Weather’s Impact on Corn Development

Mother nature sure has not been very cooperative this spring!  My weather station near Centerburg has recorded 8.8 inches of rain for the Month of May and 1.7 in. for June (through 6/25).  The 5 year average for May is 4.85 in. and June 4.46 in.  Looking at the 2 month totals for May and June we have had 10.5 inches.  The 5 year average for both months is 9.3 inches.  While we are only received a little over an inch of rain above normal for these 2 months, I think we would all like to forget the month of May.

The extremely wet conditions in May significantly delayed planting.  This week I have seen corn anywhere from V2 to V8.  The table below shows the approximate growing degree days from planting to the various growth stages.  At one of our plots, from April 21st (planting date) through June 19th we have accumulated approximately 872 GDD’s.  Assuming tasseling will happen around 1420 GDD’s we are about 61% complete.

You can access local weather information  anytime at: https://u.osu.edu/knoxcountyag/knox-county-weather-station-data/

The table below shows the approximate Growing Degree Days (GDD’S) required for a corn plant to progress through the different stages of development.

Table 1. Corn GDD’S by growth stage.

Top 10 Tips for Better Spraying

Source: Erdal Ozkan

Applying pesticides requires a high level of skill and knowledge. Over the years, the increasing size and complexity of sprayers have necessitated even more attention to efficiency, efficacy, and safety when spraying pesticides. Although each crop requires a slightly different approach to pesticide application, some general principles apply to nearly all spraying situations. Here are my top 10 recommendations (not in any particular order) that will make spraying efficient and effective, resulting in a higher level of biological efficacy expected from pesticides applied:

  1. Select the best nozzle type and size for the job.
  2. Carefully read and follow the specific recommendations provided in sprayer operators’ manuals and on the labels of applied pesticides.
  3. Keep spray drift in mind when spraying.
  4. Maximize pesticide deposition and coverage on the target.
  5. Slow down when spraying.
  6. Calibrate the sprayer.
  7. Check for uniformity of application.
  8. Understand how to calculate the amount of chemical product to mix in the tank.
  9. Adopt advancements in spray technology.
  10. Consider using a sprayer with an air-assisted boom.

Click here for the entire article

Potato Leafhopper is Arriving in Alfalfa

This Spring has presented plenty of challenges, and another is coming in from the south. Potato leafhoppers (PLH) are being carried into Ohio fields on southern winds and can quickly become a concern. PLH arrives around the time of first cutting and can be a pest of alfalfa into September. PLH can reach maturity in three weeks, and multiple generations can be present at the same time, being very damaging.

PLH is relatively easy to identify; the adults are lime green, wedge-shaped, and are roughly 1/8 of an inch in length. The immature nymph stages look similar but are smaller and lack wings. PLH feeding damage, commonly called hopper burn, is seen as the yellowing of alfalfa leaf tips in a V-shaped orientation.

For a video on identifying PLH, follow this link: PLH Identification and Damage in Alfalfa

Just like every pest, scouting is critical to know when spraying is an economically sound decision. To scout PLH, a 16-inch diameter sweep net, and a yardstick are needed. Be sure that the sweep net is 16 inches in diameter; if not, the control thresholds will not be accurate. With the sweep net, take 10 pendulum swings, making solid contact with the field canopy. After 10 swings, count the adults and nymphs collected, and be sure to check the seams around the rim for PLH nymphs. Take multiple samples from around the field for more accurate estimates. It is best to sample in dry and calm conditions.

For a video demonstration of PLH scouting, follow this link: Scouting for PLH in Alfalfa

The threshold for when control should be considered is 1 PLH for 1 inch of stand height. For example, if the alfalfa is 16 inches in height, the threshold for control would be 16 PLH adults and nymphs per 10 swings.

If a field has reached the threshold where action is needed, there are some extra considerations to give thought to. If the alfalfa is close to harvest, be sure to account for the preharvest interval restrictions for insecticides; there may be instances where an early or timely harvest is the better choice. Be sure to monitor the following cuttings for continued PLH pressure. PLH is most damaging to young stands, fresh regrowth, and stressed stands, since feeding can remove a great percentage of leaf area compared to a healthy mature stand.

For more information on potato leafhopper, see this factsheet: Potato Leafhopper on Alfalfa

Revisiting Minimum Wage Obligations in Ohio Agriculture

Source: Jeffrey K. Lewis, OSU Extension

Federal lawmakers have once again sparked debate over increasing the federal minimum wage, which has remained at $7.25 per hour since 2009. While many farmworkers are exempt from the federal minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), a potential increase could still create significant ripple effects throughout the agricultural sector.

Earlier this month, Senators Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) introduced the Higher Wages for American Workers Act, a bipartisan proposal that would raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour and index future increases to inflation.

Although agricultural employers in Ohio are generally exempt from federal minimum wage requirements, the reemergence of federal wage legislation presents a timely opportunity to revisit those exemptions and clarify what minimum wage obligations may apply to farm employers under both federal and state law.

Federal Agricultural Exemptions
Under the FLSA, agricultural employers are not required to pay the federal minimum wage to certain employees if one or more of the following conditions apply:

  1. Small Farm Exemption: The employer did not use more than 500 man-days of agricultural labor in any calendar quarter of the previous year.
  2. Family Member Exemption: The employee is the parent, spouse, child, or another immediate family member of the employer.
  3. Hand-Harvest Laborer Exemption: The employee:
    • is employed as a hand-harvest laborer,
    • is paid on a piece-rate basis,
    • commutes daily from their permanent residence, and
    • was employed in agriculture for fewer than 13 weeks during the previous calendar year.
  4. Youth Hand-Harvest Exemption: The employee is:
    • 16 years old or younger,
    • employed as a hand-harvest laborer,
    • paid on a piece-rate basis,
    • working on the same farm as their parent or legal guardian, and
    • receiving the same piece-rate wage as employees over age 16.
  5. Range Production Exemption: The employee is engaged in the range production of livestock.

Continue reading Revisiting Minimum Wage Obligations in Ohio Agriculture →

“Let the buyer beware” doctrine applies to real estate sales in Ohio

By: Peggy Kirk Hall, Attorney and Director, Agricultural & Resource Law Program

“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.”

**SLUG ALERT**

As if the extremely wet and cool weather wasn’t enough to worry about, slugs are becoming active in many fields.  Again this year I am participating in the United Soybean Board Multi-State Slug Monitoring Project.  As part of this project, I have several fields throughout Knox County that I monitor for slug activity on a weekly basis.  Today was the first time I found any significant activity.  Several fields are now beginning to show significant slug feeding.  To make matters worse most of the slugs that I am finding are small juvenile slugs.  This would indicate that a slug hatch has recently occurred.  These juvenile slugs are like teenagers – As they grow, they will eat anything in site, and a lot of it!

Scout your fields now!!

Corn Replant Decisions

Consistent rain throughout Knox County has resulted in planting delays.  According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 34% of the corn and 40% of the soybeans have been planted in Ohio, through May 18th .  In  Knox County our corn numbers are higher than that.  For the month of May (through 5/20) we have recorded 7.71 inches of rain at our weather station near Centerburg.  As usual, some parts of the county have received more rain and other areas, not as much.

Some of the corn that has been planted may not survive the cool, wet conditions and therefore may need to be replanted.  Replant decisions in corn should be based on strong evidence that the returns to replanting will not only cover replant costs but also net enough to make it worth the effort.  The following information may help to determine if replanting is justified:

Original target plant population/intended plant stand.  What was your intended plant stand, what is the stand count in the “good” areas of the field.

Plant stand after damage.  To estimate after‑damage plant population per acre, count the number of viable plants in a length of row that equals 1/1000 of an acre and multiply by 1000, for 30 inch rows that would be 17’4″.  Make several counts in different rows in different parts of the field to get a true representation of the field.

Uniformity of plant stand after damage.  If uneven emergence is row to row, that is, most rows are emerged but some are not, replanting will likely not increase yield.  If the delay in emergence is less than two weeks between the early and late emerging plants, replanting may increase yields, but by only 5% or less. Replanting would likely not be economical.  Yet if one-half or more of the plants in the stand emerge three weeks later than the initial plant emergence, replanting may increase yields by about 10%.

Economics – Calculate expected yield from the existing stand and estimated yield from replant.  The table below shows the effect of planting date and plant population on final grain yield. Grain yields for varying dates and populations are expressed as a percentage of the yield obtained at the optimum planting date and population.

For example:   Let’s assume that a field planted on April 20 at a seeding rate sufficient to attain a harvest population of 30,000 plants per acre. On May 28 you determined the stand was reduced to 15,000 plants per acre as a result of saturated soil conditions and ponding. According to the table above, the expected yield for the existing stand (15,000 plants/ac.) would be 81 percent of the optimum. If the corn crop was planted the next day on May 29, and produced a full stand of 30,000 plants per acre, the expected yield would also be 81 percent of the optimum. The difference expected from re-planting is 0 (81 – 81) , which would  not justify replanting costs.  The cost of replanting a field is often the deciding factor. Costs include tillage, seed, fuel (for tillage and planting), additional pesticides, labor, etc. .

Can you get by with replanting certain areas of the field?  This adds several more considerations in addition to those above.  Replanting into existing stands (interseeding) usually creates competition problems with larger plants competing with smaller planes for all needed inputs throughout the rest of the growing season.  Often the smaller plants will turn into weeds.  The best option is usually to destroy the existing stand and start over.

With the continued rains this week it may also be time to consider a Prevented Plant conversation with your crop insurance agent and FSA.

How Ohio’s Proposed Pesticide Rules Could Affect Teens Working on Farms

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.