Reminder: OSU Extension Brown County and Brown County Chamber of Commerce are working together to bring the Business Retention and Expansion program to Brown County. We will be sending a survey out to cooperating businesses in throughout the county. If you did not receive a letter from us but would like to participate please send your email to firstname.lastname@example.org. All businesses are welcome to participate. the survey will be sent for the first time on September 3rd but you can still send requests after this date!
Brown and Adams County Extension planted the first hemp research plot in Adams County on August, 19th at the Acela CBD facility in Winchester (pictured below). Acela’s headquarters is located in Maysville, KY where they have had 5 years of experience growing and processing hemp. Brown County Extension will hold a workshop sponsored by the Brown County Farm Bureau on November 2nd. We know there are plenty of questions surrounding this new crop and Brown and Adams County Extension will be offering multiple opportunities to learn more in the coming months.
More details below images.
On schedule for right now:
- Brown County Hemp Workshop (see flyer below)
- Adams County Hemp Workshop
- October 1st @ 6:30 p.m.
- Ohio Valley Career and Technical Center, 175 Lloyd Rd, West Union, OH 45693
- Pre-registration required. Limited to the first 150 people
- Call 937-544-2339 BEFORE September 27th to register
- Hemp Field Day
- More details coming soon.
- OSU Extension and Acela research plot
- 3445 Cross Rd. Winchester, OH 45697
- 5:00 p.m.
- Agenda TBD
It is time to submit nominations for the 2019 Brown County 4-H Friend of 4-H and 4-H Alumni Awards!
The Brown County Friend of 4-H and 4-H Alumni Awards are annual awards given as a way to honor an individual, family, business, or corporation which has greatly supported and is currently supporting the 4-H program, either financially or philanthropically, at the local, county, district, state, or national level. Multiple awards may be given in a year at the discretion of the Brown County 4-H Advisory Committee.
Multiple nominations for the award do not constitute priority. Awards will be announced at the King and Queen contest on Monday night of the fair. Nominations may come from any community member. Nominations will close on September 18th.
Visit this link to submit your nominations: https://osu.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_78qoKPHmiQ1rYzP
To see prior recipients of the awards visit: https://brown.osu.edu/friendof4h
With solar energy development, then, comes a new demand for farmland: solar leasing. Many Ohio farmland owners have received post cards and letters about the potential of leasing land to a solar energy developer. This prospect might sound appealing at first, particularly in a difficult farming year like this one. But leasing land for a solar energy development raises many implications for the land, family, farm operation, and community. It’s a long-term legal commitment–usually 25 years or more–that requires careful assessment and a bit of homework.
To help landowners who are considering solar leasing, we’ve joined forces with Eric Romich, OSU Extension’s Field Specialist in Energy Education, to publish the Farmland Owner’s Guide to Solar Leasing. The online guide explains the state of solar energy development in Ohio, reviews initial considerations for leasing farmland to solar, and describes legal documents and common terms used for solar leasing. The guide’s solar leasing checklist organizes the information into a list of issues to consider, things to do, people to consult, and questions to ask before deciding whether to enter into a solar lease.
The Farmland Owner’s Guide to Solar Leasing is available at no cost on our Farm Office website, here. A separate Law Bulletin of The Farmland Owner’s Solar Leasing Checklist is also available on Farm Office, here. We produced the guide in partnership with the National Agricultural Law Centerat the University of Arkansas, with funding from the National Agricultural Library, Agricultural Research Service, at the United States Department of Agriculture.
Many corn fields are still silking (and some are just past the mid-vegetative stages)….so, it may seem a little early to discuss estimating grain yields. However, according to the most recent NASS crop report, for the week ending Aug. 8, 2019, 25% of the corn crop has reached the dough stage (compared to 63% for the 5 year average). Corn growers with drought damaged fields and late plantings may want to estimate grain yields prior to harvest in order to help with marketing and harvest plans. Two procedures that are widely used for estimating corn grain yields prior to harvest are the YIELD COMPONENT METHOD (also referred to as the “slide rule” or corn yield calculator) and the EAR WEIGHT METHOD. Each method will often produce yield estimates that are within 20 bu/ac of actual yield. Such estimates can be helpful for general planning purposes.
1. THE YIELD COMPONENT METHOD was developed by the Agricultural Engineering Department at the University of Illinois. The principle advantage to this method is that it can be used as early as the milk stage of kernel development, a stage many Ohio corn fields have probably achieved. The yield component method involves use of a numerical constant for kernel weight which is figured into an equation in order to calculate grain yield. This numerical constant is sometimes referred to as a “fudge‑factor” since it is based on a predetermined average kernel weight. Since weight per kernel will vary depending on hybrid and environment, the yield component method should be used only to estimate relative grain yields, i.e. “ballpark” grain yields. When below normal rainfall occurs during grain fill (resulting in low kernel weights), the yield component method will OVERESTIMATE yields. In a year with good grain fill conditions (resulting in high kernel weights), the method will underestimate grain yields.
In the past, the YIELD COMPONENT METHOD equation used a “fudge factor” of 90 (as the average value for kernel weight, expressed as 90,000 kernels per 56 lb bushel), but kernel size has increased as hybrids have improved over the years. Dr. Bob Nielsen at Purdue University suggests that a “fudge factor” of 80 to 85 (85,000 kernels per 56 lb bushel) is a more realistic value to use in the yield estimation equation today. https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/YldEstMethod.html
According to Dr. Emerson Nafziger at the University of Illinois under current drought stress “…. If there’s a fair amount of green leaf area and kernels have already reached dough stage, using 90 [as the “fudge-factor “] might be reasonable. It typically doesn’t help much to try to estimate depth of kernels at dough stage, when kernel depth is typically rather shallow anyway, especially if there are 16 or more kernel rows on the ear. If green leaf area is mostly gone, however, and kernels look like they may be starting to shrink a little, kernels may end up very light, and using 120 or even 140 [as the “fudge-factor”] might be more accurate”. http://bulletin.ipm.illinois.edu/article.php?id=1695.
Calculate estimated grain yield as follows:
Step 1. Count the number of harvestable ears in a length of row equivalent to 1/1000th acre. For 30‑inch rows, this would be 17 ft. 5 in.
Step 2. On every fifth ear, count the number of kernel rows per ear and determine the average.
Step 3. On each of these ears count the number of kernels per row and determine the average. (Do not count kernels on either the butt or tip of the ear that are less than half the size of normal size kernels.)
Step 4. Yield (bushels per acre) equals (ear #) x (avg. row #) x (avg. kernel #) divided by 90.
Step 5. Repeat the procedure for at least four additional sites across the field. Given the highly variable conditions present in many late planted and stressed fields, repeat the procedure throughout field as many times as you think appropriate, then calculate the average yield for all the sites to make a yield assessment of the entire field.
Example: You are evaluating a field with 30‑inch rows. You counted 24 ears (per 17′ 5″ = row section). Sampling every fifth ear resulted in an average row number of 16 and an average number of kernels per row of 30. The estimated yield for that site in the field would be (24 x 16 x 30) divided by 90, which equals 128 bu/acre.
NOTE: If there is extensive leaf firing and senescence and little green tissue evident, and kernels appear to be shrinking, using 120 or even 140 as the “fudge-factor” might be more appropriate. Making some assessments using both 90 and 120 can provide an idea of the range in yield possible.
2. THE EAR WEIGHT METHOD can only be used after the grain is physiologically mature (black layer), which occurs at about 30‑35% grain moisture (but this year with late planting it could be as high as 40%). Since this method is based on actual ear weight, it should be somewhat more accurate than the yield component method above. However, there still is a fudge factor in the formula to account for average shellout percentage.
Sample several sites in the field. At each site, measure off a length of row equal to 1/1000th acre. Count the number of harvestable ears in the 1/1000th acre. Weigh every fifth ear and calculate the average ear weight (pounds) for the site. Hand shell the same ears, mix the grain well, and determine an average percent grain moisture with a portable moisture tester.
Calculate estimated grain yield as follows:
Step A) Multiply ear number by average ear weight.
Step B) Multiply average grain moisture by 1.411.
Step C) Add 46.2 to the result from step B.
Step D) Divide the result from step A by the result from step C.
Step E) Multiply the result from step D by 1,000.
Example: You are evaluating a field with 30‑inch rows. You counted 24 ears (per 17 ft. 5 in. section). Sampling every fifth ear resulted in an average ear weight of 1/2 pound. The average grain moisture was 30 percent. Estimated yield would be [(24 x 0.5) / ((1.411 x 30) + 46.2)] x 1,000, which equals 135 bu/acre.
Because it can be used at a relatively early stage of kernel development, the Yield Component Method may be of greater assistance to farmers trying to make a decision about whether to harvest their corn for grain or silage. Since drought stress conditions and late planting in some fields may result in poorly filled small ears, there may be mechanical difficulties with combine harvest efficiency that need to be considered.
Nafziger, E. 2012. Estimating Yields of Stressed Corn. The Bulletin, Univ of Illinois. http://bulletin.ipm.illinois.edu/article.php?id=1695 [URL verified Aug. 2019].
Nielsen, RL. 2018. Estimating Corn Grain Yield Prior to Harvest. Corny News Network, Purdue University. https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/YldEstMethod.html (URL verified Aug. 2019).
ABOUT THE C.O.R.N. NEWSLETTER
C.O.R.N. Newsletter is a summary of crop observations, related information, and appropriate recommendations for Ohio crop producers and industry. C.O.R.N. Newsletter is produced by the Ohio State University Extension Agronomy Team, state specialists at The Ohio State University and the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC). C.O.R.N. Newsletter questions are directed to Extension and OARDC state specialists and associates at Ohio State.
Each year, faculty and staff of The Ohio State University address some of the top farm management challenges which Ohio farmers are facing during the “Ask the Expert” sessions held each day at the Farm Science Review at the Molly Caren Agricultural Center near London, Ohio. The 20 minute “Ask the Expert” presentations at Farm Science Review are one segment of the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences (CFAES) comprehensive extension education efforts during the three days of the Farm Science Review which will be held September 17-19 in London, Ohio.
The 2019 growing season has particularly challenging for Ohio growers and producers due to the historic rainfall in Ohio. Twenty-seven of this year’s “Ask the Expert” sessions will feature discussions aimed at helping farmers mitigate the challenges faced by agricultural producers in 2019 and beyond. Our experts will share science-based recommendations and solutions to the issues growers are facing regarding weather impacts, tariffs, and low commodity prices. Producers are encouraged to attend one or more of the sessions throughout the day.
The sessions will take place in the Ohio State Area in the center of the main Farm Science Review exhibit area located at 426 Friday Avenue. The farm management sessions will be featured include:
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
“Tax Strategies Under the New Tax Law” presented by Barry Ward 10:00 – 10:20 a.m.
“Climate Smart- Weather, Climate & Extremes-Oh My!” presented by Aaron Wilson 10:20 – 10:40 a.m.
“Before the Pearly Gates- Getting Your Farm Affairs in Order” presented by David Marrison 10:40 – 11:00 a.m.
“Crop Inputs & Cash Rent Outlook for 2020” presented by Barry Ward 11:00 – 11:20 a.m.
“Farm Stress-We Got Your Back” presented by Dee Jepsen 11:20 – 11:40 a.m.
“Farm Income Forecasts: Are Farmers Experiencing Financial Stress?”presented by Ani Katchova 12:20 – 12:40 p.m.
“How Much Money Stayed on the Farm? 2018 Ohio Corn & Soybean Production Costs” presented by Dianne Shoemaker 12:40 – 1:00 p.m.
“Where Are We on U.S. Trade Policy” presented by Ian Sheldon 1:00 – 1:20 p.m.
“Farm Accounting: Quicken or Quickbooks” presented by Wm. Bruce Clevenger 1:20 – 1:40 p.m.
“Commodity Markets – Finding Silence in the Noise” by Ben Brown 1:40 – 2:00 p.m.
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
“Climate Smart- Weather, Climate & Extremes-Oh My!” presented by Aaron Wilson 10:00 – 10:20 a.m.
“Solar Leasing Options” presented by Peggy Hall & Eric Romich 11:00 – 11:20 a.m.
“Where Are We on U.S. Trade Policy” presented by Ben Brown 11:20 – 11:40 a.m.
“Crop Inputs & Cash Rent Outlook for 2020” presented by Barry Ward 12:00 – 12:20 p.m.
“Commodity Markets – Finding Silence in the Noise” by Ben Brown 12:20 – 12:40 p.m.
Public Perception Risk: Building Trust in Modern Agriculture by Eric Richer 12:40 – 1:00 p.m.
“Farm Stress-We Got Your Back” presented by Dee Jepsen 1:00 – 1:20 p.m.
“How Much Money Stayed on the Farm? 2018 Ohio Corn & Soybean Production Costs” presented by Dianne Shoemaker 1:20 – 1:40 p.m.
“Tax Strategies Under the New Tax Law” presented by Barry Ward 2:00 – 2:20 p.m.
“Using On-Farm Research to Make Agronomic and Return on Investment Decisions” presented by Sam Custer 2:40 – 3:00 p.m.
Thursday, September 19, 2019
“Farm Stress-We Got Your Back” presented by Dee Jepsen 10:20 – 10:40 a.m.
“Tax Strategies Under the New Tax Law” presented by Barry Ward 10:40 – 11:00 a.m.
“Solar Leasing Options” presented by Peggy Hall & Eric Romich 11:20 – 11:40 a.m.
“Commodity Markets – Finding Silence in the Noise” by Ben Brown 11:40 – Noon
“Crop Inputs & Cash Rent Outlook for 2020” presented by Barry Ward 12:00 – 12:20 p.m.
“Where Are We on U.S. Trade Policy” presented by Ben Brown 12:40 – 1:00 p.m.
“How Much Money Stayed on the Farm? 2018 Ohio Corn & Soybean Production Costs” presented by Dianne Shoemaker 1:40 – 2:00 p.m.
The complete schedule for the Ask the Expert sessions and other events at the 2019 Farm Science Review can be found at: https://fsr.osu.edu/
Additional farm management information from OSU Extension can be found at ohioagmanager.osu.edu or farmoffice.osu.edu
David Marrison, OSU Extension
The annual Fall 4-H Craft/Vendor Show will be held on October 26, 2019 from 9:00 A.M. – 3:00 P.M. The event will be on the Brown County Fairgrounds in Rhonemus Hall. All proceeds to benefit Brown County 4-H. Anyone interested in being a vendor can find registration forms here: https://brown.osu.edu/FallShowAndRun
We are working to add other events to the day. Updates will be added as they are confirmed.
by: Barry Ward, Leader, Production Business Management & Director, OSU Income Tax Schools
Prevented Planting Crop Insurance Indemnity Payments
With unprecedented amounts of prevented planting insurance claims this year in Ohio and other parts of the Midwest, many producers will be considering different tax management strategies in dealing with this unusual income stream. In a normal year, producers have flexibility in how they generate and report income. In a year such as this when they will have a large amount of income from insurance indemnity payments the flexibility is greatly reduced. In a normal year a producer may sell a part of grain produced in the year of production and store the remainder until the following year to potentially take advantage of higher prices and/or stronger basis. For example, a producer harvests 200,000 bushels of corn in 2019, sells 100,000 bushels this year and the remainder in 2020. As most producers use the cash method of accounting and file taxes as a cash based filer, the production sold in the following year is reported as income in that year and not in the year of production. This allows for flexibility when dealing with the ups and downs of farm revenue.
Generally, crop insurance proceeds should be included in gross income in the year the payments are received, however Internal Revenue Code Section (IRC §) 451(f) provides a special provision that allows insurance proceeds to be deferred if they are received as a result of “destruction or damage to crops.”
As prevented planting insurance proceeds qualify under this definition, they can qualify for a 1 year deferral for inclusion in taxable income. These proceeds can qualify if the producer meets the following criteria:
- Taxpayer uses the cash method of accounting.
- Taxpayer receives the crop insurance proceeds in the same tax year the crops are damaged.
- Taxpayer shows that under their normal business practice they would have included income from the damaged crops in any tax year following the year the damage occurred.
The third criteria is the sometimes the problem. Most can meet the criteria, although if producers want reasonable audit protection, they should have records showing the normal practice of deferring sales of grain produced and harvested in year 1 subsequently stored and sold in the following year. To safely “show that under their normal business practice they would have included income from the damaged crops in any tax year following the year the damage occurred” the taxpayer should follow IRS Revenue Ruling 75-145 that requires that he or she would have reported more than 50 percent of the income from the damaged or destroyed crops in the year following the loss. A reasonable interpretation in meeting the 50% test is that a farmer may aggregate the historical sales for crops receiving insurance proceeds but tax practitioners differ on the interpretation of how this test may be met.
One big problem with these crop insurance proceeds is that a producer can’t divide it between years. It is either claimed in the year the damage occurred and the crop insurance proceeds were received or it is all deferred until the following year. The election to defer recognition of crop insurance proceeds that qualify is an all or nothing election for each trade or business IRS Revenue Ruling 74-145, 1971-1.
Tax planning options for producers depend a great deal on past income and future income prospects. Producers that have lower taxable income in the last 3 years (or tax brackets that weren’t completely filled) may want to consider claiming the prevented planting insurance proceeds this year and using Income Averaging to spread some of this year’s income into the prior 3 years. Producers that have had high income in the past 3 years and will experience high net income in 2019 may consider deferring these insurance proceeds to 2020 if they feel that this year may have lower farm net income.
Market Facilitation Payments
When the next round(s) of Market Facilitation Payments (MFPs) are issued, they will be treated the same as the previous rounds for income tax purposes. These payments must be taken as taxable income in the year they are received. As these payments are intended to replace income due to low prices stemming from trade disputes, these payments should be included in gross income in the year received. As these payments constitute earnings from the farmers’ trade or business they are subject to federal income tax and self-employment tax. Producers will almost certainly not have the option to defer these taxes until next year. Some producers waited until early 2019 to report production from 2018 and therefore will report this income from the first round of Market Facilitation Payments as taxable income in 2019.
Producers will likely not have the option of delaying their reporting and subsequent MFP payments due to the fact they are contingent upon planted acreage reporting of eligible crops and not yield reporting as the first round of MFP payments were.
Cost Share Payments
Increased prevented planting acres this year have many producers considering cover crops to better manage weeds and erosion and possibly qualify for a reduced MFP. There is also the possibility that producers will be eligible for cost-share payments via the Natural Resources Conservation Service for planting cover crops. Producers should be aware that these cost-share payments will be included on Form 1099-G that they will receive and the cost-share payments will need to be included as income.
You are advised to consult a tax professional for clarification of these issues as they relate to your circumstances.
Find more articles at https://u.osu.edu/ohioagmanager/