Should I Continue Farming?

by:  Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, ANR- Tuscarawas County

 It’s no secret that all of agriculture is suffering from years of low commodity prices and rising input costs. The economic struggles have affected you financially and physically. You’ve looked at the numbers, met with advisors, and talked to family.   The thought of selling part or your entire farm brings with it added worry and concern. What can you do?

Find someone you trust and with whom you feel comfortable discussing your situation. This person may not have many answers to your questions, but they can listen to your frustrations and worries. They may be able to help you sort through the confusion and develop a course of action. Think of your situation as a picture – a set of eyes looking at the picture from the outside may see things you can’t because you are caught up in the picture.

Understand that you are not alone. Nearly every farm and farm family is in a similar situation. Don’t live in the past or dwell on what could or should have been done. Take control of the situation and develop a plan for managing the things you are able to control.

Assessment

Evaluate your financial position by meeting with your lender to discuss options for restructuring debt. Can you extend the repayment terms to provide more cash flow? Contact your Extension Educator about completing a FINPACK analysis (https://farmprofitability.osu.edu/).

What are your Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Rewarding, and Timed (SMART) goals? How are your goals similar and different from those of family and/or business partners?

Develop a list of your education, experiences, and skills. How can you use these in another career? What career opportunities fit you best?

Evaluation

If you come to the decision that selling all or part of your farm is the best option, there are several items to address. Begin with a balance sheet and other financial information to understand your present financial situation. Doing so will help you decide how much money (and approximate number of assets) you must sell. You may want to meet with an appraiser, auctioneer, or real estate professional for help determining the expected value of assets.

Professionals

Your attorney can answer questions and advise you about legal considerations related to a sale. An accountant will help minimize your tax liability and give an estimate of what you may expect to pay in taxes.

Help is Available

There are people and agencies/organizations that can help with the transition and the emotions that come with the sale. Clergy, licensed counselors, and medical professionals can help you cope. Other sources of help include:

Ohio State University Extension (extension.osu.edu)

National Suicide Prevention (1-800-273-8255)

National Alliance for Mental Illness (1-800-950-6264)

Ohio Workforce Training (ohio.gov/working/training)

Ohio Job & Family Services, Office of Workforce Development (jfs.ohio.gov/owd)

Additional Information

Coming to the decision to sell all or a part of your farm is not an easy decision. Find someone with good listening skills. Talk to professionals, reach out for help, get answers, and make the best possible decisions. More information about this subject is available at https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/anr-71.

 

Suggestions for Managing Stress

by: Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, Agriculture & Natural Resources

You have faced several years of poor commodity prices, depressed milk prices, increased input costs, and wet weather. You have looked for areas to reduce costs, evaluated options, implemented changes…and the financial stress continues to take a toll on your physical and mental health. What can you do?

Mindset

According to the Michigan State University Extension publication “How to Create a Productive Mindset,”…The mind has 70,000 thoughts per day…that’s 70,000 opportunities. The brain is about two percent of your body weight – but uses 20 percent of your energy. Eighty percent of repetitive thoughts are negative, but don’t have to be.

In addition to the Michigan State University Extension publication mentioned earlier, Iowa State University Extension Dairy Specialists Dr. Fred Hall and Dr. Larry Tranel provide the following suggestions for coping with stress:

  • Self-Talk – remind yourself that you have been through difficult times before and will do so again.
  • Choose words like “calm”, “capable”, and “controlled” to maintain a positive mindset.
  • Use deep breathing – do this five times and release slowly.
  • Accept the situation and focus on solutions instead of focusing on the problem.
  • Avoid negative people.
  • Check in on your friends and family. Men generally don’t communicate as well as women. Phone calls or texts to friends and family are simple gestures that can be very comforting and meaningful.
  • Don’t shut out family – communicate with members about your worries and concerns. Family can provide support.

Advisory Team

Assemble a team of professionals to help you analyze your situation and provide suggestions. The team may include your veterinarian, nutritionist, agronomist, lender, accountant, attorney, and Extension Educator. Have these professionals come together to review your past performance, present situation, and goals for the near and short-term. Each professional brings a different perspective to the meeting based on his or her experiences and can be a valuable resource to analyze, answer questions, and provide recommendations.

Plan

What are your plans for the short-term and long-term? What Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Rewarding, and Timed (SMART) goals will get you where you want to be? Do other members of your family share the same vision?

What if you decide to exit the dairy business? Do you have a written exit plan? There is life after exiting the business. Talk to your attorney and accountant about the sale and tax liabilities.

Seek Professional Help

There are trained counselors in or near your community available to help. These professionals provide confidential counseling and can suggest options to best manage your situation. Names of counselors available in your area are available by contacting your physician, local health department, pastor, or conducting an online search. Do not be ashamed to seek help!

Summary

The items presented here are not going to increase milk prices or lower input costs. However, understanding your mindset, assembling an advisory team, developing a plan, and, if necessary, reaching out to use the services of professional counselors can help you better understand your situation and make well-informed decisions.

Sources:

Ohio State University Extension Dairy Team, publications available at: https://dairy.osu.edu/

Helping Farm Men Under Crisis, Dr. Larry Tranel, Dairy Specialist, Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Market Reality, Stress, and Grief, Dr. Fred Hall, Dairy Specialist, Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

How to Cultivate a Productive Mindset, Michigan State University Extension, msue.msu.edu/managingstress

 

This article was originally published in the Farm and Dairy, February 28, 2019

 

Grain Marketing Webinars Offered

Do you want to do a better job of pricing your corn and soybeans? Is grain marketing a confusing and daunting task? If so, this webinar is for you!

Ohio State University Extension is offering a two-session webinar focused on helping farmers become better grain marketers. Participants will have a better understanding of risk, marketing tools, and the development of written marketing plans. These workshops are funded through a North Central Risk Management Education Grant.  Additional information can be found at http://go.osu.edu/grainplan.

Participants will learn to identify their personal risk tolerance and their farm’s financial risk capacity. Both of these are important in developing a successful grain marketing plan. Participants will also learn how crop insurance products effect marketing decisions and effect risk capacity. Grain marketing consists of understanding and managing many pieces of information. Information on the different grain marketing contracts will be presented. These include basis, hedging, cash, futures, and option contracts.  Additionally, participants will be provided an example of a grain marketing plan and the fundamental principles that should be included.

The courses will be offered on two consecutive Tuesdays, starting on March 12, 2019.  For specific times, as well as program registration instruction, go to http://go.osu.edu/grainwebinar. Cost for the program is $30.00.

To request additional information or have questions answered, contact Amanda Bennett at 937-440-3945 or at bennett.709@osu.edu

Central Ohio Precision Ag Symposium

The Central Ohio Precision Ag Symposium will be held on Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at All Occasions Catering 6986 Waldo-Delaware Rd., Waldo Ohio from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. This year’s program will feature the most current technologies available in precision agriculture. These topics will be shared by some of the leading university and industry Precision Ag experts.

This year’s program opens with a discussion regarding where we are in Precision Ag today – “The Adoption of Precision Ag Technologies” – Jack Zemlicka, Ag Division Content Director Lessiter Media and ends with a look into the crystal ball – “The Future of Precision Ag” – Dr. Scott Shearer, The Ohio State University.

Data management is a “hot “topic in today precision agriculture. Dr. John Fulton will share his insights on “Data Considerations in Today’s Crop Production”. You will learn about data security and who can/has access to your data at afternoon breakout sessions from Climate-Fieldview, Agleader–Agfinity, and My JohnDeere. Learn about the value of your data and opportunities for selling your data at one of the Farm Mobile breakout sessions.

Artificial intelligence is changing our industry. Tim Norris will discuss “AI” and share insights from Knox County’s first autonomous tractor. “AI” will be part of several other afternoon breakout sessions as well. New datum changes are scheduled for 2022. Jeff Jalbrzikowski will explain how this change could potentially affect our current maps and GPS positioning files.

“To be the premier source of research-based information in the age of digital agriculture” is the vision of the Ohio State Digital Ag Program. Dr. Elizabeth Hawkins will discuss the nearly 100 OSU on-farm research trials conducted throughout Ohio in 2018. Everyone in attendance will receive a copy of the 2018 eFields Report.

Afternoon breakout sessions will include manufacturing and technology updates including how to get the most from your in-cab displays from John Deere, Case IH AFS, Precision Planting, Capstan, AGCO, New Holland and Soil Max.

$50 registration fee includes a buffet lunch, breaks and a notebook containing all presentations. Seating is limited, registration deadline is December 28, 2018.

This program is sponsored by The Ohio State University Extension, AgInfoTech, Advantage Ag & Equipment, Ag Leader, B&B Farm Service, Beck’s, Capstan, Centerra Co-op, Central Ohio Farmers Co-op, Channel, Clark Seeds, Climate Corp., Evolution Ag, Farm Credit Services, Farm Mobile, First Knox National Bank, JD Equipment, Ohio Ag Equipment, Precision Planting, Seed Consultants, Smart Ag and Soil-Max.

To download registration form click on Central Ohio Precision Ag Flyer

Ohio State University Extension On-Farm Energy Demand Monitoring Project

Chris Zoller –Extension Educator, ANR & Eric Romich- Extension Field Specialist, Energy Education

Greater automation on farms has resulted in an increase in energy consumption on many farms. Due to increased electrical usage, many farms are now billed on a commercial rate structure. Unlike residential rates, which are based primarily on total energy usage measured in kilowatt hours (kWh), commercial accounts are also charged for the highest peak demand usage spike over a short time period measured in kilowatts (kW).

Ohio State University Extension secured grant funding to investigate how peak energy demand affects livestock facilities and, in turn, the manner by which farmers can implement energy management strategies, and make investments in equipment to minimize costs and promote long-term sustainability. We have equipment installed on six university and/or private swine and dairy farms across the state. Monitoring equipment installation was finalized earlier this year and we have begun collecting data from each cooperating farm. OSU Extension personnel involved in the project include Eric Romich, Tim Barnes, Rory Lewandowski, Eric Richer, Dale Ricker, and Chris Zoller.

While we are have not collected enough data to make any specific recommendations, we have a few months of data collected that has provided us the opportunity to make sure our monitoring equipment is functioning properly. As data is collected, it is shared with faculty and students in the Ohio State University College of Computer and Electrical Engineering. Students and faculty in the college analyze the data to develop a model that will help us interpret the findings.

Click Here to Access Full Report Which Shows Results

Observations

Many farmers are aware if they are on a demand rate. However, fewer farmers fully understand the details of how their demand charges are calculated including monthly measured demand formulas, power factor correction penalties, and if they are charged a minimum monthly demand based on seasonal spikes. These specific electric rate details greatly influence possible solution strategies.

Based on the preliminary data, there appears to be some motor loads that can be shifted (load shifting) to perform work during times when other critical motor loads are idle, thus reducing demand charges. Ultimately, energy management strategies to reduce demand cost will likely include a mixture of energy conservation, energy efficiency technologies, programmable logic controls and timers to preform load shifting, and possible on-site electric generation.

Summary

Obviously, farmers are interested in ways to reduce energy operational cost. However, before making investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy equipment, it is important to understand how you are charged for electricity. Some farms are still on residential electric rate tariffs and their bills are relatively easy to understand. However, because farms are using more electric, many farms are now on commercial electric rate tariffs that are more complex. Taking the time to investigate your rate tariff and analyze your consumption patterns will help you prioritize potential energy savings solutions, providing you the greatest return on your investment.

It’s almost that time of year … Don’t forget to calibrate your yield monitor!

Source: John Barker, OSU Extension – Knox County

Remember the old adage … Garbage in = Garbage out. Many of us use our yield data to make additional management decisions on our farms such as hybrid or variety selection, fertilizer applications, marketing, etc. Data from an uncalibrated yield monitor can haunt us for many years by leading us into improper decisions with lasting financial affects. In today’s Ag economy we can ill afford any decision with adverse financial implications.

The two biggest reasons I usually hear for not calibrating a yield monitor are 1) I just don’t have time to do it or 2) I can’t remember how to do it without getting my manual out. While i know it’s easy to criticize from “the cheap seats”, I would argue that this could be some of the most important time you spend in your farming operation each year. Like many other tasks on our farm, the more we do it, the easier it gets. To learn more read 2018 Yield Monitor Calibration

Understanding the Generational Differences

by: Chris Zoller, Extension Educator, ANR in Tuscarawas County

We hear about and read labels for different generations and we know there are differences among them.  What do the differences mean if you are managing people from different generations?  Depending upon the publication you read or with whom you speak, there may be a slight difference in birth start and end years, but the following table provides some general guidelines.

Generation Name Births Start Births End Age Range
Baby Boomer 1946 1964 72 – 54 yrs. old
Generation X (the lost generation) 1965 1985 53 – 33 yrs. Old
Generation Y (Millenials) 1980 1994 38 – 24 yrs. Old
Generation Z

(the unknown)

1995 2012 23 – 6 yrs. Old
Generation Alpha 2013 2025 5

 

Each generation has its thoughts, beliefs, and ideals with respect to a number of items.  What are the differences with respect to employment?  It’s not accurate or fair to say that every person who falls into a particular generational category is the same.  However, general statements can be made about each generation.

Generational Differences:

  Baby Boomers Generation X Generation Y
Business Focus Long Hours Productivity Contribution
Work Ethic & Values Loyal

Question authority

Strive to be their best

Value ambition, collaboration, equality, personal growth, & teamwork

Work efficiently

Want respect from younger workers

Willing to take risks

Care more about work/life balance

Work/family balance is important

Like a casual work environment

Outcome oriented

Output focused

Rely on technology

Work ethic no longer mandates 10 hr. work days

Criticized for not being loyal to a particular job/employer

Believe technology allows them to work flexibly

Work ethic no longer mandates 10 hr. work days

High expectation to be mentored

Goal oriented

Looking for meaningful work

Obsessed with career development

Prefer diversity, informality, technology, and fun

Thrive on collaboration

Training is important

Preferred Work Environment Humane

Equal opportunity

Warm, friendly

Functional, positive, & fun

Fast paced & flexible

Access to leadership

Access to information

Collaborative

Creative

Positive

Diverse

Fun, flexible, want continuous feedback

 

Work is…

 

Exciting

A career

Work & then retire

 

Difficult challenge

Just a job

 

A means to an end

Fulfillment

Flexible work arrangements

 

What They are Looking for in a Job

Ability to “shine”

Make a contribution

Team approach

Need clear and concise job expectations

Dynamic leaders

Cutting edge with technology

Flexible scheduling

Input valued on merit, not age/seniority

Must see the reason for the task

Want to be challenged

Treated with respect

Friendly environments

Flexible scheduling

Expect to be paid well

Want to make a difference

As a product of the “drop down and click menu”, may need to be given options

Work Ethic Driven

Workaholic – 60 hr. weeks

Quality

Balance

Not work long hours

Self-reliant

Skeptical

Ambitious

What’s next?

Multitasking

Entrepreneurial

View on Work/Life Balance Hesitant to take time off – result is an imbalance between work & family More focus on maintaining a balance

Don’t worry about losing their place if they take time off

Flex time, job sharing

Balance work, life, and community involvement

(Source: www.wmfc.org/uploads/GenerationalDifferencesChart)

 

So what does this mean for agricultural employers?

  • The Baby Boomer generation is reaching retirement age.
  • Generations X and Y have a different outlook on work and family life as compared to previous generations. The more recent generations place a greater value on maintaining a balance between family and work.  Workers in these generations are less likely to willingly work extra hours.  They are not workaholics like the Baby Boomer generation.
  • Flexibility is a key word when it comes to Generation X and Y. Members of this generation want to be able to attend their son or daughter’s baseball game or have dinner with their family and then return to work.
  • Money may not be the motivating factor for some in Generation X or Y. Members in these groups often want flex scheduling, to collaborate with others, and not perform routine tasks.
  • Generations X and Y have a greater focus on technology. This can be a real plus to a farm as the use of technology grows.  These generations are much more familiar with and accepting of technology.
  • Generations Z and Alpha are too young to make any conclusions. However, we do know that these generations are heavily focused on technology.  Stay tuned…

The article is an introduction to the topic of understanding the differences across the generations.  Each generation brings with it challenges and opportunities.  As you think about your next employee or the next generation to enter your business, what factors must you consider? Use the information provided here as you plan for additions to your farm team.

(Sources: www.wmfc.org/uploads/GenerationalDifferencesChart; https://www.forbes.com/sites/deeppatel/2017/09/21/8-ways-generation-z-will-differ-from-millennials-in-the-workplace/#34be355576e5)

(Note: This article was published originally in the Farm and Dairy, July 26, 2018)

Ohio Farm Custom Rates 2018

Part 1: Soil Preparation, Fertilizer Application, Spraying Pesticides, Mechanical Weed Control, Aerial Applications, Planting Operations, Harvest Operations, Grain Drying and Storage, Hay Harvest

by: Barry Ward, Leader, Production Business Management, Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics & John Barker, Extension Educator Agriculture/Amos Program, County Director, Ohio State University Extension Knox County

Farming is a complex business and many Ohio farmers utilize outside assistance for specific farm-related work. This option is appealing for tasks requiring specialized equipment or technical expertise. Often, having someone else with specialized tools perform a tasks is more cost effective and saves time. Farm work completed by others is often referred to as “custom farm work” or more simply, “custom work”. A “custom rate” is the amount agreed upon by both parties to be paid by the custom work customer to the custom work provider.

Ohio Farm Custom Rates

This survey summary reports custom rates based on a statewide survey of 352 farmers, custom operators, farm managers, and landowners conducted in 2018. These rates, except where noted, include the implement and tractor if required, all variable machinery costs such as fuel, oil, lube, twine, etc., and the labor for the operation.

Some custom rates published in this study vary widely, possibly influenced by:

  • Type or size of equipment used (e.g. 20-shank chisel plow versus a 6-shank)
  • Size and shape of fields,
  • Condition of the crop (for harvesting operations)
  • Skill level of labor
  • Amount of labor needed in relation to the equipment capabilities
  • Cost margin differences for full-time custom operators compared to farmers supplementing current income

Some custom rates reflect discounted rates as the parties involved have family relationships or are strengthening a relationship to help secure the custom farmed land in a cash or other rental agreement. Some providers charge differently because they are simply attempting to spread their fixed costs over more acreage to decrease fixed costs per acre and are willing to forgo complete cost recovery.

The measures shown in the summary tables are the summaries of the survey respondents. The measures are the average (or mean), range, median, minimum, and maximum. Average custom rates reported in this publication are a simple average of all the survey responses. Range identified in the tables consists of two numbers. The first is the average plus the standard deviation, which is the variability of the data from the average measure. The second number of the range is the average minus the standard deviation. The median represents the middle value in the survey responses. The minimum and maximum reported in the table are the minimum and maximum amounts reported from the survey data for a given custom operation.

The complete summary of part 1 is available online at the Farmoffice website:

https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-management-tools/custom-rates-and-machinery-costs

 

 

 

Economic Contribution of Agricultural and Food Production Cluster to Ohio Economy – County Level Analysis

 

Contributors: Ben Brown, Ryan Brune, Connor Frame, and Megan Ritter

Click here for the entire PDF Article for the County Level Report

In November of 2017, researchers in the Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics released The Economic Contribution of Agricultural and Food Production to the Ohio Economy report with analysis of Ohio’s entire Agricultural and Food Production Cluster. Details of that report are included, but this serves as a parallel analysis of agriculture to each of Ohio’s eighty-eight counties. Key results match initial assumptions in those counties with large concentrations of equipment manufacturing, professional services and diary & milk production led total economic contribution by the production agriculture subsector. In addition, counties containing relatively high food processing see the largest total sector contributions, and that counties with relatively small populations experience a higher percentage of employers involved in food and agriculture related careers. Large population centers within Cuyahoga, Franklin and Hamilton counties produced high economic contributions, but had low total population participation in agriculture. Data obtained from IMPLAN, a North Carolina based economic software company, provided the most recent total values, while the North American Industry Classification System was used to determine the percent agriculture contributed to each sector. The IMPLAN model estimates value added for 536 separate subsectors within Ohio’s economy. Unlike the statewide report, these county level calculations do not include the contribution from restaurants and bars. It also includes Farm Inputs, Equipment and Farm Professional Services in the agricultural production subsector.

Key findings in the statewide report: Ohio’s Agricultural and Food Production Cluster plus Restaurant and Bars account for $1 in every $13 of Ohio’s GSP and 1 in 8 jobs in Ohio. Each county differed in these ratios, but as expected large population counties were negatively correlated with small population counties in economic contribution and percentage of workforce involved in agriculture. The total statewide economic value added contribution of the Agricultural and Food Production Cluster minus Restaurants and Bars was $32.5 billion dollars and accounted for a little over 5 percent of the state’s gross state product. Value added being the sum of sales minus input costs for each sector. Example: corn production minus seed, fertilizer, ext. The sector employed 402,874 Ohioans in 2015 and because of purchases outside the cluster; a multiplier of 1.6 was used for every dollar of valued added making the total contribution $53 billion. Multipliers are a way of capturing the money spent within Ohio made from an agricultural sector that is then used to purchase additional products, like household items, into the economic contribution.

Declining commodity prices for corn, soybeans and milk in recent years have lowered the value added contribution of some counties, especially those that have corn, soybeans and milk ranked in the top three subsectors. Other subsectors including fruit and vegetable production have shown an increase to the value added contribution. Along with decreasing commodity prices, increasing productivity due to technology advancements have correlated with a decrease in employment within agriculture and food production. Ohio’s characteristic as a top agriculture producing state remains strong, but external factors like increasing pressure on land values could be seen as a potential challenge for the production agriculture subsector.

The three main divisions of the Agricultural and Food Production Cluster: Agricultural Production, Agricultural and Food Processing and Food Wholesale/Retail are included in Table 1 with subsectors broken out under their respective division. Different from the statewide report is the inclusion of Farm Inputs, Equipment and Professional Services under the division of Agricultural Production instead of an isolated division.

Table 1: Classification of Sectors

Agricultural Production Agricultural and Food Processing Food Wholesale/ Retail  
Farm Inputs, Equipment and Professional Services Processed Meat, Fish, Poultry & Eggs Food and Forestry Wholesale
Dairy Cattle and Milk Production Dairy Processing Food and Forestry Retail
Beef Cattle Production

 

Processed Food & Kindred Products
Poultry & Egg Production

 

Grain Milling & Flour
Hogs & Other Farm Animals Fats & Oils Processing
Grain Production

 

Beverage Processing
Soybeans & Other Oil Seeds Wood/ Paper/ Furniture Manufacturing
Misc. Crops, Hay, Sugar, Tobacco & Nuts
Fruit & Vegetable Production
Greenhouse, Nursery & Floriculture Production
Forestry, Hunting & Fishing
Sum of Agriculture Production Sum of Food Processing Sum of Food Wholesale/ Retail Total Agricultural and Food Production Cluster

 

Starting with Total Value Added from the Agriculture and Food Production Cluster it is not surprising to see in Figure 1 that the top five counties also match five counties with large population centers. With Franklin, Hamilton, and Cuyahoga counties being the location of Columbus, Cincinnati, and Cleveland respectively, it was expected and found that the contribution of production agriculture in terms of both value added and employment was the smallest division contributor, with food processing being the largest contributing division in Franklin, Hamilton, Butler, and Stark Counties. Food wholesale/ retail was the largest contributing division for Cuyahoga County.  Statewide, the food processing sector was the largest contributing division at $14,986 million and 2.43% of the states’ Gross State Product (GSP).

Franklin County had a high food processing contribution due to the beverage processing sector at $916 million. Notable companies in the area include Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc., BrewDog USA, Coca-Cola and others according to the Columbus Economic Development Annual Report. Employment within the Cluster was also largely contributed from the beverage processing subsector. For Hamilton county, the beverage processing subsector was also the largest contribution to the food processing division. Boston Beer Company, the parent company of Sam Adams Beer, and The J.M. Smuckers Co., parent company to Folgers Coffee are major contributors to the subsector. Boston Beer Company produces 20 percent of all Sam Adams Beer within Hamilton County. Cuyahoga County was the lone county in the top five where the top contributing division was Food Wholesale/Retail. Multiple subsectors in this division contributed to the large value, but noticeable was the smaller value for the beverage processing subsector in the Food Processing division. Analysis was not conducted across all 88 counties, but based on the top total value added counties, counties with large beverage processing subsectors had food processing divisions that made up the largest portion of the county’s Agricultural and Food Cluster contribution. While Cuyahoga, Franklin and Hamilton Counties are only 3 out of 88, the population represents roughly 29 percent of Ohio’s population based on U.S. Census Bureau data and make up a large portion of the Cluster’s impact to Ohio.

Figure 1: Top Five Value Added Counties

In Figure 1, counties producing the largest total values of economic contribution from agriculture and food were identified, and it isn’t surprising that counties with relatively large total economies also had the largest contributions of agriculture. However, in none of the top five producing counties was production agriculture the top contributing division. To look at the relative value of production agriculture to a county’s economy we can use the value added from agricultural production as a percent of the counties total economic output and indeed counties with larger agricultural output in regards to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) do rise to the top.  However, this should not be interpreted as the five counties with the largest total value contribution from production agriculture. The 2016-2017 Ohio Agricultural Statistics Annual Bulletin shows that land use for agricultural purposes in Mercer, Darke, Paulding, Putnam and Union Counties are 93%, 89%, 83%, 99% and 88% respectively, where land use is the sum of cropland, pastureland, and woodland. Figure 2 illustrates where the five counties lie within Ohio.

Figure 2: Top Five Counties

County agriculture contribution profiles for Mercer and Darke counties were similar as both counties had the same two subsectors contributing the majority of value added products to the county economies: Poultry & Egg Production and Pork Production. For Paulding and Putnam counties there was not a specific subsector that stood above the rest, but more of a balanced distribution. Soybeans & Other Oil Crops had relatively high values for both counties. In contrast, Union County had a top contributing subsector of Farm Inputs, Equipment & Other Professional services that made up 9% of the entire counties economy. This subsector made up 90% of the contribution of the Agricultural and Food Cluster.

While one indication of contribution to a county’s economy is through the value added calculation, another indicator is the number of people employed with-in the Cluster. Similar to the total contribution illustration above in Figure 1, counties with high food processing and relatively large populations also have the largest total number of employment in agriculture, but have a low percentage in relation to the entire county population. Figure 3, identifies the five counties with the highest percentage of the population involved in the Agriculture and Food Cluster. As seen above, Franklin County had the largest total value added to the economy and the highest employment at almost 38 thousand people, but represents roughly 4% of the counties workforce. Whereas Jackson County did not make the top five in total value added contribution, but has 25 percent of its workforce involved in the Cluster.

Figure 3: Percent of Population involved in Agriculture and Food

Summary

Understanding components of the statewide economy are important, as trends within the sector help identify strengths and weaknesses. However, county analysis helps those within and around the industry become stronger more informed decision makers in issues relevant to the Agricultural and Food Production Cluster. Not surprising, counties with larger populations had the highest total value added contribution to the county’s economy and the highest number of employees within the work force, but had lower percentages of the county total in values and employees to those counties with small populations. In counties with large value added from the entire cluster, Food Processing was the largest contributing division for the majority of counties in the top five. A strong beverage-processing subsector helped elevate the Food Processing division for these counties.  Isolating the Production Agriculture division including Farm Inputs, Equipment and Professional Services as a percent of the county’s total economy identified five counties that have relatively high land use in agriculture and high total sales from agriculture commodities.

Individual county fact sheets for all eighty-eight Ohio counties are listed here:

https://aede.osu.edu/research/osu-farm-management/agricultural-impact/contribution-agriculture-county

Appendix I. includes a list of counties and their value of total contribution, value of production agriculture contribution, and employment. State rankings are in parentheses.

References:

“Columbus Region: Food and Beverage.” Columbus 2020, 2017.

DiCarolis, Janice. et al. The Economic Contribution of Agricultural and Food Production to the Ohio Economy. 2017.

IMPLAN. 2017. 2015 Ohio state data package. www.implan.com

Turner, Cheryl, and Brooke Morris. Ohio Agricultural Statistics 2016-2017 Annual Bulletin. USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2017.

US Census. 2017a. County Business Profiles. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp.html

  Agriculture Production Value Added Ag Production % of Employment Total Cluster Value Added Total % of Employment
Adams $26,132,407 (72) 10% (5) $56,773,236 (77) 14% (13)
Allen $78,125,934 (19) 2% (65) $319,126,539 (24) 7% (64)
Ashland $74,074,340 (24) 5% (36) $184,902,491 (48) 10% (38)
Ashtabula $46,313,267 (52) 3% (56) $170,069,071 (50) 8% (59)
Athens $10,832,931 (82) 2% (63) $84,474,544 (69) 6% (74)
Auglaize $71,793,513 (25) 4% (39) $265,307,529 (34) 10% (33)
Belmont $48,773,321 (50) 3% (58) $145,203,550 (55) 8% (54)
Brown $32,761,777 (68) 7% (20) $61,715,467 (76) 11% (28)
Butler $49,768,789 (48) 1% (81) $1,323,431,575 (4) 6% (73)
Carroll $27,087,761 (71) 6% (22) $52,115,212 (78) 10% (37)
Champaign $41,533,589 (62) 5% (28) $106,563,182 (65) 11% (30)
Clark $49,500,983 (49) 2% (69) $287,447,821 (29) 7% (62)
Clermont $38,145,667 (65) 2% (70) $290,746,554 (27) 6% (75)
Clinton $53,920,762 (42) 4% (42) $132,673,146 (57) 8% (51)
Columbiana $56,804,685 (35) 3% (54) $264,737,172 (35) 9% (41)
Coshocton $60,830,386 (31) 7% (17) $187,589,390 (47) 15% (7)
Crawford $56,705,986 (37) 4% (40) $94,785,325 (67) 8% (57)
Cuyahoga $97,944,901 (9) >1% (86) $2,870,230,295 (3) 4% (88)
Darke $239,806,461 (4) 8% (12) $301,799,993 (25) 12% (23)
Defiance $74,738,470 (21) 5% (33) $132,202,917 (58) 9% (43)
Delaware $71,115,273 (26) 1% (78) $414,656,942 (15) 5% (81)
Erie $40,597,271 (64) 2% (62) $168,143,020 (51) 6% (68)
Fairfield $57,092,509 (34) 2% (64) $286,483,386 (30) 7% (66)
Fayette $41,430,653 (63) 4% (44) $203,165,951 (45) 13% (19)
Franklin $163,203,968 (5) > 1% (87) $4,233,913,386 (1) 4% (86)
Fulton $74,574,695 (22) 5% (34) $195,829,037 (46) 10% (32)
Gallia $15,592,444 (77) 6% (27) $37,233,957 (81) 8% (49)
Geauga $56,208,056 (38) 3% (61) $237,554,367 (40) 7% (63)
Greene $43,688,591 (56) 1% (77) $215,452,629 (43) 4% (83)
Guernsey $20,965,101 (75) 6% (26) $74,530,511 (72) 10% (35)
Hamilton $111,589,093 (8) >1% (88) $3,094,701,906 (2) 4% (85)
Hancock $56,118,896 (39) 2% (67) $385,962,349 (18) 9% (46)
Hardin $82,800,471 (14) 8% (13) $138,666,355 (56) 15% (11)
Harrison $10,621,659 (83) 7% (18) $28,975,047 (84) 13% (16)
Henry $54,239,652 (41) 6% (24) $334,766,774 (21) 18% (3)
Highland $45,616,926 (55) 9% (9) $76,818,531 (71) 13% (18)
Hocking $6,799,259 (87) 5% (32) $47,538,393 (79) 12% (22)
Holmes $132,411,907 (7) 7% (16) $385,876,069 (19) 22% (2)
Huron $89,862,265 (11) 5% (37) $324,490,460 (22) 11% (26)
Jackson $22,937,105 (74) 4% (47) $239,977,669 (39) 25% (1)
Jefferson $9,879,886 (84) 2% (71) $79,391,785 (70) 6% (69)
Knox $50,521,887 (47) 5% (30) $122,081,622 (62) 10% (34)
Lake $82,942,001 (13) 1% (80) $630,592,252 (10) 6% (76)
Lawrence $6,325,381 (88) 4% (41) $40,616,956 (80) 8% (55)
  Agriculture Production Value Added Ag Production % of Employment Total Cluster Value Added Total % of Employment
Licking $80,959,369 (17) 3% (57) $290,176,991 (28) 7% (61)
Logan $47,525,570 (51) 4% (45) $129,164,871 (61) 8% (58)
Lorain $75,209,443 (20) 1%  (73) $376,334,667 (20) 5% (78)
Lucas $65,557,760 (29) >1% (84) $745,401,227 (9) 4% (87)
Madison $69,435,722 (27) 4% (38) $113,507,126 (64) 8% (53)
Mahoning $43,627,477 (57) 1% (82) $413,002,404 (16) 5% (80)
Marion $82,089,222 (16) 3% (50) $261,902,767 (36) 10% (36)
Medina $67,362,783 (28) 2% (72) $492,849,630 (13) 6% (67)
Meigs $12,179,096 (81) 9% (6) $22,478,977 (87) 13% (17)
Mercer $287,020,607 (2) 7% (15) $486,428,489 (14) 16% (5)
Miami $41,628,715 (61) 3% (59) $320,490,163 (23) 9% (44)
Monroe $13,856,148 (79) 12% (2) $21,979,543 (88) 15% (12)
Montgomery $53,434,618 (43) >1% (83) $965,102,826 (8) 4% (84)
Morgan $13,011,573 (80) 9% (8) $23,902,013 (86) 14% (14)
Morrow $42,743,432 (59) 9% (7) $70,494,294 (73) 12% (20)
Muskingum $30,721,596 (70) 3% (55) $272,726,649 (33) 8% (47)
Noble $8,823,935 (85) 10% (4) $29,242,985 (83) 16% (6)
Ottawa $42,511,100 (60) 4% (43) $89,869,973 (68) 8% (56)
Paulding $54,709,543 (40) 12% (1) $66,561,674 (75) 15% (9)
Perry $14,860,292 (78) 8% (14) $30,646,479 (82) 12% (24)
Pickaway $58,449,378 (33) 5% (29) $104,937,335 (66) 9% (42)
Pike $20,526,229 (76) 4% (48) $69,036,918 (74) 11% (25)
Portage $33,902,467 (66) 1% (75) $282,939,009 (31) 5% (79)
Preble $52,009,567 (46) 9% (10) $171,486,943 (49) 15% (10)
Putnam $145,093,953 (6) 10% (3) $299,022,297 (26) 13% (15)
Richland $60,865,434 (30) 2% (66) $241,549,299 (38) 6% (72)
Ross $33,267,855 (67) 3% (52) $281,600,791 (32) 10% (39)
Sandusky $74,346,534 (23) 3% (53) $212,843,255 (44) 8% (48)
Scioto $24,304,785 (73) 3% (51) $117,445,217 (63) 7% (60)
Seneca $56,748,780 (36) 6% (25) $153,350,740 (52) 10% (31)
Shelby $80,446,033 (18) 3% (49) $226,462,435 (42) 9% (45)
Stark $82,669,192 (15) 1% (79) $1,225,863,198 (5) 7% (65)
Summit $53,052,421 (44) >1% (85) $1,086,245,523 (6) 4% (82)
Trumbull $46,191,278 (54) 1% (74) $256,092,067 (37) 6% (77)
Tuscarawas $52,437,891 (45) 3% (60) $227,995,907 (41) 8% (52)
Union $459,647,601 (1) 7% (21) $549,639,730 (12) 9% (40)
Van Wert $89,276,531 (12) 7% (19) $131,848,326 (60) 11% (27)
Vinton $8,559,330 (86) 8% (11) $27,107,972 (85) 17% (4)
Warren $46,224,334 (53) 1% (76) $552,430,711 (11) 6% (70)
Washington $30,966,222 (69) 4% (46) $132,119,584 (59) 8% (50)
Wayne $283,008,467 (3) 5% (31) $1,002,275,825 (7) 15% (8)
Williams $43,262,519 (58) 5% (35) $145,407,816 (54) 11% (29)
Wood $97,920,671 (10) 2% (68) $387,193,635 (17) 6% (71)
Wyandot $60,516,234 (32) 6% (23) $149,052,657 (53) 12% (21)

 

Ohio State Researchers: Milk Date Labels Contribute to Food Waste

Written by Tracy Turner; Sources by Brain Roe and Dennis Heldman

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Got milk?

If so, you may be among the majority of consumers who throw that milk out once the date on the carton or jug label has passed.

But Ohio State University researchers say not so fast — that pasteurized milk is still good to drink past its sell-by date.

Scientists in the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences (CFAES) say that arbitrary date labels on food contribute to significant food waste because the date labels serve only as an indicator of shelf life, which relates more to food quality than safety.

Brian Roe, a CFAES professor of agricultural economics, co-authored a new study examining consumer behavior regarding date labeling on milk containers. The goal of the research is to help consumers reduce food waste through improved food labeling systems and consumer education.

The study, which will appear in the June 2018 edition of Food Quality and Preference Journal, surveyed 88 consumers who were asked to sniff half-gallon jugs of milk that were 15, 25, 30 and 40 days past the date they were bottled. Some milk samples were dated and some were not dated.

The study found that 64 percent of respondents said they would throw the milk out that had a date label, while only 45.8 percent of respondents said they would throw the same milk out if they didn’t know the date label of the milk.

“Date labeling doesn’t tell you when a food will spoil,” said Roe, who also leads the Ohio State Food Waste Collaborative, a collection of researchers, practitioners and students working together to promote the reduction and redirection of food waste.

“Consumers often view dates as if they indicated health or safety, but those dates are really just about the quality of a product determined by manufacturers,” Roe said. “There’s a difference between quality and safety.

“Pasteurized milk is safe past the sell-by date unless it has been cross-contaminated. While it may not taste as good — it can go sour and have flavors that people don’t like and may make them feel nausea — but it isn’t going to make them sick.”

Roe said the study focused on milk because it is one of the most wasted food products in the United States, representing 12 percent of consumer food waste by weight. And past research suggests the date label is a critical reason why milk is discarded, he said.

“Innovations in date labels and explaining what the date labels mean will allow more consumers to save money by keeping milk longer and reducing food waste, which has social implications as well,” Roe said. “It’s very resource intensive to produce milk — from the land needed to grow feed for the cows, to the water used for cows to produce the milk, to the energy that goes into housing cows and to processing and transporting the milk.

“Not to mention the retailers, who spend a lot of time managing the milk case at the grocery store as well.”

Confusion regarding food label dates leads to significant food waste nationwide, with the average American household spending more than $2,000 annually on wasted food, according to a study by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

So what do the date labels on food mean?

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the:

  • “Best if used by/before” date indicates when a product will be of best flavor or quality. It is not a purchase or a safety date.
  • “Sell-by” date tells the store how long to display the product for sale for inventory management. It is not a safety date.
  • “Use-by” date is the last date recommended for the use of the product while at peak quality. It is not a safety date except when used on infant formula.

“If we make changes to the date labeling, we have to make sure the regulatory system understands how the changes will impact their regulations,” said Dennis R. Heldman, a CFAES professor of food engineering, a member of the Food Waste Collaborative and a study co-author.

Heldman is also studying the effect on consumers of an indicator that would be attached to containers of perishable foods to monitor their shelf life. The indicator would gradually change color during storage and distribution of a food or beverage.

So a change in color, say, from blue to red, would tell consumers that the product has reached the end of its shelf life.

“Using this method, consumers can be confident as to when the product should and shouldn’t be consumed,” he said.