2025 Third Quarter Fertilizer Prices Across Ohio

Click here for PDF version of this article

The third quarter results from a survey of Ohio fertilizer retailers showed prices in Ohio were somewhat mixed when compared to the national averages reported by Progressive Farmer – DTN (Quinn, July 2025). The survey was completed by 25 retailers, representing 16 counties, who do business in the state of Ohio. Respondents were asked to quote spot prices as of the first day of the quarter (July 1st) based on sale type.

The survey found the average prices of fertilizer were lower in Ohio compared to the national prices for all major fertilizers except DAP. However, only two were significantly lower (more than 5%): 28% UAN was 10% lower and 10-34-0 APP was 6% lower than the national average. The national average price for DAP was the same as in Ohio.

When compared to prices from the last quarter’s Ohio survey, all fertilizer prices were up, seven were up significantly (more than 5%) and three were up more than 15%: 28% UAN, up to $404/ton from $341/ton; urea, up to $667/ton from $561/ton; and Ammonium thio-sulfate (ATS) up to $464/ton from $383/ton.

When compared to the July 2024 average Ohio prices, the July 2025 average Ohio prices were significantly higher for all fertilizers measured in the survey. 28% UAN and urea both saw significant increases over 2024 prices in the same quarter, coming in at changes of 23% and 24% respectively.

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. Third Quarter 2025 Ohio Fertilizer Prices

Product

Responses(n) Sale Type Min

$/ton

Max

$/ton

Avg

$/ton

NH3 9 FOB Plant 650 830 774
UAN 28-0-0 18 Direct to Farm 345 470 404
Urea 46-0-0 17 FOB Plant 595 745 667
MAP 11-52-0 15 FOB Plant 775 1055 862
DAP18-46-0 12 FOB Plant 750 900 826
APP 10-34-0 14 Direct to Farm 620 750 673
Potash 0-0-60 17 FOB Plant 435 519 474
Ammonium Sulfate              21-0-0-24 14 FOB Plant 570 645 606
Ammonium Thio-Sulfate    12-0-0-26 11 FOB Plant 410 520 464
Poultry Litter 3 Delivered and applied, < 25 miles 55 65 59
Farm Diesel                           (ie. off-road diesel) 4 Direct to Farm, $/gallon 2.57 3.89 3.17

 

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

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

Extension Contributors: Pressley Buurma, Brett Kinzel, TJ Wells, Josh Winters

 

References

Quinn, R. 2025. DTN Retail Fertilizer Trends. DTN Progressive Farmer. Accessed online July 14, 2025 at https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/crops/article/2025/07/09/prices-rise-5-fertilizers-urea-dips

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

 

The North American Manure Expo coming on July 30th and 31st in Wauseon, Ohio

The North American Manure Expo is coming to Wauseon Ohio on July 30th and 31st at the Fulton County Fairgrounds. This event was will showcase research, innovation and solutions found within manure management. The event brings manure haulers, applicators, brokers, nutrient management specialists, researchers, producers, manufacturers, custom operators and extension personnel together for two days of learning, networking and evaluation of new technology, research, equipment and opportunities. Over the two days we have tours, an industry trade show, live solid and liquid manure demonstrations and educational sessions.

The first morning of the Expo is dedicated to tours that showcase innovative manure solutions. Attendees can purchase tickets on-line or there may be room for walkups to one of the four tours:

Tour #1: Andre Farms & Stuckey Farms – visit one of Ohio’s largest Class II EPA composting facilities followed by a beef and grain operation that will showcase how they have gotten more out of compost through a variety of projects.

Tour #2: Bridgewater Dairy – see how this farm is leading the way in manure management and renewable energy. Tour guests will see their new methane digester, manure irrigation system and a manure pipeline, followed by hearing about their long-term approach to sustainability.

Tour #3: Precision manure irrigation – See the Rain360 irrigation system in action. Farmers and experts will cover the system’s real-world performance, economic benefits and environmental advantages.

Tour #4: Seiler Farms – This tour will showcase innovative water management practices including a two-stage ditch, a proven method for improving drainage, reducing nutrient runoff and enhancing water quality. See how they protect water resources while maintaining crop production.

Day one also includes manure pond agitation demonstrations with boats and sticks at a nearby dairy farm, manure separation demos, rapid manure transfer from tankers to frac tanks demonstrations, confined space safety training and the always popular pressurized hose release safety demonstration.

Day two of the Expo kicks off with 16 educational sessions in the morning. These are followed by both solid and liquid manure tanker and drag hose application demonstrations and a manure spill containment and stream water restoration demonstration.

Exhibitors will have booths in the trade show both days featuring new and manure innovative technology so you can visit and learn from these equipment makers. Puck will once again have their always-well-attended pump school.

Attendees can register online tor just show up. For the full schedule, information on the educational sessions, registration information and to purchase tour tickets, visit ManureExpo.com.

May Showers May Lead to June Prevented Planting Decisions

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

Note: this is a cross posting of an article posted on the Farm Office Blog on May 29.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

House Farm Bill Reconciliation Summary Overview

By: Carl Zulauf, Emeritus Professor, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Ohio State University, May 27, 2025

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

Click here for PDF version of article

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

Secretary of Agriculture shall not increase cost of the thrifty food plan based on a reevaluation or update of its composition.

Cost of thrifty food plan indexed for CPI inflation.

Work requirements are increased.

Required state matching share goes from 0% currently to 5% in Fiscal Year (FY) 2028.  This cuts Federal spending without cutting program benefits.

Matching share increases as state’s SNAP error rate increases.  Matching share can be as high as 25%.

Farm Safety Net

Support Prices

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
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%

Separate program for temperate japonica rice appears to have been terminated.

Starting with 2031 crop year, prior year reference price increased by multiplying it by 1.005.

In no year can a reference price exceed 115% of its 2026-2030 statutory value, so adjustment does not apply if reference price escalator is at its maximum.

For long grain and medium grain rice, marketing loans repaid at prevailing world market price.

For upland cotton, marketing loans repaid at lowest prevailing world market price.

For upland cotton, a refund shall be provided to producer equal to difference between the lowest prevailing world market price and the repayment amount.

For 2026-2031 crop years, upland cotton and extra-long staple cotton shall receive storage payments equal to the lessor of the submitted tariff rate for the marketing year or $4.90 for California and Arizona or $3.00 for other states.

Textile mill assistance equals 3 cents / pound until July 31, 2025; 5 cents / pound thereafter.’

Additional Base Acres

Up to 30 million new base acres can be added by eligible farms.

Only farms that planted or prevent planted a crop over 2019-2023 can add new base acres.

An eligible farm is a farm for which 2019-2023 crop year average program commodity acres planted or prevent planted plus lesser of (a) 15% of farm’s total acres or (b) 2019-2023 crop year average acres planted or prevent planted to commodities other than program commodities, trees, bushes, vines, grass, or pasture (including cropland that was idle or fallow)  exceeds the farm’s base acres as of September 30, 2024 excluding unassigned cotton base acres. 5-year average includes years with no acres planted or prevent planted.-Positive difference is farm’s potential new base acres; includes unassigned cotton base.

New base acre are allocated among covered commodities using the ratio of 2019-2023 average acres planted or prevent planted to covered crops on the farm to the 5-year average of covered crops planted or prevent planted plus new base acres.

If multiple covered crops were grown on a given acre in any year from 2019-2023 (other than a covered crop produced under an established practice of double cropping), the owner elects which of the covered crop is included in potential new base.

A farm’s total base acres after adding new base acres cannot exceed the farm’s total acres.

Pro-rating occurs if total eligible new base acres exceed 30,000,000.  Each eligible farm’s new base acres is reduced by an across-the board share so new base acres total 30 milion.

Assessment:  Farm Service Agency (FSA) reported roughly 270 million base acres for 2019 crop year after excluding unassigned cotton base acres of roughly 3 million.  Sum of average National Agriculture Statistics Service planted acres plus average FSA prevent plant acres to current program crops over 2019-2023 equal roughly 264 million, implying approximately 24 million acres (264 + 30 – 270) of current non-covered crops, including unassigned cotton base acres, could be added to US base acres.  This is a major expansion of commodity program payments to current noncovered crops.

Price Loss Coverage (PLC) Payment Yield

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

Producer Election

Annual producer election is extended through 2031 crop year.

If no election is made, default choice is the same coverage for each covered commodity as existed for 2024 crop year.

Agriculture Risk Coverage

Coverage level is increased from 86% to 90% beginning with the 2025 crop year.

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

Special Rule for Seed Cotton and Corn

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

No marketing loan rate can be established for seed cotton.’’

Payment Limits

Increases number of potential payment entities on a farm by expanding entities designated as qualified pass-through entities

Increases per person payment entity from ‘$125,000 ’to ‘$155,000.

Payment limit is indexed to CPI inflation.

Payment limit waived if 75% or more of the average gross income of the person or legal entity is derived from farming, ranching, or silviculture activities.

Sugar Program

Sets loan rate for raw cane sugar for 2025-2031 crop years at 24.00 cents / pound and for beet sugar at 136.55% of the raw cane sugar loan rate.

Adjusts rate for storing sugar forfeited to the government.

Changes beet sugar allotments.

Dairy Margin Coverage

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

Raises maximum coverage from 5 million to 6 million pounds.

Livestock and Tree Loss Assistance:

Payment rate for losses due to predation is 100% of market value of affected livestock.

Payment rate for losses due to adverse weather or disease is 75% of market value of affected livestock.

Adds payment for unborn livestock.

For livestock forage disaster program, changes eligibility from 8 consecutive weeks to 4 consecutive weeks or 7 of 8 consecutive weeks.  Payments can be received for 2 months of losses instead of current 1 month of losses.

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

Changes determination of normal mortality rate for tree losses and honeybee colony losses.

CROP INSURANCE

Premium Subsidy:

Sets highest coverage level at 85% for individual yield or revenue insurance, 90% for individual yield or revenue insurance aggregated across multiple commodities, and 95% for area yield or revenue insurance.

Increases coverage level for Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) from 86% to 90%.

Increases premium subsidy for SCO from 65% to 80%.

Percent Premium Subsidy for Basic and Optional Unit by Percent Coverage Level
Coverage Level CAT 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Current Subsidy 100 67 64 64 59 59 55 48 38
House Subsidy 100 67 69 69 64 64 60 51 41

Administrative and Operating (A&O) Expenses:

Beginning with the 2026 reinsurance year, an additional A&O subsidy is to be paid to insurance providers for eligible contracts.  Amount is 6% of net book premium.  Eligible contract is a crop insurance contract in an eligible State.  Excluded are catastrophic risk contracts, area-based or similar contracts; and a contract that the provider does not incur loss adjustment expenses as determined by the Corporation.  Eligible state is a state in Group 2 or Group 3 as defined in the Standard Reinsurance Agreement for reinsurance year 2026) and eligible contract’s loss ratio exceeds 120% of total net book premium written by all approved insurance providers.

Beginning with 2026 reinsurance year, A&O reimbursement to approved insurance providers and agents for Specialty Crops shall be at least 17% of premium used to define loss ratio.

A&O reimbursements for contracts covering agricultural commodities subject to an increase during 2011-2015 reinsurance years are to be adjusted for inflation in a manner consistent with the 2011-2015 increases.  For 2026 reinsurance year, inflation adjustment shall not exceed the percentage change for the preceding reinsurance year included in Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. ‘‘

Increases funds for monitoring program compliance and integrity from current $0.004 billion per FY to $0.006 billion per FY plus $0.01 billion for a related statute for FY2026 and after.

Authorizes creation of a Poultry Insurance Pilot Program.  Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi must be included.

Beginning and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers

Extends eligibility to 10 years from 5 years.

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

CONSERVATION

Authorized funding for Environmental Quality Incentives Program ($2.7 billion for FY2026 to $3.3 billion for FY2028 – 2031); Conservation Stewardship Program ($1.3 billion for FY2026 to $1.4 billion for FY2029 – 31); Agricultural Conservation Easement Program ($0.625 billion for FY2026 to $0.700 billion in FY2029 – 2031); and Regional Conservation Partnership Program ( $0.425 billion for FY2026 to $0.450 billion for FY2027 – 2031).

Authorizes funds for Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention (‘$150 million / year). Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program ($10 million / year), Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program ($15 million / year), and Grassroots Source Water Protection Program ($1 million through FY2031).

TRADE

Authorizes funds through FY 2031 for trade promotion programs: Market Access Program, $0.40 billion / year; Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program, $0.07 billion / year; E (Kika) De La Garza Emerging Markets Program, $0.008 billion / year; Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops, $0.009 billion / year; and Priority Trade Fund, $0.0035 billion / year.

Gives Secretary of Agriculture discretion to provide a greater allocation to a program(s) for which amount requested exceeds available funding, but should try to support exports of types of commodities that funds were originally allocated.

RESEARCH

Authorizes funds for Urban, Indoor, and Other Emerging Agricultural Production Research, Education, and Extension Initiative, Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research, Scholarships for Students at 1890 Institutions, Assistive Technology Program for Farmers with Disabilities, Specialty Crop Research Initiative, and Research Facilities Act.

Extends certain provisions of Secure Rural Schools & Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.

Rescinds unobligated balances of Competitive Grants for Non-Federal Forest Landowners program and State and Private Forestry Conservation Programs.

ENERGY

Extends Biobased Markets Program & Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels through 2031.

OTHER

Authorizes funding for Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention, Specialty Crop Block Grants, Organic Production and Market Data Initiative, Modernization and Improvement of International Trade Technology Systems and Data Collection, National Organic Certification Cost Share Program, and Multiple Crop and Pesticide Use Survey.

Authorized funding for Animal Disease Prevention and Management Program and Sheep Production and Marketing Grant Program.

Extends Pima Agriculture Cotton Trust Fund, Agriculture Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund, Wool Research and Promotion, and Emergency Citrus Disease Research and Development Trust Fund through 2031.

Agricultural Workforce Compensation Trends in Ohio and its Peer States

by Dr. Margaret Jodlowski (jodlowski.1@0su.edu) and Cassie Mavis (cassie.mavis@ag.tamu.edu)

Read the full bulletin.

Agricultural employers face the challenging balancing act of navigating tightening margins while needing to attract and retain workers on their operations. While farm labor issues are perhaps not the first thing that comes to mind when thinking of Ohio agriculture, workforce dynamics play an important role in all of Ohio’s agricultural operations, even those that are more row crop focused or less labor intensive. Wages and other forms of compensation are, of course, key factors that influence workers’ behavior. Using the only nationally representative data that directly surveys farmworkers, we can examine workers’ income trends over the last 20 years, compare wages by job type and worker demographics, and explore non-wage compensation.

Although the overall average wage has grown slowly, this average does not convey important differences by worker type, experience, and other important factors.

  • Workers’ hourly wage has grown only about $4 per hour over the last 20 years; the trend in Ohio closely matches the trend in the Corn Belt and Northern Plains (CBNP), which is made up of states with relatively similar production characteristics as Ohio:
  • Worker experience (measured by years spent working in agriculture) has grown more valuable since the COVID-19 pandemic: laborers with 20 or more years of experience saw a significant increase in their average wage in the period between 2020 and 2022
  • Equipment operators also experienced a notable jump in their average wage during this period. Workers with these skills were especially important to retain and competition from other industries was stiff.
  • In addition, workers experienced few positive changes in terms of other forms of non-wage compensation: fewer employers are able to offer health insurance and the percent offering bonuses (of any kind) has remained relatively stable since 2000.

The need for a well-functioning agricultural labor market is always a pressing one. Compensation is a major factor that determines where individuals decide to work. As agriculture continues to change, understanding what compensation to provide employees can play a crucial role in securing the workforce necessary to succeed as an industry.

 

USDA to Open General and Continuous Conservation Reserve Program Enrollment for 2025

Source: Ohio Farm Service Agency Office

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced several Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) enrollment opportunities for agricultural producers and landowners. USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) is accepting offers for both the General and Continuous CRP through June 6, 2025.

CRP, USDA’s flagship conservation program, celebrates its 40th anniversary this year. For four decades, CRP has provided financial and technical support to agricultural producers and landowners who place unproductive or marginal cropland under contract for 10-15 years and who agree to voluntarily convert the land to beneficial vegetative cover to improve water quality, prevent soil erosion and support wildlife habitat. The American Relief Act, 2025, extended provisions for CRP through Sept. 30, 2025.

“With 1.8 million acres available for all CRP enrollment this fiscal year, we are very aware that we are bumping up against the statutory 27-million-acre statutory cap,” said FSA Administrator Bill Beam. “Now more than ever, it’s important that the acres offered by landowners and those approved by USDA address our most critical natural resource concerns. With the limited number of acres that we have available, we’re not necessarily looking for the most acres offered but instead prioritizing mindful conservation efforts to ensure we maximize the return on our investment from both a conservation and economic perspective.”

General CRP (Signup 64)

Agricultural producers and landowners submit offers for General CRP through a competitive bid process. Offers are ranked and scored, by FSA, using nationally established environmental benefits criteria. USDA will announce accepted offers once ranking and scoring for all offers is completed. In addition to annual rental payments, approved General CRP participants may also be eligible for cost-share assistance to establish long-term, resource-conserving vegetative cover.

Continuous CRP (Signup 63)

Unlike General CRP, Continuous CRP offers are not subject to a competitive bid process. To ensure enrolled acres do not exceed the current statutory cap of 27 million acres, FSA is accepting Continuous CRP offers on a first-come, first-served basis through June 6. However, should allotted CRP acreage remain available following the June 6 deadline, FSA will accept continuous CRP offers from interested landowners through July 31, 2025, and may be subsequently considered for acceptance, in batches, if it’s determined that the offered acres support USDA’s conservation priorities.

Continuous CRP participants voluntarily offer environmentally sensitive lands, typically smaller parcels than offered through General CRP including wetlands, riparian buffers, and varying wildlife habitats. In return, they receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to establish long-term, resource-conserving vegetative cover.

Continuous CRP enrollment options include:

  • State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement Initiative: Restores vital habitat in order to meet high-priority state wildlife conservation goals.
  • Highly Erodible Land Initiative: Producers and landowners can enroll in CRP to establish long-term cover on highly erodible cropland that has a weighted erodibility index greater than or equal to 20.
  • Clean Lakes, Estuaries and Rivers (CLEAR) Initiative: Prioritizes water quality practices on the land that, if enrolled, will help reduce sediment loadings, nutrient loadings, and harmful algal blooms. The vegetative covers also contribute to increased wildlife populations.
  • CLEAR30 (a component of the CLEAR Initiative): Offers additional incentives for water quality practice adoption and can be accessed in 30-year contracts.
  • Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program: Addresses high priority conservation objectives of states and Tribal governments on agricultural lands in specific geographic areas.

Grassland and Expiring CRP Acres

FSA will announce dates for Grassland CRP signup in the near future.

Additionally, landowners with acres enrolled in CRP set to expire Sept. 30, 2025, can offer acres for re-enrollment beginning today. A producer can offer to enroll new acres into CRP and also offer to re-enroll any acres expiring Sept. 30, 2025.

For more information on CRP participant and land eligibility, approved conservation practices and detailed program fact sheets, visit FSA’s CRP webpage.

More Information 

Interested producers should apply through the FSA at their local USDA Service Center.

Signed into law in 1985, CRP is one of the largest voluntary private-lands conservation programs in the United States. Originally intended to primarily control soil erosion and potentially stabilize commodity prices by taking marginal lands out of production, the program has evolved over the years, providing many conservation and economic benefits.

FSA helps America’s farmers, ranchers and forest landowners invest in, improve, protect and expand their agricultural operations through the delivery of agricultural programs for all Americans. FSA implements agricultural policy, administers credit and loan programs, and manages conservation, commodity, disaster recovery and marketing programs through a national network of state and county offices and locally elected county committees. For more information, visit fsa.usda.gov.

The Art (and Science) of Letting Go: Mastering Delegation for Better Results

MANAGER’S LIBRARY SERIES

Trey Malone, Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University

Jay Akridge, Trustee Chair in Teaching and Learning Excellence and Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University

John Foltz, Professor Emeritus, The Ohio State University; and Dean Emeritus, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences and Professor Emeritus, Agricultural Economics, University of Idaho

Originally published at: https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/aede-0029

Many managers struggle to delegate because they believe no one can do the job as well as they can. While that may be true—at least for certain activities and tasks—what we can accomplish as individuals is finite. And managers may be just a bit biased when it comes to the quality of their work.

As farm and agribusiness managers, it is worth remembering that management is the process of getting things done with and through people (your employees in this case)—and not doing everything yourself. And, if we are truly honest, with training, experience, and ingenuity, many employees can actually do a much better job at what they do than their managers. The hallmarks of a great manager are hiring good people, giving them the training and resources to accomplish their goals, and then letting them do their job.

Delegation separates overwhelmed managers from impactful leaders. Yet even seasoned professionals struggle with delegation. Why? Because it demands trust in the manager’s employees and the discipline to resist the urge to micromanage them or take on tasks they should be doing. Using insights from the academic management literature, we break down the essential components of delegation. As academics, we believe that grounding our perspective in research-backed leadership principles and decades of managerial experience can help move agribusinesses into even higher levels of performance.

Why Managers Struggle to Let Go

Most managers were promoted because they excelled at doing. They delivered. However, the transition from doer to leader requires a mindset shift. Managerial success is measured by how effectively a manager enables others to deliver. Still, many managers resist delegation for various reasons:

  • It seems faster to do things themselves.
  • Someone else will not meet their standards.
  • They want to model commitment.
  • They worry the task feels beneath them or their employee.

These barriers stem from a misunderstanding of the manager’s role. Management is not about being the best technician. It is about getting things done with and through others.

Douglas McGregor’s classic Theory X and Theory Y framework sheds light on why some managers struggle with delegation. McGregor argued that a manager’s underlying assumptions—often influenced by where employees fall on the hierarchy of needs—can profoundly shape their team’s behavior. These assumptions then become self-fulfilling prophecies that either empower or inhibit employee potential (McGregor, 1960).

Figure 1: A manager’s assumptions about what motivates their employees can drive the manager’s behavior. Graphic by Purdue University, Department of Agricultural Economics.

McGregor’s theory suggests that managers operate between two extremes: authoritarian and participative (Figure 1). Authoritarian, or Theory X, managers believe employees are inherently lazy, avoid responsibility, and require constant supervision to be productive. Delegation under a Theory X framework becomes a reluctant transfer of duty rather than a strategic leadership act.

In contrast, participative Theory Y managers view employees as capable, self-motivated, and eager to take on responsibility. Leaders with this mindset are more likely to trust their team, provide them with meaningful work, and delegate tasks and ownership. This shift in perspective transforms delegation from a burden into a developmental tool, enabling organizational efficiency and individual growth.

Too often, managers delegate only the menial or repetitive tasks they do not want to do without considering how the nature of the work influences motivation. But when managers delegate meaningful responsibilities that allow employees to use a range of skills, understand the whole scope of a project, and see the impact of their work, they tap into the deeper motivational drivers that Theory Y champions.

Use the Eisenhower Matrix to Decide What to Delegate

Once managers recognize the need to delegate, they often ask, “What should I delegate?”

Overwhelmed managers may try to do everything themselves or delegate haphazardly. Both approaches can backfire. The Eisenhower Matrix (eisenhower.me/eisenhower-matrix), popularized by former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, offers a simple but powerful tool to help managers make smarter decisions about how to allocate their time and team resources.

The matrix categorizes tasks in two dimensions: urgency and importance.

Figure 2. Use the Eisenhower Matrix to decide what to delegate. Graphic by Purdue University, Department of Agricultural Economics.

Tasks that are both urgent and important, like crisis management or looming deadlines, should be handled by the manager directly. These are non-negotiable and time sensitive.

Tasks that are important but not urgent, such as strategic planning, relationship building, or developing new systems, are ideal for delegation. These tasks promote long-term growth and improvement and can provide excellent employee development opportunities.

Urgent but unimportant tasks, like responding to routine emails, coordinating logistics, or standard approvals, can often be delegated or automated. Managers who regularly find themselves bogged down in these activities may benefit from investing in systems or support staff to offload them. In fact, it is worth investigating whether some of these tasks can be delegated to an artificial intelligence (AI) agent.

Tasks that are neither urgent nor important are prime candidates for elimination.

By using the Eisenhower Matrix as a delegation filter, managers can shift from reactive time management to intentional leadership. Delegating strategically frees up time to manage and creates meaningful work for others. Encouraging team members to take on important but not urgent tasks can empower them with more responsibility, help them develop key competencies, and increase their overall engagement.

Clarify the Goal, Then Step Back

“Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do, and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.” – George S. Patton

Communicate expectations clearly but resist the urge to dictate how the work gets done. Effective delegation requires clarity. Provide your team with the information they need to understand to know what success looks like:

  • What is the ultimate objective?
  • What does success look like?
  • What are the constraints (budget, deadlines, resources, etc.)?

Delegation can and should expand beyond operational necessity and become a tool for employee engagement and personal growth. When managers are intentional about what they delegate—and how they frame those tasks—they can elevate the work experience and its outcomes. This builds employee capability and strengthens the organizational culture through trust and empowerment.

Pick the Right Person, Not Just the Most Reliable

Sometimes, delegation does not work because we give the assignment to the wrong person. A manager’s job is to decide who has the time, ability, motivation, etc., to get something done. Giving an assignment to the wrong person or team can result in disappointment for the manager and the employees involved.

Note that this does not mean going back time after time to the same employee or the same team because they get things done (though that is tempting!). Good managers distribute opportunities broadly to keep the whole team engaged. Really good managers give stretch assignments to up-and-comers. Managers may take a risk with a less-experienced employee because they sense the employee is ready and can deliver. Making these kinds of assignments and then coaching the up-and-coming employee to successfully complete the task, is where managerial leadership and talent development intersect.

Situational leadership theory, developed by Hersey and Blanchard, suggests that effective delegation depends on matching the level of direction and support to an employee’s readiness. This model identifies four leadership styles:

  • directing
  • coaching
  • supporting
  • delegating

Each leadership style is suited to different combinations of employee competence and commitment (Hersey & Blanchard, 1077).

For example, a new employee learning a task for the first time may need a high-directive, low-supportive approach or “directing” leadership style where instructions are clear and closely monitored. As the employee gains confidence and experience, managers can shift to a “coaching” or “supporting” leadership style that uses encouragement while gradually reducing support.

Once an employee is competent and committed, the manager can move into the “delegating” leadership style, offering minimal guidance and full autonomy. This progression helps ensure employees are neither micromanaged nor left adrift, unlocking their full potential through a tailored leadership approach.

Set Clear Expectations, Then Trust the Process

Once the goal is clear and the right person is chosen, communicate the rules of engagement:

  • What are the deadlines?
  • What resources are available?
  • Who else needs to be involved?

Clear expectations are often not enough for even the best employees to succeed every time. Equipping employees to succeed requires removing friction. Consider the importance of support in successful task execution exemplified by Lean Six Sigma, which focuses on how organizations can minimize waste, reduce variation, and ensure consistent quality. At the heart of this approach is a deep commitment to structured training and documentation, especially when onboarding or developing employees.

Standard work documents communicate the best-known method to perform a task at a given time. These documents eliminate guesswork, reduce variability, and help ensure consistency and quality, across different employees or shifts. When tasks are delegated, standard work documents ensure that performance expectations are aligned and communicated.

Job instruction breakdowns divide tasks into teachable segments—what to do, how to do it, and why it is done this way. This method supports knowledge transfer. It is especially effective when a manager moves past the notion of training as a one-time orientation and emphasizes training as a process of continuous skill development. Delegation paired with instruction breakdowns ensures that even complex assignments are approachable for newer employees.

Process maps visually outline the steps, decisions, and flow of a task, helping employees see how their work connects to broader team or business objectives.

Collectively, these training tools can help create a culture of operational excellence. When managers invest in documenting and teaching their processes at a high level, delegation becomes less about relinquishing control and more about confidently empowering others to deliver high-quality outcomes.

Track Progress Without Micromanaging

Some tasks are so simple and their timelines are so short that managers quickly know whether they are done right. In other cases, clear milestones and progress checks are needed along the way. The key is to catch problems early, allowing for timely course corrections.

Monitoring progress is not the same as hovering. Micromanagement erodes trust with employees, wastes managerial time, and leads to a lower quality outcome than allowing a carefully selected team with proper resources to do their job. When something goes off course, intervene constructively. Remember, clarity prevents micromanagement. Set expectations, then check in at intervals. Do not hover.

Celebrate Completion and Give Credit Publicly

When the work is done and goals are met, recognize contributions publicly and sincerely. Praise is a powerful motivator, especially when it is authentic and shared in front of leadership and/or the employee’s peers. Conversely, few things demoralize a team faster than a manager who takes credit for work they did not do. Usually, these managers lack confidence in their position or ability and do not understand the power of delegation. By being confident enough to highlight employee/team contributions to upper management, managers build trust, motivate their people, and set themselves up for another successful delegation.

Confident leaders share the spotlight. They elevate their team’s success, build a culture of trust, loyalty, and shared ownership. When employees know their efforts will be seen and celebrated, they are more likely to rise to the challenge again.

A Delegation Diagnostic

Not sure how well you delegate? Take a few minutes with this delegation quiz from MindTools (mindtools.com/andp4jg/how-well-do-you-delegate) to assess your current habits and blind spots.

After major projects are completed, take time to reflect and ask important questions:

  • What went well?
  • What could have gone better?
  • Were expectations and constraints clear?
  • What can we do differently next time?

This step signals that employee growth matters. It also strengthens future delegation. Good managers know how to conduct a debriefing without making employees defensive. This is a time for coaching, to reinforce the things that went well, and discuss how it could have gone better—including how the manager could have done a better job of delegation. It takes confidence and trust to have an honest reflection/debrief session with an employee, but once that trust is established, a powerful step has been taken toward ensuring a delegated project goes even better next time.

Final Thought: Delegate to Elevate

Effective management is not about managers finding ways to do more. Rather, effective managers enable more to be done. Delegation is how leaders scale, how organizations grow, and how people develop.

So next time your plate is full, don’t ask, “How can I get all this done?” Ask instead, “Who else can grow by taking this on?”

References

Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources (3rd ed.) New Jersey/Prentice Hall.

McGregor, D. (1960). Theory X and theory Y. Organization Theory, 358(374), 5.

Coffee and Grain Marketing Zoom to be held on May 16 at 7:30 a.m.

OSU Extension invites grain producers and industry personnel to attend the quarterly grain market conversation with Dr. Seungki Lee, Assistant Professor in the Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics (AEDE) on Friday, May 16  from 7:30 – 8:00 a.m.

During this Zoom webinar, Dr. Lee will provide his insights on the May 2025 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) Crop Report which is scheduled to be released on May 12. This early morning webinar will be a great way for Ohio farmers to learn more about the factors impacting the corn, soybean, and wheat markets. Producers are encouraged to bring their questions to this early morning conversation.

CoffeewithSeungkiLee2025-final

There is no fee to attend this quarterly webinar session. Pre-registration can be made at go.osu.edu/coffeewithDrLee

These webinars are sponsored by: OSU Extension, Farm Financial Management & Policy Institute (FFMPI), and Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics (AEDE).

2025 Second Quarter Fertilizer Prices Across Ohio

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

Click here to read PDF version of this article

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

The survey found the average prices of fertilizer were lower in Ohio compared to the national prices for all major fertilizers except DAP. However, only two were significantly lower (more than 5%): 28% UAN was 10% lower and 10-34-0 APP was 6% lower than the national average. The national average price for DAP was the same as in Ohio.

When compared to prices from the last quarter’s Ohio survey, three fertilizers were up significantly (more than 5%): 28% UAN, up to $341/ton from $292/ton; urea, up to $561/ton from $491/ton; and potash, up to $449/ton from $415/ton.

When compared to the April 2024 average Ohio prices, the April 2025 average Ohio prices were slightly lower for anhydrous, 28% UAN, MAP, DAP, and potash. Ammonium sulfate is the only product that saw a significant price increase (+20.2%) in the last year.  Urea, ammonium thiosulfate, and poultry litter remained relatively unchanged (+/-1%) from one year ago.

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. Second Quarter 2025 Ohio Fertilizer Prices

Product Responses

(n)

Sale Type Min

$/ton

Max

$/ton

Avg

$/ton

NH3 7 FOB Plant 740 800 763
UAN 28-0-0 9 Direct to Farm 315 375 341
Urea 46-0-0 9 FOB Plant 535 575 561
MAP 11-52-0 9 FOB Plant 760 830 790
DAP18-46-0 4 FOB Plant 760 795 778
APP 10-34-0 7 Direct to Farm 461 690 617
Potash 0-0-60 9 FOB Plant 425 465 449
Ammonium Sulfate 21-0-0-24 9 FOB Plant 535 625 576
Thio-Sulfate 12-0-0-26 9 FOB Plant 356 395 383
Poultry Litter 4 Delivered and applied, < 25 miles 50 65 57

 

Due to low responses, diesel fuel prices were not included in Quarter 2 survey results. If you are a retailer interested in participating in this study, please contact Amanda Bennett at bennett.709@osu.edu.

References

Quinn, R. 2025. DTN Retail Fertilizer Trends. DTN Progressive Farmer. Accessed online April 16, 2025 at https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/crops/article/2025/04/16/three-fertilizers-lead-prices-higher

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

 

Farm Office Live Webinar Schedule for April 25 at 10:00 a.m.

We’re preparing for another edition of our monthly webinar, Farm Office Live, on Friday, April 25 at 10 a.m.  Our featured guest this month is Dr. Margaret Jodlowski, Asst. Professor in the Dept. of Agricultural Environmental and Development Economics, who will discuss farm labor issues with us.  Our remaining agenda features the Farm Office team addressing these topics:

  • Strategies for Developing the Next Leader of Your Farm Operation – David Marrison, Farm Management Field Specialist
  • Crop Profit Outlook – Barry Ward, Production Business Management Leader
  • Farm Business Analysis Update – Clint Schroeder, Farm Business Analysis Program Manager
  • State and Federal Legislative Update – Peggy Hall, Agricultural & Resource Law Program Director
  • New Laws: Paystub Protection Act and Operation of Drones – Jeff Lewis, Agricultural & Resource Law/Tax Schools Attorney
  • Tax Update: Are Avian Flu Indemnifications Exempt? – Barry Ward and Jeff Lewis
  • Upcoming Events and Deadlines – David Marrison

Join in for this free webinar by registering at farmoffice.osu.edu/farmofficelive, where replays of previous webinars are also available. We hope to see you there!