Grassroots Source Water Protection Program, (2) Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program, and (3) Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program.

NOTE:  Authority for CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) is set to expire at the end of FY2025 and was not extended in this legislation.  It will need to be extended in some other legislation.

 

 

FORESTRY:  Rescinds unobligated funds appropriated under IRA for many forest and tree programs.

 

TRADE:   Authorizes $0.285 billion / year starting in FY2027 for a new Supplemental Agricultural Trade Promotion Program, which is available to all agricultural product exports.

 

RESEARCH:   Authorizes funds for (1) Urban, Indoor, and Other Emerging Agricultural Production Research, Education, and Extension Initiative, (2) Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research, (3) Scholarships for Students at 1890 Institutions, (4) Assistive Technology Program for Farmers with Disabilities, (5) Specialty Crop Research Initiative, and (6) Research Facilities Act.

 

ENERGY:  Extends mandatory funds through FY2031 for Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels.

 

HORTICULTURE: Increases mandatory funds for (1) Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program ($0.075 to $0.090 billion / year), (2) Specialty Crop Block Grant Program ($0.085 to $0.100 billion / year), and (3)  Specialty Crop Research Initiative (0.080 to 0.175 billion).

Authorizes funds for Emergency Citrus Disease Research and Development Trust Fund.

 

OTHER:  Authorizes funds for (1) Organic Production and Market Data Initiative, (2) Organic Certification, and Trade Tracking and Data Collection, (3) National Organic Certification Cost Share Program, and (4) Multiple Crop and Pesticide Use Survey.

Authorizes $0.233 billion / year through FY2030 for Animal Disease Prevention and Management, split $0.010 billion for National Animal Health Laboratory Network, $0.070 billion for NADPRP (National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program), and $0.153 billion for National Animal Vaccine Bank.  Provides $75 million for FY 2031 and beyond, of which at least $45 million is for NADPRP.

Authorizes $0.003 million for Sheep Production and Marketing Grant Program.

Extends authorization for Pima Agriculture Cotton Trust Fund, Agriculture Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund, Wool Research, Development, and Promotion Trust Fund.

 

 

SOURCES

 

US Congress (119th).  Accessed August 2025.  H.R. 1 – One Big Beautiful Bill.  CONGRESS.GOV https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1.

US Congressional Research Service.  Updated August 15, 2025.  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Related Nutrition Programs in P.L. 119-21: An Overview.  CRS Report R48552.  https://crsreports.congress.gov

US Congressional Research Service.  Updated July 16, 2025.  Selected Horticultural Provisions in FY2025 Budget Reconciliation (P.L. 119-21, Title I).  CRS Insight IN12559.  https://crsreports.congress.gov

US Congressional Research Service.  June 6, 2025.  One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1): Section 10102, Agricultural Conservation.  CRS Insight IN12560.  https://crsreports.congress.gov

US Congressional Research Service.  June 23, 2025.  One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1): Title I, Farm Safety Net and Miscellaneous Provisions.  CRS Report R48574.  https://crsreports.congress.gov

 

Court of Appeals Ruling on Reciprocal Tariffs

by: Ian Sheldon, Professor and Andersons Chair of Agricultural Marketing, Trade, and Policy, Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Ohio State University

In a recent post to Ohio Ag Manager, it was noted that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had begun deliberations over a ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) against President Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs which were based on invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 (V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, CIT, May 29, 2025).  On August 29, 2025, the Appeals Court ruled in a 7-4 decision that, “We affirm the CIT’s holding that the…Reciprocal Tariffs imposed by the Challenged Executive Orders exceed the authority delegated to the President by IEEPA’s text.  We also affirm the CIT’s grant of declaratory relief that the order are ‘invalid as contrary to law’” (V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, August 29, 2025, p.44).  However, the Appeal Court decision does not take effect until October 14, giving the government time to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

In laying out their ruling, the Appeals Court made a number of key points:

(i) none of the actions explicitly allowed under IEEPA  include the “…power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax (V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, August 29, 2025, p.26-27)

(ii) compared to IEEPA, other statutes such as Section 301 clearly delegate tariff-setting power to the president (V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, August 29, 2025, p.30)

(iii) typically IEEPA has been invoked to impose financial restrictions or other sanctions on “hostile regimes and individuals” (V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, August 29, 2025, p.36)

(iv) the court could “…discern no clear congressional authorization by IEEPA for tariffs of the magnitude of the Reciprocal Tariffs…” (V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, August 29, 2025, p.37)

(v) the court rejected the government’s argument that the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) ruling in favor of President Nixon’s application of a 10% tariff on all U.S. imports (United States v. Yoshida Int’l, Inc., November 6, 1975) was existing judicial precedent when IEEPA was enacted;

and (vi)the court points out that the CCPA ruling was based on President Nixon imposing temporary and limited tariffs (V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, August 29, 2025, p.40).

The overall conclusion of the Appeals Court is that, “…we still must conclude that the Challenged Executive Orders in this case exceed the authority provided by that interpretation of IEEPA…the Reciprocal Tariffs are unbounded in scope, amount, and duration…The…Reciprocal Tariffs assert an expansive authority that is beyond the express limitations of Yoshida II’s holding and, thus, beyond the authority delegated to the President by IEEPA.” (Federal Appeals Court, V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, August 29, 2025, p.41-42).

Both the CIT and Federal Appeals Court are quite clear in their opinions that the president has exceeded the authority delegated to him by the text of IEEPA.  Irrespective of these rulings, in all probability the question of whether or not IEEPA allows the president to apply across-the-board tariffs will now end up at the United States Supreme Court for adjudication.

 

 

Does the President Have Legal Authority to Set Across-the-Board Tariffs?

by: Ian Sheldon, Professor and Andersons Chair of Agricultural Marketing, Trade, and Policy, Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Ohio State University

Current Legal Status

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently began deliberations over a ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) against President Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs (V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, CIT, May 29, 2025).  The case, brought by a group of private firms, and 12 U.S. states, challenged whether the President could impose across-the-board tariffs by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, CIT holding that, “…the court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority, and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder…” (V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, p.4)

The administration is invoking IEEPA on the grounds that it authorizes the president to regulate trade via embargoes and sanctions if a national emergency is declared in response to a significant threat to the United States.  In order to understand CIT’s ruling that the U.S trade deficit does not constitute a national emergency, it is necessary to lay out why it ruled that IEEPA does not provided unlimited authority to the executive branch with respect to setting tariffs.

Legislative Background to IEEPA

The legislative history surrounding IEEPA is rooted in the U.S. balance-of-payments crisis of the late-1960s, which culminated in the collapse of the Bretton-Woods fixed exchange rate system.  On August 15, 1971, President Nixon cancelled convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold, as well as declaring a national emergency.  Invoking the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) of 1917, the president also introduced a 10 percent tariff on all U.S. imports. The United States Customs Court (CT), the predecessor to CIT, held that TWEA precluded the president from applying the supplemental duties (Yoshida Int’l, Inc. v. United States, CT, July 8,1974).  This ruling was subsequently overturned by the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA), the court holding that the president’s application of the duties were “…within the power constitutionally delegated to him…” (United States v. Yoshida Int’l, Inc., CCPA, November 6, 1975).

Shortly after this ruling, Congress reformed the president’s emergency powers in two ways: first, the powers conferred on the president under TWEA were confined to wartime only; and second, IEPPA was enacted to limit the scope of presidential power when regulating trade at a time of national emergency, as well as imposing procedural limitations including application of the National Emergencies Act of 1976.

Trade Law Prior to IEEPA

Prior to IEEPA coming into being, Congress passed the 1974 Trade Act, containing Section 122 dealing with remedies for balance-of-payments deficits.  Section 122 limits the president’s authority to respond to balance-of-payments problems, and that large balance-of-payments deficits do not necessitate the use of emergency powers.  Specifically, Section 122 sets a 15 percent cap on tariffs with a maximum duration of 150 days.  Therefore, in ruling against across-the-board tariffs, CIT argued that their imposition “responds to an imbalance in trade – a type of balance-of-payments deficit – and thus falls under the narrower, non-emergency authorities in Section 122” (V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, p.34).  The Court concluded that “…The President’s assertion of tariff-making authority in the instant case, unbounded as it is by any limitation in duration and scope, exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the president under IEEPA.  The Worldwide and Retaliatory tariffs are thus ultra vires and contrary to law…” (V.O.S., Selections, Inc. v. United States, p.36).

Interestingly, Section 122 has never previously been used, and as a consequence, the courts have not had reason to interpret its language. Some commentators have suggested that it might legitimately be used to target trade deficits, but others conclude that the term balance-of-payments does not refer to trade deficits, Section 122 (a) referring to the balance-of-payments, and Section 122 (c) which refers the balance of trade, i.e., there is a presumption that Congress intended to make the distinction.

It is also important to recognize that tariffs have never been imposed under IEEPA, although President Trump did threaten to do so in 2019 as a means of pushing Mexico into stopping illegal immigrants entering the United States.  Outside of the CIT ruling, other commentators note that IEEPA is actually silent on including any tariff authority to regulate international transactions, and as a consequence, “…Congress did not hand over tariff authority, one of its explicit constitutionally defined powers (over “duties” and “imposts”), to the president in the IEEPA…” (Campbell, 2023, p.606).  It might even be argued that if IEEPA actually gives the executive authority to raise tariffs, why would the president ever actually follow the required steps of statutes contained in U.S. trade law such as Sections 232 and 301?

Currently, the CIT ruling is pending appeal, but whatever the final ruling is, in all probability the question of whether or not IEEPA allows the president to apply across-the-board tariffs will eventually end up at the United States Supreme Court for adjudication.