Issuu

2025 eFields Report Ohio State Digital Ag Program

2025 Research Recap

eFields “connecting science to fields” eFields is a program at The Ohio State University dedicated to advancing production agriculture through the use of fieldscale research. The 2025 eFields Report is a culmination of the research conducted over the past year on partner farms throughout Ohio. Current research is focused on precision nutrient management strategies and technologies to improve efficiency of fertilizer placement, enable on-farm evaluation, automate machine functionality, enhance placement of pesticides and seed, and to develop analytical tools for digital agriculture. eFields has expanded from 39 on-farm research sites in 13 counties in 2017, to 95 on-farm research sites covering 25 counties in 2018, 88 on-farm research sites in 30 counties in 2019, 218 on-farm research sites in 39 counties in 2020, 249 on-farm research sites in 45 counties in 2021, 292 trials in 49 counties in 2022, 184 on-farm research sites in 47 counties in 2023, and then 260 on-farm research sites in 42 counties in 2024.

2025 Research Recap 2,764 Total Acres • • • • •

1,261 Corn 502 Soybean 209 Small Grains 31 Forages 761 Other Studies

29 Ohio Counties 102 On-Farm Research Sites

Disclaimer Notice: The information provided in this document is intended for educational purposes only. Mention or use of specific products or services, along with illustrations, does not constitute endorsement by The Ohio State University. The Ohio State University assumes no responsibility for any damages that may occur through adoption of the programs/techniques described in this document. 2 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Editorial Welcome to the 2025 edition of the Ohio State eFields Report. The 2025 Ohio State eFields Report stands as a testament to the resilience and adaptability of Ohio’s agricultural community. We extend our deepest gratitude to our farm partners, OSU Extension Educators, field specialists, faculty, staff, students, and industry collaborators who make the eFields program possible. Your commitment and insights are the foundation of our continued success. The 2025 eFields Report marks its 9th year. Like every growing season, 2025 brought unique challenges and valuable learning opportunities. The extreme weather was the standout story of the year. Spring planting was marked by volatility, with narrow planting windows forcing some crops to be planted as late as June. July brought the highest overnight temperatures Ohio has seen in over a century, placing additional stress on crops during critical growth stages. As summer faded, the weather shifted abruptly to an extreme late-season drought including the driest August on record, impacting much of the state. The drought’s timing was particularly detrimental, occurring during the corn reproduction stage and severely impacting soybean yields. Despite these hardships, Ohio farmers demonstrated remarkable perseverance and ingenuity, adapting their practices to navigate the unpredictable environment. On a positive note, commodity markets rebounded slightly at harvest, providing some relief to farm margins that had been stretched thin by the season’s challenges. Despite a grim outlook for crop production in 2025, Ohio farmers remain optimistic, seeking ways to improve efficiency and manage costs effectively. Another defining theme of 2025 was the rapid advancement and adoption of artificial intelligence and automation in Ohio agriculture. We continue to see drones being used more frequently on Ohio farms, supporting crop scouting, data collection, and targeted applications. Companies are actively testing automated tractors and precision spraying technologies across the state, helping farmers manage labor shortages and improve input efficiency. These innovations are reshaping how Ohio farmers approach crop production, offering new tools to address the challenges of weather, labor, and profitability. Overall, Ohio’s 2025 season was defined by extremes—rain-driven planting delays, historic heat, summer drought, wide yield variability, a market recovery that helped cushion the impact on farm profitability, and the growing influence of digital technologies in the field. As we look ahead, the lessons learned from 2025 will inform our approach to future growing seasons. The eFields team remains committed to supporting Ohio’s farmers and consultants with timely research and practical solutions. We are proud to have conducted 102 studies across 29 counties this year, reflecting the growing variety and reach of our program. You can access the eFields Reports from 2017-2024 online at go.osu.edu/efieldsreports or delve deeper into the data at kx.osu.edu/efields. We invite you to explore the 2025 eFields Report and hope you find it both informative and inspiring. If you are interested in collaborating with us in 2026 or have feedback to share, please contact us at digitalag@osu.edu Sincerely, The 2025 eFields Team

The eFields Report is published on an annual basis. To view past reports, visit our website at go.osu.edu/efieldsreports. 2025 eFields Report | 3

Table of Contents Get Involved...........................................................................................................................................................................6 Ohio State Digital Ag Program...............................................................................................................................................8 Report Guide........................................................................................................................................................................10 Calculations and Statistics...................................................................................................................................................12 2025 Growing Season Weather...........................................................................................................................................22 Ohio Crop Enterprise Budgets.............................................................................................................................................26 Ohio Farm Custom Rates.....................................................................................................................................................28 Quarterly Fertilizer Price Summary......................................................................................................................................30 Farm Business Analysis.......................................................................................................................................................32 Impacts of Farm Succession Planning.................................................................................................................................34 Farm Management Online Courses.....................................................................................................................................36 Grain Dust: A Respiratory Hazard........................................................................................................................................38 2025 Preharvest Weed Survey.............................................................................................................................................42 Ohio State Corn Research...................................................................................................................................................50 Alfalfa Management Prior to Corn................................................................................................................................52 Biologicals.....................................................................................................................................................................54 Boron............................................................................................................................................................................62 DON Hybrid Summary..................................................................................................................................................64 Flaming for Weed Control.............................................................................................................................................68 Fungicide .....................................................................................................................................................................70 Fungicide - Xyway........................................................................................................................................................74 Fungicide Application for DON......................................................................................................................................80 Fungicide Application Timing........................................................................................................................................84 High Clearance Robotic Irrigator..................................................................................................................................90 Nitrogen Enhancement Product....................................................................................................................................94 Nitrogen - Green Lightning...........................................................................................................................................96 Nitrogen Placement....................................................................................................................................................102 Nitrogen Rate..............................................................................................................................................................104 Nurizma Insecticide....................................................................................................................................................108 Starter Fertilizer..........................................................................................................................................................112 Strip Till with Cover Crop............................................................................................................................................114 Sulfur..........................................................................................................................................................................116 Wheat Straw Removal................................................................................................................................................120 Ohio State Soybean Research...........................................................................................................................................124 Biologicals...................................................................................................................................................................126 Compost vs Raw Manure ..........................................................................................................................................136 Cover Crop Species and Termination.........................................................................................................................138 Foliar Nutrition - VersaMax.........................................................................................................................................140 Fungicide....................................................................................................................................................................142 High Clearance Robotic Irrigator................................................................................................................................144

4 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Nitrogen Rate..............................................................................................................................................................146 Phosphorus ................................................................................................................................................................148 Red Crown Rot in Ohio...............................................................................................................................................150 Residue Breakdown....................................................................................................................................................152 Seeding Rate..............................................................................................................................................................154 Sulfur..........................................................................................................................................................................156 Understanding SCN Risk............................................................................................................................................158 Ohio State Small Grain Research......................................................................................................................................162 Biologicals...................................................................................................................................................................164 Fungicide....................................................................................................................................................................166 Fungicide - Drone Applied..........................................................................................................................................168 Nitrogen Rate..............................................................................................................................................................170 Nitrogen Timing...........................................................................................................................................................172 Sulfur..........................................................................................................................................................................176 Ohio State Forages Research............................................................................................................................................180 DON Resistance - Silage Corn...................................................................................................................................182 Drone Seeded Barley.................................................................................................................................................184 Nitrogen Rate - Cereal Rye........................................................................................................................................190 Ohio State Technology Research.......................................................................................................................................192 Digital Agriculture Survey............................................................................................................................................194 Drone Applied Fertilizer..............................................................................................................................................196 Drone Applied Fungicide.............................................................................................................................................200 Drone Seeding Cover Crops.......................................................................................................................................204 Drone Spray Deposition..............................................................................................................................................206 Estimating Cover Crop Biomass.................................................................................................................................208 Land Suitability Assessment.......................................................................................................................................210 Soybean Replant Decision Tool..................................................................................................................................212 Sprayer Calibration ....................................................................................................................................................214 Target Spray - Pre Applications..................................................................................................................................216 Target Spray - Post Applications.................................................................................................................................218 Other Research..................................................................................................................................................................222 Biologicals - Flint Corn................................................................................................................................................222 Biologicals - Sunflowers..............................................................................................................................................224 Cover Crop Population, Planting Date........................................................................................................................228 Cover Crop Seeding Rate...........................................................................................................................................230 Hybrid Trial - Sunflowers.............................................................................................................................................232 Water Quality Soil Health Summary...........................................................................................................................234 Ohio Crop Performance Trials....................................................................................................................................236 Acknowledgements - Partner Farms and Supporters........................................................................................................272 Acknowledgements - Industry Partners..............................................................................................................................276

2025 eFields Report | 5

Get Involved

Are you interested in contributing to the 2026 eFields Report? If so, visit go.osu.edu/efields to review study implementation plus tips and tricks. See below for details on how to get involved and who to contact. We look forward to working with you!

Growers Growers interested in hosting on-farm research trials for publication in the annual eFields report should reach out to their county Agriculture and Natural Resources Extension Educator (agcrops.osu.edu/people). To view a list of those educators who are already involved, see page 14. Standard protocols for seeding rates, nitrogen rates, and other management practices have been developed for statewide implementation. Contact us today to find out how to get involved. Additional protocols and topics are being developed and can be customized to fit your questions and needs!

Industry Representatives We are always looking for new partners to conduct on-farm trials! If you are interested in determining how you can support Ohio State University On-Farm Research, reach out to your county Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR) Extension Educator, email Dr. Elizabeth Hawkins (hawkins.301@osu.edu), or email the eFields Program Manager, Dara Barclay (barclay.67@osu.edu). We would love to discuss your involvement with the eFields program!

Extension Educators and Field Specialists If you are a current ANR Educator and are interested in getting involved with eFields, contact the Program Manager, Dara Barclay (barclay.67@osu.edu) to get started.

6 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

“

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

My research with eFields has involved a lot of testing – Haney, sap testing, metagenomic testing, among others. With that research, I have been able to cut a tremendous amount of inputs, including P and K, fungicides, and insecticides, and limit the use of herbicides on my farm while still maintaining crop yields. Research to move forward is the ultimate goal, and if you’re not doing it, you might be getting

“

left in the dust! - Ron Snyder

Through our experience with on-farm research, we have been able to lower the cost of production and update several of our farming practices because we feel confident enough with the results of the trials. The process of participating in on-farm research couldn't be easier! - Zach Allgyre

“

It is always good to try something new. Participating in the eFields research over the years has given me the opportunity to conduct different trials and see the data-driven results firsthand. Reviewing the studies helps me understand both the advantages and disadvantages of practices that keep our farm moving forward. I have often been surprised with the outcome several times by stepping outside of my comfort zone, and I am proud to invest in the time and effort so others can learn and benefit from the eFields trials on our farm. - Brett Kenworthy 2025 eFields Report | 7

Ohio State Digital Ag Program

DigitalAg OHIO STATE

ABOUT US The Digital Agriculture Program at The Ohio State University embodies the best of the land grant mission – creation, validation, and dissemination of cutting-edge agricultural production technologies. The central focus of this program is the interaction of automation, sensing, and data analytics to optimize crop production in order to address environmental quality, sustainability, and profitability. Research is focused on execution of site-specific nutrient management practices, development of hand-held devices for in-field data capture, autonomous functionality of machinery, remote sensing solutions, and data analytics to enhance timing, placement and efficacy of inputs within cropping systems.

VISION The Digital Agriculture Program at The Ohio State University strives to be the premier source of research-based information in the age of digital agriculture.

MISSION • • •

Uniting the private and public sectors to drive innovation for the benefit of farmers. Partnering with farmers to translate innovation into long-term profitability for production agriculture. Delivering timely and relevant information for the advancement of digital agriculture technologies.

WHAT IS DIGITAL AGRICULTURE? The premise of digital agriculture includes the advancement of farm operations through implementation of precision agriculture strategies, prescriptive agriculture and data-based decision making. Digital agriculture is a holistic picture of the data space in agriculture, trends related to services directing input management and the value of data usage for improving productivity and profitability of farm operations.

“Digital Agriculture” combines multiple data sources with advanced crop and environmental analyses to provide support for on-farm decision making.

8 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Digital Ag Initiatives

“Helping growers make the most of Precision and Digital Ag technologies” PRECISION SEEDING Utilizing the latest digital ag technologies to place every seed in an environment optimized for its growth and development. ON-FARM RESEARCH Deploying field-scale studies to advance production agriculture through efficiency and profitability using data-driven decisions.

PRECISION CROP MANAGEMENT Management of crop inputs in a manner that maximizes efficiency and profitability.

HARVEST TECHNOLOGIES Taking advantage of available technologies to improve harvest efficiencies and improve data quality.

SOIL COMPACTION MANAGEMENT Mitigation of soil compaction to enhance crop health and soil structure.

REMOTE SENSING Providing the ability to remotely assess field conditions, crop health, nutrient needs, and productivity levels on a sub-field scale. APPS FOR AGRICULTURE Embracing the power of smart phones and tablets to utilize mobile applications and farming smarter. PRECISION NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT Ensuring that all applied nutrients are in a position to maximize crop uptake. Right source, right rate, right time, right place, right technology. PRECISION LIVESTOCK Making use of data and digital tools to manage or automate animal well-being, food safety, pasture sustainability, waste products and more. DATA ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT Developing a digital strategy and making actionable decisions using data, from operational insights to field execution.

2025 eFields Report | 9

Report Guide OBJECTIVE

Location Box

Find study information, objectives, study design, weather graph, and summary on the left page. Find results, summaries, project contact, and statistical summary on the right page.

STUDY INFORMATION

Look to see the county where the study was conducted.

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 4/30/2025 Harvest Date 10/16/2025 Variety Becks 6076V2P Population 34,000 sds/ac Acres 70 Treatments 5 Reps 7 Treatment Width 40 ft. Tillage Conventional Management Fertilizer, Herbicide, Insecticide Previous Crop Soybeans Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Crosby silt loam, 52% Celina silt loam, 48%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

3.39

5.52

4.30

7.44

2.62

1.59

24.86

Cumulative GDDs

248

603

1211

1917

2506

3194

3491

STUDY DESIGN The study design provides a background on the study. This could include a brief history of research, observations that led to the implementation of this study, explanation of the study design, etc.

Here you will find visuals of the study with short descriptions.

10 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

The observations section of the report allows us to provide any relevant information that the researchers noticed throughout the growing season. Observations allow for a deeper understanding of the study results.

•

The summary section proves results and findings from the study.

•

Thank you for taking the time to explore our 2025 eFields Report!

RESULTS Treatments (XXX)

Avg. Emergence (plants/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE This section allows us to display the tools and technology used to make each study possible.

LSD: CV:

PROJECT CONTACT The Project Contact section provides the name of the researcher along with their email address. We encourage you to contact them if you have questions about an indvidual study. We also recognize sponsors of individual projects here as well.

2025 eFields Report | 11

Calculations and Statistics To effectively collect, analyze, and interpret data, statistical calculations were made for each eFields study when possible. All statistical calculations were conducted using the OSU PLOTS Research App or calculated using the ANOVA spreadsheet, using Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD, alpha = 0.1) method to determine if treatment differences are statistically significant. Stand Counts and Harvest Data: All stand counts were conducted for individual plots by counting the number of plants in 30 linear feet along two adjacent rows. All yield data was collected using calibrated yield monitors or weigh wagons. Data was processed and cleaned to ensure accuracy with yields adjusted to a standard moisture prior to analysis. Results show the average of the response variable (i.e. yield) for each treatment.

Take a look at this example from a study:

• •

•

Replication Allows one to estimate the error associated with carrying out the experiment itself. Without replication, it would be impossible to determine what factor contributed to any treatment differences. A minimum of 3 replications is required for a proper evaluation, with 4 or more recommended for field-scale research.

Treatments

Yield (bu/ac)

230 a

229 a

226 ab

225 b

Randomization Randomization is as important as replication to help account for any variations in production practices and field conditions. Even if treatments are replicated, the conclusions you reach may not be correct if a treatment was always applied to the same part of the field. Randomization prevents data from being biased due to its field location.

LSD Least Significant Difference (LSD) is used to compare means of different treatments that have an equal number of replications. For this report, a significance level of 0.1 (or 10%) was used, which means when a treatment is statistically significant, a 90% confidence is attributed to that treatment actually being different from the comparisons.

LSD 3 CV 1.6%

CV Defined as the coefficient of variation (CV) is a measure of the variability between treatments (i.e. yields) reported as a percentage (%). CV is an indicator of data uniformity. Higher CV’s indicate more treatment or environmental variability.

Explanation: •

•

For treatment A to be statistically significant from treatment B, they must differ by at least 3 bu/ac. (They do not, so they are not statistically different and are marked using the same letter). For treatment D to be statistically different from treatment A, they must differ by at least 3 bu/ac (here they differ by 5 bu/ac, so they are statistically significant and are marked using different letters).

In this example, since treatment A is different from treatment D by 5 bu/ac, there is 90% certainity that the results of the treatments were indeed different. Treatment differences are represented by using a letter beside the reported value. Since the averages for treatment A and treatment B differ by less than 3, it cannot be concluded that the treatments are different from each other, so the same letter (e.g. “a”) is used to indicate they are the same.

For more information and examples on statistics and experimental setup, visit go.osu.edu/efieldsinvolved.

12 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Return above analysis allows farmers to consider not only yield increase, but also economic return which ultimately impacts the farm’s bottom line. For studies where economics were calculated, return above is labeled in the right-most column of the results table. To standardize return above calculations state-wide, the OSU Extension budgets were used for a partial profit calculation, farmoffice.osu.edu.

Seed Costs:

For the seeding rate studies, a uniform corn seed cost of $3.75/1,000 seeds was used. Soybean seed cost was $0.436/1,000 seeds. These are based on the Ohio Crop Enterprise Budgets developed by Barry Ward, OSU Extension. Learn more about the budgets on page 26.

Commodity Prices:

Nitrogen Costs:

A nitrogen cost of $0.63/lb used in this report is from the 2026 Corn Production Budget. For the nitrogen timing studies, application costs were also considered. The average costs of application the report uses are from the 2024 Ohio Custom Farm Rates. Learn more about the 2024 custom rates on page 28. Nitrogen Application Costs

Price received was determined by the Chicago price at planting and adjusted with a historical basis to represent an Ohio price. The corn price used in the 2025 report is $4.00/bu and the soybean price is $10.50/bu. We then calculated a 10% price increase and decrease to reflect price variability.

Application Method

Rate ($/ac)

Dry Bulk

8.73

Liquid Knife

14.15

Corn $/bushel

Soybeans $/bushel

Liquid Spray

9.87

Ohio Crop Price

4.00

10.50

Anhydrous

18.43

10% Decrease

3.60

9.45

Late Season Drops

14.00

10% Increase

4.40

11.55

Variable Rate

9.82

Example economic calculator for corn seeding rate studies: Average Price Seeding rate (sds/ac)

26,000

30,000

34,000

38,000

Cost of seed/1000

3.75

Total seed cost ($)

97.50

112.50

127.50

142.50

Yield (bu/ac)

220

230

260

250

Bushel Price ($/bu)

4.00

Gross Income ($)

880

920

1040

1000

782.50

807.50

912.50

857.50

Return above seed ($/ac)

The “Return above” line includes only the input expense of what was being studied (i.e. seed cost) to provide a clear indication of economic return. To calculate your own economic return, you can access the eFields Economic Calculators at: go.osu.edu/econcalculator.

2025 eFields Report | 13

eFields Contributors

Savannah Ballweg

Dara Barclay

OSU Extension

Assistant Professor, Extension Educator, Knox County

Justin Baum

Nic Baumer

Frank Becker

OSU Extension

Assistant Professor, Extension Educator Miami County

Extension Educator Preble County

Extension Educator Clinton County

Program Manager, eFields & eBarns

Extension Educator Hardin County

John Barker

OSU Extension

Extension Educator Wayne County

Tim Barnes

Extension Educator Marion County

OSU Extension

Amanda Bennett

OSU Extension

Mithlesh Bhambi

Caden Buschur

Pressley Buurma

Brady Campbell

Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering

OSU Extension

Department of Animal Sciences

PhD Candidate

Extension Educator Darke County

14 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Extension Educator Seneca County

Assistant Professor

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Fabiano Colet

Trevor Corboy

Wayne Dellinger

Department of Horticulture and Crop Science

OSU Extension

Amanda Douridas

Nate Douridas

Nick Eckel

OSU Extension

Molly Caren Agricultural Center

OSU Extension

Amber Emmons

Alyssa Essman

Mike Estadt

OSU Extension

Department of Horticulture and Crop Science

Bruce Clevenger

Associate Professor, Field Specialist - Farm Management OSU Extension

Sandeep Dhakal PhD Student

Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering

Water Quality Extension Associate

PhD Candidate

Extension Educator Madison County

Assistant Professor

Extension Educator Brown County

Farm Manager

Assistant Professor, Extension Educator Pickaway County OSU Extension

Extension Educator Union County

Extension Educator Wood County

Ken Ford

Extension Educator Fayette County OSU Extension

2025 eFields Report | 15

eFields Contributors

John Fulton

Allen Gahler

Christine Gelley

Allen Geyer

Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering

OSU Extension

Department of Horticulture and Crop Science

Professor

Extension Educator Sandusky County

Extension Educator Noble County

Sr. Research Associate

Matthew Hankinson

Jason Hartschuh

Elizabeth Hawkins

Rachel Henry

Department of Horticulture and Crop Science

OSU Extension

Research Associate

Douglas JacksonSmith Professor and Kellogg Endowed Chair

Assistant Professor, Field Specialist

Associate Professor, Field Specialist

Water Quality Extension Associate

Carri Jagger

Alex Jefferies

Dee Jepsen

OSU Extension

School of Environment and Natural Resources

Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering

Extension Educator Morrow County

School of Environment and Natural Resources

16 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Project Manager

Professor

Corn

Soybean

Margaret Jodlowski Assistant Professor

Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics

Sami Khanal

Assistant Professor

Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering

Ed Lentz

Professor, Extension Educator Hancock County OSU Extension

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Stephanie Karhoff

Sushma Katari

Kushal KC

OSU Extension

Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering

Assistant Professor, Field Specialist

PhD Candidate

Post-Doc

Andrew Klopfenstein Rob Leeds

Alan Leininger

Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering

OSU Extension

Sr. Research Associate Engineer

Laura Lindsey

Associate Professor

Department of Horticulture and Crop Science

Assistant Professor, Extension Educator Delaware County OSU Extension

Extension Educator Henry County

Horacio LopezNicora

Kendall Lovejoy

Department of Plant Pathology

OSU Extension

Assistant Professor

Extension Educator Fulton County

2025 eFields Report | 17

eFields Contributors

Matthew Lowe

Research Associate

Department of Horticulture and Crop Science

David Marrison Professor, Field Specialist - Farm Management OSU Extension

John McCormick

Logan Minter

Department of Horticulture and Crop Science

OSU Extension

Research Associate

Rich Minyo

Marina Miquilni

Nina Nebesh

Department of Horticulture and Crop Science

OSU Extension

of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering

Research Specialist

Erdal Ozkan

Professor Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering

Extension Educator Greene County

Graduate Research Associate Department

Pierce Paul

Amy Raudenbush

Department of Plant Pathology

Department of Entomology

Professor and Chair

18 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Research Associate

Associate Professor, Field Specialist

Osler Ortez

Assistant Professor

Department of Horticulture and Crop Science

Eric Richer

Associate Professor, Field Specialist - Farm Management OSU Extension

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Eric Romich

Kendra Rose

Jocelyn Ruble

Beth Scheckelhoff

Energy Development

OSU Extension

Clint Schroeder

Scott Shearer

Vinayak Shedekar

Ambria Small

OSU Extension

Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering

OSU Extension

Jacci Smith

Alex Thomas

Ryanna Tietje

OSU Extension

of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering

OSU Extension

Professor, Field Specialist

Program Manager Farm Business Analysis

Extension Educator Delaware County

Extension Educator Crawford County

Professor and Chair

Graduate Research Associate, Department

Water Quality Extension Associate

Assistant Professor

Farm Business Analysis Technician

Extension Educator Putnam County

Extension Educator Champaign County

Kelley Tilmon Professor

Department of Entomology

2025 eFields Report | 19

eFields Contributors

Heather Torlina

Kyle Verhoff

Julie Vredenburgh

Barry Ward

OSU Extension

School of Environment and Natural Resources

OSU Extension

Water Quality Extension Associate

Extension Educator Defiance County

Research and Engagement Coordinator

Aaron Wilson

Kayla Wyse

John Yost

OSU Extension

Assistant Professor, Field Specialist

Extension Educator Williams County

Leader, Production Business Management

Extension Educator Wayne County

Crop Observation and Recommendation Network C.O.R.N. Newsletter Join the 4,000+ subscribers to receive weekly in-season updates, scouting reports, pest recommendations and event announcements delivered to your inbox.

Subscribe today! go.osu.edu/CORNhome

20 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

EXTENSION RESOURCES FOR THE FARM Locate an OSU Extension Office

Find your local office and contact your Agriculture and Natural Resources Extension Educator with questions and more information on available programs: extension.osu.edu/about

Extension Publishing

Find 4-H books, Extension bulletins, Field Guides, and more! extension.osu.edu/extension-publishing

Small Farm Team

Information for new and small farms Mission: To provide a greater understanding of production practices, economics of land use choices, assessment of personal and natural resources, marketing alternatives, and the identification of sources of assistance for new and small farms in Ohio. Events: • New and Small Farm Conference (annually) • New and Small Farm Management Colleges Connect with the Team: u.osu.edu/gofarmohio (QR code to the left) YouTube: @osusmallfarmteam5974 Facebook: @GoFarmOhio

Forages

Forage Management, Pastures and Grazing, Research and Resources: Forages.osu.edu Fact Sheets: • • • • •

Manure

Ohio Composting and Manure Management Program (ocamm.osu.edu). Goal: To facilitate research, development, and communication of sustainable strategies for the management of animal manures and other organics for Ohio farms and communities. Ohio State Extension Environmental and Manure Management Facebook: @OSUnutrients Fact Sheets: • •

Women in Agriculture

•

Learn. Grow. Connect. Inspire. Empower. Mission: To help women improve their quality of life by providing them with resources to make better business decisions while maintaining a balance with family and personal obligations. Ohio Women in Agriculture partners with Annie’s Project (anniesproject.org) to provide workshops and networking opportunities. Events: • Regional Women in Ag Conferences • Wednesday Women in Ag Webinar Series (monthly) • Networking opportunities, resources, and more! Connect with the Team: u.osu.edu/ohwomeninag

Forage Testing for Beef Cattle ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/anr-0149 Giving New Life to Tired Pastures ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/anr-0159 Determining the Grazing Intensity and Move Frequency for Your Rotational Grazing System ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/anr-0160 Maximizing Forage Quality Through Targeted Grazing of Native Warm-Season Grasses ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/anr-0166 Forage as Vegetative Cover for Utility-Scale Solar in Ohio ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/cdfs-4106

Manure and Compost: Nitrogen Availability in Organic Production ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/anr-34 Horse Manure Management ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/AGF-212 Manure to Energy Through Anaerobic Digestion ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/AEX-653.1

Farm Stress Resources • • •

Ohio State Extension Rural and Farm Stress Website and Blog, u.osu.edu/farmstress Ohio State Rural and Farm Stress Task Force, extension.osu.edu/about/resources/extension-taskforces/rural-and-farm-stress Ohio and National Crisis Call and Textline. Call or Text 988 to connect with a trained licensed professional counselor within five minutes. Free, confidential, anonymous, and secure 24/7.

2025 eFields Report | 21

2025 Growing Season Weather Weather whiplash was certainly the 2025 growing season theme once again with large swings in seasonal rainfall totals. Following the historic drought of 2024, soil moisture recovery was slow until April and May. Very warm conditions, especially overnight low temperatures dominated in June and July with record humidity levels as well. The spigot turned off in August, with extreme drought conditions taking over large portions of northwest Ohio. Dry conditions remained through fall. Compared to our long-term average (1991 - 2020), the period of December 2024 - November 2025 was within ±2°F of normal (Figure 1) but varied considerably month-to-month. Most of Ohio’s southern, north central, and northeastern counties ended the year a bit above normal on precipitation, with all of the northwest and eastern counties coming in below normal (75 - 100% of normal; Figure 1). Through November, 2025 ranks as the 23rd warmest and 52nd wettest on record (1895 - present) for Ohio according the National Centers for Environmental Information (ncdc.noaa. gov/sotc/index.php). For more in-season climate analysis, please visit the State Climate Office of Ohio: climate.osu.edu.

Figure 1. Summary of the growing season and seasonal breakdown of 2025. (Left) Temperature departures (°F), (Middle) Precipitation total (inches), and (Right) Precipitation departures (percent of normal) from the long-term (1991 - 2020) normal for Dec. 2024 - Nov. 2025. Midwestern Regional Climate Center (mrcc.purdue.edu). Spring (March - May) Winter (December - February) was a touch below normal for Ohio with respect to temperatures and slightly ahead of normal for precipitation. With the drought of 2024 leaving soil moisture depleted across the state, wetter conditions in spring 2025 were initially welcomed. However, after the 13th and 15th wettest April and May, respectively, field activities lagged historical progress. These wet conditions were felt hardest across Clermont, Brown, and Adams counties extending northeast toward Pickaway, Fairfield, and Licking counties, where 13 - 17 inches of rain fell in April and May. Several counties experienced their top 8 - 15th wettest springs (Figure 2). While early season temperatures were warm, May was chilly. Temperature anomalies of 2 - 6°F below normal in May resulted in widespread growing degree day (GDD) deficits of 40 - 170 GDDs below normal. Despite the cold May, Spring 2025 ranks as the 12th warmest and 16th wettest for Ohio.

22 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Figure 2. Ohio county precipitation ranks for spring 2025 (March - May). White shading indicates near normal conditions. The top third (lighter colors) and top ten (darker colors) of the record are depicted for both dry (brown) and wet (green) conditions. (ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/ climate-at-a-glance).

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Summer (June-August) Summer 2025 was notable for several reasons. First, June - July 2025 ranked as the 4th warmest June - July on record, driven by the warmest overnight low temperatures on record (1895 present). Humidity levels during this period were extreme as well. Dayton recorded 28 days with dewpoint temperatures above normal (Figure 3). In fact, the dewpoint temperature was at or above 65°F (muggy) on 66% of all hourly observations between June 1 - July 31 and above 70°F (oppressive) nearly 35% of the time. Precipitation remained well above average through July as well, with the 4-month period Figure 3. Observed daily maximum and minimum dewpoint temperatures for of April - July 2025 ranking as the 8th July 2025 in Dayton, Ohio. Normal daily high and low dewpoint temperatures wettest April - July on record in Ohio. are provided by the pink and blue lines, respectively. Figure courtesy of the Iowa However, conditions turned dry in Environmental Mesonet (mesonet.agron.iastate.edu). August, which was ranked as the driest August on record for the last 131 years. Most locations in Ohio saw rainfall deficits of 2 - 4 inches for the month, kicking off yet another strong drought year in Ohio. This lack of late-summer rainfall induced stress on soybeans, soil moisture, streams, and reservoirs across the state. Summer 2025 ranks as the 11th warmest and 50th driest on record. Fall (September – November) Drought conditions persisted across northwest Ohio throughout all of fall 2025, with strong improvements to soil moisture across southern and eastern Ohio. Drought peaked in intensity in late October, with about 11% of Ohio covered by D3extreme drought conditions according to the U.S. Drought Monitor (Figure 4). As agricultural drought indicators waned late season, the drought turned strongly toward a hydrologic one. Much of the Maumee River Basin had historically low depths and flows much of fall, with area farm ponds and reservoirs exhibiting extreme deficits. Three-month precipitation deficits of 4 - 6 inches (9 - 12 inch deficits over the previous 6-months) were common across parts of Van Wert, Paulding, Henry, and Wood counties. Meanwhile, parts of southern Ohio received 2 - 6 inches above normal, helping to restore soil moisture and stream flows in that region. Winter got a quick start by the first week of December as well, with plenty of snowfall across the state and overnight lows even dropping below zero on December 5 across northwest Ohio. Fall 2025 ranks as the 31st warmest and 53rd driest on record.

PROJECT CONTACT

For inquiries about this project, contact Dr. Aaron B. Wilson (wilson.1010@osu.edu). Figure 4. Drought conditions in Ohio on October 28, 2025. Figure courtesy of the U.S. Drought Monitor (droughtmonitor.unl.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 23

Crop Progress and Suitable Days OBJECTIVE Summarize Ohio planting progress and days suitable for fieldwork reported each year by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS).

eFields Collaborating Farm OSU Extension Statewide

Corn Planting Progress Corn planting pace was slower than normal in 2025, coming in as the second latest planting completion in Ohio on record. In 2025, Ohio farmers reached the 50% planted mark for corn on May 25th and completed planting by June 29th. Figure 1 illustrates Ohio’s corn planting progress for all years between 1979 and 2025. Progress stalled across most of the state the first three weeks of May as wet and cool conditions persisted. This delay did not deter planting corn well into June, with 28% of acres being planted after June 1st. This continues the recent trend of continuing to push corn planting dates later towards the end of spring.

Figure 1. Ohio corn planting progress reported by USDA NASS from 1979 – 2025. 2025 progress is shown by the scarlet dashed line. Data source: USDA NASS Soybean Planting Progress Soybean planting progress in 2025 was also slower than typical for Ohio. Figure 2 shows Ohio’s soybean planting progress for all years between 1979 and 2025. Ohio reached 50% planted by May 25th and soybean planting was reported completed on July 6th. The 2025 soybean crop was tied with 1986 for the second latest finish recorded by USDA NASS.

Figure 2. Ohio soybean planting progress reported by USDA NASS from 1979 – 2025. 2025 progress is shown by the scarlet dashed line. Data source: USDA NASS

24 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Small Grains

Soybean

Delayed Planting Progress 2025 continued a pattern of later planting due to wetter conditions in early spring. For corn, seven of the latest ten planting finishes have occurred in the last decade. For soybeans, only four of the latest ten have been in that same timeframe. This shows a trend of farmers being more willing to plant corn later in the season as conditions force them to wait for favorable field conditions.

Forages

Table 1. Ten latest reported planting completion dates for corn in Ohio since 1979. Data source: USDA NASS

Ag Tech

Other

Table 2. Ten latest reported planting completion dates for soybeans in Ohio since 1979. Data source: USDA NASS

Year

Week of Reported Completion

Year

Week of Reported Completion

2019

7/14/2019

2019

7/21/2019

2025

6/29/2025

2025

7/6/2025

2022

6/26/2022

1986

7/6/1986

2020

6/21/2020

2015

7/5/2015

1983

6/19/1983

2022

7/3/2022

2023

6/18/2023

1983

7/3/1983

2018

6/17/2018

1984

7/1/1984

1990

6/17/1990

1985

6/30/1985

2024

6/16/2024

2024

6/30/2024

1996

6/16/1996

2014

6/29/2014

Days Suitable for Fieldwork The 2025 season was split between challenging field conditions in the spring and drought conditions in summer and fall. Wet and cool weather allowed fewer than average days suitable for fieldwork in April, May, and June (Figure 3). Drier conditions made conditions more favorable for fieldwork in July and August. Unfortunately, the increase in days suitable was a reflection of the drought conditions being experienced across much of the state. The dry summer led to a timely start to harvest, but the government shutdown in October and November prevented data collection during those months.

Figure 3. Monthly days suitable for fieldwork. The average number of days per month from 1995 to 2024 (scarlet squares) compared to the number of days suitable for fieldwork per month in 2025 (gray circles). Monthly totals are calculated based on weekly reports. Data source: USDA NASS

SUMMARY

PROJECT CONTACT

The 2025 spring planting season was slower than normal for both the corn and soybean crops. Later planting, especially for corn, is becoming a common occurrence as weather conditions pose challenges in Ohio and across the country. Wet conditions delayed fieldwork until June and dry conditions during the rest of summer led to higher than average days suitable for fieldwork.

For inquiries about this project, contact Elizabeth Hawkins (hawkins.301@osu.edu) or Aaron Wilson (wilson.1010@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 25

Ohio Crop Enterprise Budgets What are Enterprise Budgets? Enterprise Budgets have been developed by faculty of the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences (CFAES) for several decades. The 2026 Ohio Crop Enterprise Budgets were developed by Barry Ward, Leader, Production Business Management at Ohio State. The budgets are tools that growers can use to examine different scenarios on their operation to help in decision making. The Enterprise Budgets can be found on Excel spreadsheets that users can download. Growers can then input their own production and price levels to calculate their own outputs. As seen below, the budgets have color coded cells that will allow users to plug in their own numbers and calculate bottom lines for different scenarios. SOYBEAN PRODUCTION BUDGET - 2026 No-Tillage Practices*

Published with the generous support

ITEM

Updated: 11/15/2025 EXPLANATION YOUR PROD. NUMBERS

of the:

PRICE PER UNIT

YIELD (bu/A)1

YOUR BUDGET 71.0 72.0

45.4

56.8

490.75 35.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

613.44 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

766.80 45.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

777.60 45.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

525.75

653.44

811.80

822.60

0.436

69.71

7.00%

31.46 20.47 6.25 50.00 0.00 0.00 13.63 15.28 30.97 12.50 4.29 4.36 0.00 8.15

39.32 25.58 6.25 50.00 0.00 0.00 17.04 15.28 30.97 14.00 4.29 4.36 0.00 8.60

49.15 31.98 6.25 50.00 18.00 0.00 21.30 15.54 32.16 15.35 4.29 4.36 0.00 9.85

49.85 32.43 6.25 50.00 18.00 0.00 21.60 15.54 32.16 15.35 4.29 4.36 0.00 9.89

267.07 5.88

285.42 5.02

327.94 4.62

329.43 4.58

21.45 26.29 88.39 187.00 16.40

21.45 32.67 88.39 235.00 16.40

23.40 40.59 93.02 293.00 16.40

23.40 41.13 93.02 293.00 16.40

339.53

393.91

466.41

466.95

-Per Acre -Per Bushel

606.60 13.35

679.33 11.96

794.35 11.19

796.38 11.06

RETURN ABOVE VARIABLE COSTS19 RETURN ABOVE VARIABLE AND LAND COSTS RETURN ABOVE TOTAL COSTS RETURN TO LAND RETURN TO LABOR AND MANAGEMENT RETURN TO LAND, LABOR, AND MANAGEMENT

258.68 71.68 -80.85 106.15 -33.11 153.89

368.02 133.02 -25.89 209.11 28.23 263.23

483.86 190.86 17.45 310.45 81.44 374.44

493.17 200.17 26.22 319.22 90.75 383.75

RECEIPTS Soybeans1 ARC/PLC Payment2 Crop Insurance Indemnity Ad Hoc Payment Grower or Market Premium

$10.80 bu

TOTAL RECEIPTS VARIABLE COSTS Seed3 Fertilizer4 P2O5(lbs) K2O(lbs) Lime(ton) Chemicals5 Herbicide Fungicide Insecticide 6 Hauling Fuel, Oil, Grease7 Repairs8 Crop Insurance9 Miscellaneous10 Hired Custom Work11 Hired Labor12 Int. on Oper. Cap.13

36.4 52.3

TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS FIXED COSTS Labor Charge14 Management Charge15 Mach. and Equip. Charge16 Land Charge17 Miscellaneous18

160000 seeds /acre 45.4 56.8 65.3 81.7 0.25

57.6 82.8 0.25

/1000 seeds 0.87 lb 0.39 lb 25 ton

$0.300 /per bushel

6 mo. -Per Acre -Per Bushel

1.1 hours of gross income

TOTAL FIXED COSTS TOTAL COSTS

160000

19.50 /hr

Cell Color Key: Gold: Values may be changed to assist in computing the “Your Budget” Column using macros embedded within the spreadsheet. Light Blue: Values will be calculated for the user based on data entered. These cells may be input manually, but macros will be overwritten! Gray: Values are stand-alone cells that require direct input from the user.

26 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Key points to remember when utilizing the budget sheets: • The budgets represent common, workable, combinations of inputs that can achieve a given output. • Amounts of seed, types and quantities of fertilizer, chemicals, and other items reflect University recommendations and the experience of many Ohio farmers. • The combinations of inputs and prices presented will not likely precisely reflect any given farm. • In practice, actual costs will be higher or lower than shown. Thus the most important column is “Your Budget”. Characteristics of an Enterprise Budget: • Estimates the costs and returns expected for a single enterprise. • Represents one combination (from among hundreds available) of inputs such as seed, chemicals, and fertilizer to produce some level of output. • A written plan for a future course of action including estimated costs and returns for that particular enterprise. • Provides a format and a basis for developing enterprise budgets appropriate for a given farm situation. Things not implied by an Enterprise Budget: • It is not the only combination of inputs that can be used to produce this crop. • It does not imply that anyone whose costs are different from this must have incorrect data or poor records. • It does not imply that all producers can achieve these costs and yields. Different soil types, different ways in which the soil has been utilized and cared for in the past, and different weather in a given season all can cause the actual results to vary greatly from what is presented. Yield Levels Three yields are provided in each budget sheet. The middle yield is the long term trend yield for Ohio. The other two yields are 20% lower and higher than the middle yield. These yields levels reflect differing yield potential.

Fixed Costs Five items are included as fixed costs, some of which may or may not be fixed for a particular operation. These items include labor, management, machinery and equipment, land, and miscellaneous charges.

Interpretation of Returns All budgets report “return above variable costs” and “return above total costs”. Return above variable costs is useful in examining decisions that must be made within a year. Return above total costs would be used to examine “long-run” decisions.

Variable Costs Seed, fertilizer, and chemical requirements are based on agronomists’ recommendations. Fertilizer amounts vary by yield level to reflect crop removal, based on typical soil test values for P2O5 and K2O. These quantities and prices can changed to reflect your soil tests and local prices to provide a more accurate estimate of your costs of production.

Costing Methods The budgets report all costs including cash, depreciation, and opportunity costs. Cash costs likely include categories such as seed, fertilizer, and chemical costs. Depreciation on machinery is included in the “Machinery and Equipment Charge.” Some items may contain opportunity costs, which reflect returns to a producer’s labor, capital, and managerial resources. Opportunity costs should be included in budgeting because they account for the use of a producer’s resources.

Pricing Methods Prices for crops and inputs reflect estimates for the given year. Crop prices are estimates of harvest prices. No costs are included for grain storage. If an improved price is achieved by your farm due to storage or marketing strategies, then any increased costs to achieve that price should either be netted out of returns or added to costs.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Enterprise Budgets Access the Ohio Crop Enterprise Budgets by visiting go.osu.edu/enterprise_budgets or by using the QR code to the right.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Barry Ward (ward.8@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 27

Ohio Farm Custom Rates This publication reports custom rates based on a statewide survey. Surveys were mailed/emailed to past respondents and distributed at various Extension programs through the winter of 2024. The summary information included in this publication is based on the responses of 333 farmers, custom operators, farm managers, and landowners conducted in 2024. These rates, except where noted, include the implement and tractor if required, all variable machinery costs such as fuel, oil, lube, twine, etc., and labor for the operation. Some custom rates published in this study vary widely, possibly influenced by: • • • • • • •

Type or size of equipment used Size and shape of fields Condition of the crop 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 Region of Ohio with different custom services supply and demand characteristics

Some custom rates reflect discounted rates as the parties involved have family or community relationships. Discounted rates may also occur when the custom work provider is attempting to strengthen a relationship to help secure the custom farmed land in a future purchase, cash rental 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. Charges may be added if the custom provider considers a job abnormal such as distance from the operator’s base location, difficulty of terrain, amount of product or labor involved with the operation, or other special requirements of the custom work customer. Access the Ohio Farm Custom Rates by visiting: go.osu.edu/OhioCustomFarmRates2024 The eFields nitrogen studies utilize the Ohio Farm Custom Rates to calculate return above total N. As you read through our nitrogen studies, you can reference these rates to better understand our calculations. Below is a sample of how we utilize these rates for our return above N calculations. The treatment data below is from an eFields Late Season Nitrogen study. The total nitrogen rate and yield were inputted in the Nitrogen Timing Calculator that is found in a downloadable Excel file at go.osu.edu/econcalculator.

Treatment: Rate 1 V2/V3 Application (lbs N/ac)

160

Late Application (lbs N/ac)

N/A

Total Application (lbs N/ac)

160

NDVI

0.84

Moisture (%)

17.8

Yield (bu/ac)

218

In this example, the “Liquid, Knife / Acre” rate of $14.15 was used to calculate the return above N. After inputting the application rate, yield, and total N rate into the calculator, the Return Above N for this treatment is $771.20 per acre.

28 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Total Nitrogen Rate in lbs/ac

160

Cost of N/lb

0.63

Total N Cost

100.80

Cost of Application in $/ac

14.15

Yield

218

Price/bu

4.45

Gross Income

872.00

Return Above N ($/ac)

771.20

Soybean

Small Grains

Fertilizer Application - Ground

Avg

Std

Median

Max

Min

Dry Bulk / Acre

$8.73

$2.06

$8.75

$15.00

$5.00

$10.79

$6.67

Variable Rate Fertilizer / Acre

$9.82

$2.64

$9.50

$16.00

$4.25

$12.45

$7.18

Liquid, Knife / Acre

$14.15

$7.17

$13.00

$35.00

$7.50

$21.32

$6.99

Liquid, Spray / Acre

$9.87

$3.07

$9.00

$18.00

$6.00

$12.95

$6.80

Anhydrous / Acre

$18.43

$5.94

$16.00

$35.00

$12.00

$24.37

$12.49

Late Season N Application - Coulters / Acre

Low response rate - not reporting

$16.00

$11.00

Late Season N Application - Drops / Acre

$14.00

$3.26

$13.00

$20.00

$10.00

$17.26

$10.74

Planting Operations

Avg

Std

Median

Max

Min

Plant Corn 30” Rows / Acre

$23.51

$7.47

$24.50

$40.00

$6.00

$30.98

$16.04

Plant Corn w/ Starter Fertilizer 30” Rows / Acre

$24.77

$8.47

$25.00

$50.00

$6.00

$33.23

$16.30

Variable Rate Corn Planting / Acre

$26.18

$6.61

$25.00

$45.00

$17.00

$32.79

$19.57

Plant Soybeans 15” or 30” Rows / Acre

$23.21

$6.54

$23.50

$45.00

$10.00

$29.75

$16.67

Variable Rate Soybean Planting / Acre

$25.58

$7.51

$25.00

$47.00

$17.00

$33.10

$18.07

Drill Soybeans / Acre

$20.77

$8.51

$19.00

$40.00

$5.00

$29.28

$12.25

Drill Small Grains / Acre

$20.68

$8.24

$18.50

$40.00

$10.00

$28.91

$12.44

Grain Harvest

Avg

Std

Median

Max

Min

Corn: Combine, Grain Cart, Haul / Acre

$40.99

$13.39

$38.00

$90.00

$20.00

$54.38

$27.59

Soybeans: Combine, Grain Cart, Haul / Acre

$37.92

$11.72

$35.00

$85.00

$20.00

$49.64

$26.20

Wheat: Combine, Grain Cart, Haul / Acre

$37.80

$13.34

$35.00

$88.00

$20.00

$51.14

$24.46

Added Charge GPS Mapping / Acre

$2.92

$2.50

$1.75

$7.00

$1.00

$5.41

$0.42

Combine Only - Corn / Acre

$34.61

$8.81

$35.00

$65.00

$15.00

$43.42

$25.80

Combine Only - Soybeans / Acre

$33.53

$8.57

$32.00

$60.00

$12.00

$42.10

$24.97

Combine Only - Small Grains / Acre

$33.56

$9.34

$32.00

$62.00

$12.00

$42.91

$24.22

Grain Cart / Acre

$7.72

$5.14

$5.00

$20.00

$2.00

$12.86

$2.58

Chemical Control of Weeds/Insects/Disease

Avg

Std

Median

Max

Min

Spraying - Self Propelled Sprayer / Acre

$9.89

$2.50

$9.00

$18.00

$6.00

$12.39

$7.38

Spraying - Pull-Type Sprayer / Acre

$9.28

$2.91

$10.00

$15.00

$5.00

$12.19

$6.37

Spraying Late Season (High Clearance) / Acre

$12.61

$3.51

$13.00

$22.00

$7.00

$16.13

$9.10

Corn

Forages

Ag Tech

Other Range

Range

Participate in the 2026 Survey!

PROJECT CONTACT

Use the QR code to the right or the direct link (go.osu.edu/CustomRateSurvey2026) to participate in the Ohio Farm Custom Rates survey for 2026. Farmers who participate will receive an emailed copy of the 2026 report when it is complete.

For inquiries about this information, contact Barry Ward (ward.8@osu.edu), Eric Richer (richer.5@osu.edu), John Barker (barker.41@osu.edu), or Amanda Bennett (bennett.709@osu.edu).

Deadline to participate: April 30, 2026

2025 eFields Report | 29

Quarterly Fertilizer Price Summary OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Summarize Ohio fertilizer prices based on retailer survey responses to better understand pricing trends.

OSU Extension Statewide

To better understand local fertilizer prices across Ohio, OSU Extension initiated a fertilizer pricing survey of retailers across Ohio beginning in December 2023. Respondents were asked to quote spot prices as of the first day of the quarter. Sale types included pickup (i.e. freight on board or FOB) at the plant (any quantity), direct-to-farm delivery (truckloads), or delivered and applied (poultry litter only). No blending or application charges were to be included in the spot price. Results from the survey data can be used to gauge pricing trends and compare Ohio prices to the national average. 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. Results from the quarterly survey are shared through the Ohio Ag Manager blog (u.osu.edu/ohioagmanager). Summaries of those results are on the Farm Office site, under the Farm Management tab (farmoffice.osu.edu).

The summary report each quarter contains a chart (Table 1.) which includes the number of responses for each fertilizer product. The minimum and maximum values are also reported, as well as a simple average of all responses for each product. The fourth quarter (October 1st) summary had the greatest participation with 32 retailers from 19 counties completing the survey. In general, when comparing the results from this survey with national average prices, Ohio’s prices were slightly lower. When compared to Quarter 4 of 2024 average Ohio prices, the 2025 Q4 data average Ohio prices were significantly higher for all fertilizers measured in the survey. UAN28 and DAP both saw the most significant increases over 2024 prices in the same quarter, coming in at changes of +26% and +22%, respectively. Urea, MAP, and potash all came in at more than a 12% increase over the same 2024 period.

Table 1. Fourth Quarter 2025 Ohio Fertilizer Prices

Product

Responses (n)

Sale Type

Min ($/ton)

Max ($/ton)

Avg ($/ton)

NH3

FOB Plant

685

890

802

UAN 28-0-0

Direct to Farm

330

455

367

Urea 46-0-0

FOB Plant

590

685

627

MAP 11-52-0

FOB Plant

849

955

926

DAP18-46-0

FOB Plant

850

970

911

APP 10-34-0

Direct to Farm

600

700

653

Potash 0-0-60

FOB Plant

399

510

477

Ammonium Sulfate 21-0-0-24 (AMS)

FOB Plant

450

590

492

Ammonium Thio-Sulfate 12-0-0-26 (ATS)

FOB Plant

355

440

395

Poultry Litter

Delivered and applied, < 25 miles

Farm Diesel (ie. off-road diesel)

Direct to Farm, $/gallon

2.45

3.05

2.80

30 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

$/ton

Access the Ohio Quarterly Fertilizer Price Summaries by visiting go.osu.edu/ FertilizerSummary or using the QR code below.

$/ton

Figure 1. Nitrogen Products 2025 Price Trend.

Figure 2. Phosphate Products 2025 Price Trend.

PROJECT CONTACT $/ton

For inquiries about this project, contact Clint Schroeder (schroeder.307@osu.edu), Amanda Bennett (bennett.709@osu.edu), or Eric Richer (richer.5@osu.edu).

Figure 3. Potash 2025 Price Trend.

2025 eFields Report | 31

Farm Business Analysis OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Assisting Ohio’s farm families to achieve financial success in today’s challenging marketplace.

OSU Extension Statewide

STUDY INFORMATION Data Collection Year 2024 Farms Participating in Business 51 Analysis Farms Completing Farm or 38 Enterprise Analysis

STUDY DESIGN In 2025, 51 farms worked on analysis for their farm businesses with 38 farms completing a whole farm or enterprise analysis. Crop production was the primary enterprise with additional enterprises including dairy, beef finishing, custom heifer raising, and custom field operations. All farm analyses include both beginning and end-of-year balance sheets for the 2024 calendar year. Farms ranged in size from 9 crop acres to more than 3,500 crop acres. The 2024 summary contains enterprise reports for corn harvested as dry shelled corn and corn silage, soybeans, winter wheat, alfalfa hay, and mixed hay. Organically grown corn, soybeans, sunflowers, and winter wheat are a new addition to the summary for 2025. Results are reported by land tenure for owned acres and rented acres. While some farms do evaluate share-rental arrangements, specifics of each rental arrangement vary by farm and are not summarized. Benchmark reports are generated for crop enterprises when possible and can be found in the enterprise summaries. Find the full Crop Enterprise Report under the “Farm Profitability” tab at: farmoffice.osu.edu.

Shaded counties indicate farms participating in analysis

OBSERVATIONS Knowing the farm business’s accrual adjusted net farm income and costs of production allows farm managers to identify overall business issues up to several years before they become apparent if managing the farm business on a cash basis. Benchmarking reports allow farms to compare their situation to other participating farms. A summary report comparing the average of all farms to the high 20% of farms sorted by net return can highlight areas where high profitability farms excel.

SUMMARY •

Average net returns were positive for soybeans with the average farm netting close $50 per acre of profit. Average net returns for corn acres were mixed, with owned acres showing a net loss of $133.86 per acre while rented acres made a $12.49 per acre profit.

•

Marketing advantages were very pronounced for corn acres with the high 20% of farms selling their bushels for $0.30 to $0.40 more than the group average. This marketing advantage combined with lower costs incurred is what separated the high 20% of farms from the average as field production was the same or slightly lower for the high 20% of farms.

Technicians work directly with farms to develop and complete: • • • •

Balance Sheets (beginning and end of year), cost and market basis Income Statement, accrual adjusted Statement of Cash Flows Enterprise Analysis

32 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

RESULTS Owned Land Average

Owned Land: High 20%

Rented Land Average

Rented Land: High 20%

194.05

194.07

Corn Yield (bu/ac)

184.62

175.47 Per Acre ($)

Direct Costs

672.92

418.92

718.91

607.33

Direct and Overhead Costs

935.42

649.23

847.50

702.92

Net Return

-133.86

173.61

12.49

209.84

Per Bushel ($) Direct Costs

3.64

2.39

3.70

3.13

Direct and Overhead Costs

5.07

3.70

4.37

3.62

Marketing Value

4.24

4.62

4.31

4.65

57.25

71.57

Soybeans Yield (bu/ac)

54.58

54.75 Per Acre ($)

Direct Costs

317.87

275.48

474.29

511.48

Direct and Overhead Costs

526.41

436.53

554.12

545.39

Net Return

42.78

130.42

57.44

194.45

Per Bushel ($) Direct Costs

5.82

5.03

8.28

7.15

Direct and Overhead Costs

9.64

7.97

9.68

7.62

Marketing Value

10.09

9.71

10.25

10.32

2024 Ohio Farm Business Summary A complete farm business analysis monitors profitability, working capital, cash flow and net worth change. Enterprise analysis generates cost of production data per acre, and per bushel or per ton broken down by direct costs, indirect costs, and total costs with and without government income and a labor and management charge. This precision data gives you tools to make the best-informed marketing and management decisions. Personalized benchmark reports generated for financial standards and by crop enterprise identify opportunities to increase profitability.

PROJECT CONTACT The Farm Business Analysis Team works with farms throughout Ohio. Contact them directly to set up an appointment to begin analysis for your farm business, or for overall program information, contact Clint Schroeder (schroeder.307@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 33

Impacts of Farm Succession Planning RESEARCH QUESTIONS Q1: How do operations with and without a succession plan differ from each other? Q2: What determines the likelihood of an operation having a succession plan? Q3: What is the impact of a succession plan on operations' growth potential?

OBJECTIVE Evaluate the current state of farm succession planning in Ohio, with a particular focus on the primary operator's perspective.

RESPONSES

STUDY DESIGN Recognizing the significant need for adequate succession planning across the state and country and the lack of research on this complex topic, a self-designed survey was created and distributed across Ohio to gain insight about the stage of planning among farms as well as the level of detail of their plans. The survey consisted of 48 questions relating to operator demographics, operation characteristics, operator expectations, and succession planning efforts. Researchers designed a survey that was distributed in 2024 via personal and professional networks. The target was primary operators of a farm, defined as the person who is responsible for both day-to-day and long-term decisions about the operation. The first research question was analyzed through summary statistics, and the second two used probit models to determine the relationship between outcomes. A very narrow definition of farm succession planning was used: written for the transfer of the entire operation, beyond the information included in the operator's will or trust. It should be noted that due to constraints, it was a sample of convenience for those who had access to and were willing to complete the survey online.

Surveys submitted represent 186 operations across 39 of Ohio's counties.

SAMPLE AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS VS STATE OF OHIO Characteristic

Sample

Ohio*

Age

57 (male) & 55 (female)

Years Farming Experience

Income from Off-Farm Sources (%)

43% of Ohio’s primary operators work 200 or more days off the farm.

Size of farm (# of acres)

533

180

Number of Children

has 2.65 people in his/her household, including him/herself and his/her spouse

*Statewide averages come from the 2022 US Census of Agriculture.

34 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

SUMMARY

Other

STATE OF SUCCESSION PLANNING IN OHIO

Q1: How do operations with and without a succession plan differ from each other? Significant differences relating to this question include: those with a written succession plan tend to be older and rely less on off farm income. The relationship with size of operation and presence of a plan was nearly significant. Contrary to expectations, level of education and number of children did not have a systematic relationship between those who do and do not have a succession plan.

22%

Q2: What determines the likelihood of an operation having a succession plan? As anticipated, there is a positive and significant, albeit small, relationship between farm size and the likelihood of having a strictly defined succession plan. In addition, an operator who has clearly defined intentions to retire from an operation results in a stronger likelihood of having a plan. Lastly, the operator is less likely to have a plan in place when the expectation is to have the heirs manage the land as an asset. Q3: What is the impact of a succession plan on operations' growth potential? This question was broken into two areas for those who have a succession plan: likelihood of healthy leverage ratio and impact of plan on "very positive" financial success expectation. First, a healthy leverage ratio was considered to be a debt to asset ratio of 10% or less. Age is minimally positively significant meaning the younger the operator, the less likely they are to have a healthy leverage ratio. In terms of those considering their future financial success, operations with no succession planning at all are significantly more likely to believe that their operation's chance for financial success are "very positive". Conversely, those with no plans to retire or whose retirement depends on farm financial status have a negative outlook on future financial success. Similarly, those who plan to sell their operation and not pass it to the next generation also have a more negative opinion.

Ag Tech

31%

24% 24% No succession plan Plan but not written Plan outlined in a will or trust Written plan other than a will or trust

CONCLUSIONS •

Older operators with a higher dependence on farm income are more likely to have a written succession plan.

•

Further, the likelihood of an operation having a plan is positively impacted by plans to retire and a somewhat positive financial standing.

NEXT STEPS Overall, these findings set a baseline for further data analysis and serve to identify factors that do and do not predict differences in succession planning behavior across Ohio's commercial farms. The importance of understanding an operator's expectations of the future of the operation and heirs' intentions is vital. Finally, the fundamental goal of succession planning is to match the expectations of the current operator with the subsequent generation and much can be done in order to ensure operations, both the assets and management, are transferred successfully.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Ryanna Tietje (tietje.9@osu.edu) or Dr. Margaret Jodlowski (jodllowski.1@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 35

Farm Management Online Courses FARM OFFICE:

A team of experts that represents OSU Extension programs in Agricultural and Resource Law, Farm Management, Production Business Management, and Tax. We've collaborated to form the Farm Office, a one-stop shop for navigating the legal and economic challenges of agricultural production.

FARM ON: OSU FARM FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT COURSE This fully online course consists of ten 1-hour modules that include video lessons, quizzes, and assignments. Participants should plan for an 18-22-hour commitment to complete the course. This course includes the following 10 modules offered through The Ohio State University Extension and the Farm Financial Management and Policy Institute (FFMPI). Enroll here: go.osu.edu/FarmOnCourse This course includes the following 10 modules: Module 1 - Farm Business Planning Module 2 - Developing a Farm Balance Sheet Module 3 - Understanding Income Statements Module 4 - Statement of Cashflows Module 5 - The Cost of Production Module 6 - Record Keeping: Accounting and Production Module 7 - Farm Tax Considerations Module 8 - Farm Financing Module 9 - Financial and Legal Risk Management Module 10 - Financial Analysis

BASICS OF GRAIN MARKETING ONLINE COURSE

This self-paced course is designed for agricultural producers seeking to strengthen their grain marketing knowledge and improve profitability. The open enrollment runs from December 15 - April 15, with the course running through April 30. An additional summer session will have open enrollment beginning June 1 with the course running through September 30. Ohio State University Extension acknowledges the funding support provided by Ohio Corn & Wheat and the Ohio Soybean Council for the development of this course. Enroll here: go.osu.edu/GrainMarketingCourse

If you have Questions or would like to be added to the Reminder/Notification of Open Enrollment email list please email Wm. Bruce Clevenger - clevenger.10@osu.edu

36 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE OF YOUR FARM

Each year, OSU Extension holds “Planning for the Future of Your Farm” workshops to help families with farm transition planning. We offer three ways for farm families to learn. This include an asynchronous courses, a live Zoom webinar series in March and in-person workshops throughout the year at several locations across Ohio. This workshop challenges farm families to actively plan for the future of the farm business. Learn how to have crucial conversations about the future and strategies and tools that can help you transfer your farm’s ownership, management, and assets to the next generation. Teaching faculty for the workshop are David Marrison, OSU Extension Farm Management Field Specialist and Robert Moore, Attorney with the OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program. Topics discussed during this series include: • Developing Goals for Estate and Succession •

Planning for the Transition of Control

•

Planning for the Unexpected

•

Communication and Conflict Management during Farm Transfer

•

Legal Tools and Strategies

•

Developing Your Team

•

Getting Your Affairs in Order

•

Selecting an Attorney

Asynchronous On-Line Course- AGRBMX004 A new on-line course is now available through OSU's Professional and Continuing Education Platform. This online course is designed to help farm families navigate the complex process of farm succession and estate planning. Using OSU Extension’s structured five-phase approach, participants will explore strategies for transferring ownership, management, and assets to the next generation. The course emphasizes effective family communication, legal and financial planning tools, and proactive decision-making. Whether your farm is large or small, this course provides the guidance that will help you to create a customized transition plan that reflects your family’s goals and values. Families are encouraged to participate together to develop a shared vision for the future. This course is organized into the following four modules: Introduction to the Course Farm Transition Planning Legal Tools for Farm Transition Planning Farm Transition Strategies This course allows you to complete the course at a time which is convenient to you! Enrollment will begin on September 15, 2026. Full access to the course videos and materials is $149. Enrollees have one year to complete the course. Please note that members of Ohio Corn and Wheat can receive an enrollment discount. Enroll here: go.osu.edu/MyFarmsFuture

CONNECT WITH FARM OFFICE

PROJECT CONTACT

farmoffice.osu.edu

For inquiries about this project, contact David Marrison (marrison.2@osu.edu) or Bruce Clevenger (clevenger.10@osu.edu).

YouTube: @osufarmoffice Ag Law Facebook: @OhioAgLaw

2025 eFields Report | 37

Grain Dust: A Respiratory Hazard INTRODUCTION

On-farm grain dust is a primary airborne hazard and has been attributed to many respiratory diseases, both acute and chronic. Because of this, farmers are recommended to wear respirators while in high dust environments. The foundation of this recommendation is supported by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) under the respiratory protection standard (29 CFR 1914.134), stating the respirator should be a properly selected, fit tested, and worn correctly (OSHA, 2009). For most situations, an N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) will protect against grain dust while working around on-farm grain storage facilities.

ON-FARM DUST SAMPLING TRIALS A recent study evaluated the effectiveness and limitations of the N95 to protect farmers from grain dust exposure. The study involved 14 on-farm grain bins, where workers were cleaning and unloading grain. One research objective was to estimate the protection provided by the N95 FFR in these environments. The results demonstrated that the expected protection factors (EPFs) for N95 FFRs exceeded OSHA’s assigned protection factor (APF) criteria of 10 in all cases.

Figure 1. Agricultural airborne contaminants can lodge in the human respiratory tract.

A second objective was to evaluate Maximum Use Time (MUC) of the N95 respirator. Three of fourteen cases identified farmers’ work durations exceeded the respirator’s estimated use time. This highlights a potential risk of overuse, reducing respirator effectiveness. In a pre-study questionnaire, the farm workers exhibited limited knowledge of fit-testing, user seal check and N95 respirator load limitation. None of the participants reported undergoing a fit-test, and the probability they conducted a user seal check was low. Additionally, no farmers were aware of the 200 mg filter loading limitation for N-series filters, which may impact respirator performance over prolonged use. However, each farmer was in agreement that grain dust was a contributing factor for respiratory hazards; acknowledging they were at risk.

Effects of Respirable Dust Figure 1 shows how agricultural dusts settle in the respiratory tract. Particulates from large dust, pollen and plant fragments (greater than10 µm) stay in the upper airway and are filtered out by the nose and throat. Symptoms from this exposure includes common irritation and inflammation of the nose and throat, sneezing and nasal/chest congestion. Allergic reactions, like those considered hay fevers occur at this level of the respiratory tract. When the particles are smaller (between 5 - 10 µm) they may reach the bronchi, where they are more difficult to remove. These particulates include grain dust, mold spores, and pesticide droplets. Aggravating the bronchi, can spur on bronchitis and asthma. Short-term symptoms include coughing with increased mucus, where long-term exposure may reduce lung function and contribute to chronic bronchitis. When the ultrafine particles, like grain and soil dusts, combustion residues, and chemical aerosols (smaller than 5 µm) penetrate into the alveoli, they pose the greatest health risk because they cannot be removed with coughing or mucus expulsion. Symptoms include persistent wheezing and shortness of breath, which can lead to increased risk of respiratory infections. Extreme cases can have cardiovascular effects like irregular heartbeats. At this stage it is also possible for the particle to be encapsulated and absorbed into the bloodstream.

Figure 2. Pictures of approved respirators: N-95, N-99, half mask with P100 filter, full mask with chemical cartridge, and PAPR.

38 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Small Grains

Soybean

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Table 1. Examples of respirable particles in agriculture, their size, and recommended PPE for protection

Substance

Approximate Particle Size

Respirator Type

Grain dust

2–100 microns

N95, N99 or P100

Mold spores

1–30 microns

N95, N99 or P100

Silica dust (from soil)

< 10 microns

N95, N99 or P100 in low concentration areas; elastomeric respirator with HEPA or PAPR systems in high-conc. areas

Select a respirator to protect the lungs Selecting the correct type of respirator for the task is an important first step to protect the respiratory system. There are several types to choose from, depending on the type of contaminant, the concentration level, and the work environment. Disposable respirators: Disposable masks are good protection against most agricultural particulates. Two popular types are N-95 and N-99. The ‘N’ indicates Not oil resistant, meaning these are not suitable when oil-based aerosols are present. The number represents the amount of filtration they provide. N-95 respirators filter out at least 95%, and N-99 respirators filter out at least 99% of the respirable dust particles. These 2-strap respirator masks are effective against grain and feed dusts, smoke and ashes, fecal and feather materials, mold spores in crops and hay, bacteria and some viruses, and non-oil-based pesticide products. They do not protect against gases or vapors such as ammonia, hydrogen sulfide or organic solvents. Because they are disposable, they should be replaced when they reach their saturation (load capacity) of 150-200mg of particulate matter. In some high-dust concentrated areas, like manual sweeping of grain bins, the maximum capacity can be reached in as little as two hours. Therefore, it is recommended to replace them frequently to not strain the worker’s ability to breathe. Elastomeric half mask and full mask respirators: Half- and full- mask respirators can have interchangeable cartridges, specific to the airborne contaminant. The full mask provides additional protection for the eyes from irritants and fumes. Particulate cartridges include the P100 and HEPA (High-Efficiency Particulate Air) filters. These products remove at least 99.97% of the airborne particles .3 microns in diameter. The P100 cartridges carry the ‘P’ rating, meaning they are also oil-proof. They are typically pink/magenta in color and offer the best protection against agricultural dusts, diesel exhaust, crystalline silicates, and small respirable particles. Powered Air-Purifying Respirators (PAPRs): Powered Air-Purifying Respirators are equipped with either HEPA filters or gas/vapor cartridges. They are ideal for longer exposure environments like welding, pesticide application and confined spaces, including diesel exhaust spaces. Powered air-purifying respirators operate with a helmet or loose-fitting hood, which are good for workers with facial hair, dental devices, or persons who cannot achieve a proper seal. In addition to the contaminant, they also provide positive airflow into the respirator, which reduces fatigue and improves comfort for the worker. Surgical masks and 1-strap nuisance dust masks: These offer no protection against common agricultural particulates. These items are as useless as wearing a handkerchief or bandana around the face. They do not provide any filtration of small respirable sized particles or have a tight seal to restrict entry into the respiratory tract.

STUDY CONCLUSION

PROJECT CONTACT

Results from these case studies emphasize the need for enhanced education to farmers about fit-testing, user seal check, and other respiratory maintenance that affects the performance of the respirators. Addressing these factors through education, training, and improvements to their respirator usage could enhance respiratory protection for farmers working in high-dust environments.

For inquiries about this project, contact the Agricultural Safety & Health Program, Dee Jepsen (jepsen.4@osu.edu)

2025 eFields Report | 39

Follow us on Social Media Follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram to get instant updates and special releases from our team! Posts feature students, eFields contributors, helpful resources, and research completed by faculty in the department. Connect with us @OhioStatePA on each platform to ensure you are informed about trending topics and events in agriculture.

@OhioStatePA

40 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Subscribe to our YouTube page @ohiostateprecisionag9203 or @OSUAgronomicCrops to view past presentations, learn more about current research, and gain valuable insight for innovative farming strategies!

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

@ohiostateprecisionag9203 @OSUAgronomicCrops

2025 eFields Report | 41

2025 Preharvest Weed Survey PREHARVEST SURVEY This fall, Ohio State University Extension Educators surveyed 4,459 soybean fields across 47 counties to measure the frequency and distribution of problematic weed species. Extension Educators drive a circular route across their respective county and evaluate an average of 95 soybean fields before harvest. A visual rating for control is recorded for present weed species on a scale of 1 to 3. A rating of 1 represents a low infestation and a rating of 3 is assigned to fields with severe infestations. Observing weed populations allows OSU Extension to monitor escapes and identify emerging threats to Ohio growers. This work is possible thanks to Extension State Specialist Dr. Alyssa Essman and funding from the Ohio Soybean Council. In 2025, 48% of fields surveyed were clean or weed free (Figure 1). The most encountered weeds during the 2025 preharvest survey – percent of total fields with weeds present summed across rating levels: 1. Waterhemp – 17% 2. Volunteer corn – 15% 3. Marestail – 10% 4. Giant foxtail/grass – 10%

Figure 1. Percentage of observed fields reported weed free by NASS reporting district. (Note: South Central also includes Meigs and Perry Counties). Line represents the statewide average % of clean fields (48%).

5. Giant ragweed – 9% The continued rise in frequency and severity of waterhemp populations remains a concern in 2025 (Figure 2). Waterhemp has risen from the 5th most frequent weed species in the 2023 preharvest survey; 2nd most frequent in 2024; and now the most frequent in 2025. Of the 752 fields waterhemp was observed, 25% received the highest severity rating for severe infestations. In Northwest Ohio, it was present in 31% of fields evaluated.

2023

2024

2025

Figure 2. Waterhemp distribution from 2023 (left), 2024 (middle), and 2025 (right) preharvest surveys. A county labelled with 0% (white) does not mean waterhemp is not present in county, but that it was not encountered in the survey. Non-participating counties are shaded in gray.

42 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

DISTRIBUTION

CONTROL

The migration of waterhemp and palmer amaranth into and around the state of Ohio has been closely monitored. These weeds are especially difficult to control and pose a serious threat to crop yields. Palmer amaranth has been reported in various regions around Ohio. Upon discovery, it has generally been confined to the areas of introduction or eradicated. In the years conducting this survey, it has been uncommon to spontaneously encounter palmer amaranth. Waterhemp has become increasingly common and is now found in crop fields across Ohio, largely across the western portion of the state.

Waterhemp produces a tremendous number of seeds, but the seeds are relatively short lived in the soil. Excellent control over 3 - 5 years can help eradicate this weed. Successful waterhemp control programs include: • Prevention: Evaluate potential sources of seed. Waterhemp can be introduced to and spread within an operation via contaminated equipment, livestock feed or manure, or seed for CREP or cover crops. • Control: Start clean with a burndown application or tillage. Use a full rate of an effective preemergence herbicide with residual control. A timely POST application, before waterhemp reaches three inches in height, and an overlapping residual can facilitate season long control. See the Weed Control Guide for Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri for product and application recommendations [ANR-789]. • Monitoring: Late-season escapes are always a risk. Being able to identify waterhemp, scouting late-season, and removing plants before they set seed will greatly reduce contributions to the soil seedbank. • Mechanical: deep tillage in fields with large seedbanks can bury seed to prevent emergence. • Cultural: Control can be improved with the use of narrow row spacing or fall-seeded cover crops. Waterhemp Identification and Control

Waterhemp in a field in Mercer County, Ohio.

BIOLOGY The following biological characteristics give waterhemp a competitive edge: • Immense seed production. From 100,000 seeds in competitive situations to over 1 million in noncompetitive situations. • Fast growth rate. Approximately 1 - 1 ¼ inches per day. • Prolonged emergence window. Can emerge later in the growing season than other weed species. • High genetic diversity. Male and female flowers are on separate plants and must outcross to reproduce.

You can find more information on the identification and control of problematic pigweed species like waterhemp at: u.osu.edu/osuweeds/superweeds/pigweeds/ (or use the QR code to the right)

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Stephanie Karhoff (karhoff.41@osu.edu) or Alyssa Essman (essman.42@osu.edu).

• Herbicide resistance. Due in part to high genetic diversity, waterhemp populations in the Midwest have developed resistance to several herbicides and even multiple resistance to two or more sites of action.

2025 eFields Report | 43

Climate Resilience In 2025, Extension educators, specialists, and Nationwide associates collaborated—supported by Nationwide Insurance and the Ohio Farm Bureau through the AgTech Innovation Hub—to strengthen Extension curriculum on climate resilience in Ohio agriculture. The effort aimed to boost curriculum on extreme weather risk on building integrity, identifying and preventing risks for farm assets (predict and prevent mindset), and comprehensive emergency preparedness beyond crop losses.

Curriculum Focus Areas Top weather and/or climate concerns: Extreme weather events; Hot temperatures and livestock management; Excessive winds Most vulnerable areas to extreme weather: Crop failure; Drainage and erosion; Crop and building wind damage; Severe storms causing catastrophic damage to communities; Prolonged utility loss impacting animal care and farm operations; Labor shortages due to severe weather disruptions; Damage to silos, ditches, and drainage systems Management strategies most willing to invest in: Water management infrastructure (e.g., tiling, irrigation, water recycling); Resilient grain storage; Generators and cross-training employees for resilience against disruptions; Higher building standards; Crop genetics and cover crops Climate resilient information, including links to factsheets, videos, and tools are available on the Climate Resilient Agriculture website at the State Climate Office of Ohio (https://climate.osu.edu/agtech-innovation-hub). 44 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Farmer Stories (If you have a story on resilience that you would like to share with your peers, reach out to scoo@osu.edu - subject "AgTech".)

Dawson Farm, Inc (Delaware, Ohio): The Dawsons describe the history of their hog operation, heat impacts on production, and other extreme weather impacts. Hillview Farm, Inc (Marysville, Ohio): The Hobbs describe their beef cattle operations and the custom built monoslope with added extreme weather resilience features.

Online Resources FORTIFIED Commercial (https://fortifiedhome.org/fortified-commercial/) - To reduce damage and help businesses re-open quickly following severe weather, the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety developed this voluntary, superior construction standard and designation compliance program. Extension Disaster Education Network (https://extensiondisaster.net/) - A multi-state collaboration of Cooperative Extension Services providing disaster-related education and resources to communities in the United States. Climate Ready Farm Assessments (https://climateready.msu.edu/) - Assessment of risk and resilience around cropping, dairy, tree fruit, and swine productions.

PROJECT CONTACT

For inquiries about this project, contact Aaron Wilson (wilson.1010@osu.edu), Elizabeth Hawkins (hawkins.301@osu.edu), or Amanda Douridas (douridas.9@osu.edu). Photo credits: Geddy Davis - Byrd Center (left) and Wayne Dellinger - OSU Extension (Union County) (right).

2025 eFields Report | 45

From The Ground Up The Project Started in 2024, this USDA-funded NIFA project is a farmer-led effort to improve real-world, on-farm performance of conservation practices. We are using on-farm research to ensure these practices generate the outcomes – e.g., profitability, yield stability, and protection from extreme weather events – that farmers need. Farmers from across Ohio and Missouri are designing and implementing on-farm research projects that track the agronomic, economic, and environmental performance of conservation practices under working farm conditions. They are partnering with researchers at Ohio State, University of Missouri, Central State University, and Lincoln University to document outcomes and identify innovative solutions that address performance gaps across different types of farms in each state. Why? Experimental research has shown that practices like cover crops, diversified rotations, reduced tillage, and integration of livestock and crop production can have significant environmental benefits and improve yields and resilience to extreme weather. However, adoption of these practices remains low, largely because of variability in agronomic and economic performance for farmers and insufficient market or policy incentives for their use. Farmers want to do what makes most sense for their farm and situation. We put farmers in the driver’s seat in the development of innovative technical, management, and policy solutions to the challenges faced by modern agriculture. “From the Ground Up is lifting up the farmers voices. Farmer-led research is going to shift how the agriculture community sees us and how they value our knowledge. Farmers are the hands-on deck. We’re the feet in the dirt…When research starts with farmers, the results are more accurate and more useful. You get real solutions.” —Farmer, Donee Boykin Core Project Research Questions 1. How well do conservation practices perform under working farm conditions? 2. What on-farm factors explain variability in conservation practice performance? 3. What off-farm factors need to be addressed to create more incentives to use conservation practices? What is the Project Doing? Over the last year, we have formed nine farmer groups (with 5-8 farmers per group) across the two states. These farmers have selected specific onfarm research projects that focus on different practices of most interest to them. Our science team is helping them assess how well these practices perform under working farm conditions by measuring outcomes including crop and livestock yield, farm enterprise economics, compatibility with farm labor and machinery, soil health, and resilience in the face of extreme weather. Farmers play a central role in reviewing results from the previous year and making decisions about research methods for each field season. Learning from each other at a Farm Tour in Wayne County. The nine farmer nodes have selected the following research topics: OHA: Comparing cover crops vs. no cover crops in small scale vegetable production systems OHB: Comparing different approaches to fungicide use in conventional corn/soy production OHC: Comparing harvest vs. plow down of peas/clover in organic crop rotations OHD: Comparing traditional terminated rye cover crop vs. intensively managed winter forage (triticale, rye) harvested as forage on conventional dairy farms OHE: Comparing broadcast small-seeded diverse cover crop vs. traditional drilled rye vs. no cover crop on conventional corn/soybean farms

46 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

MOA: Comparing different methods of pretreating seeds for broadcasting annual cover crop species into pastures grazed by small ruminants MOB: Comparing value of green lightening vs. traditional nitrogen sources (urea, ammonium nitrate) as fertility treatments on intensively grazed cow pastures MOC: Comparing rye cover crop vs. no cover crop in conventional corn-soy rotations MOD: Comparing daikon radish cover crop vs control in small scale vegetable production systems We know that farmers do not act in a vacuum, so we are also tackling conservation practice adoption barriers at local and national levels. Through roundtable discussions and workshops with landowners, agribusinesses, and conservation agency staff, we are identifying local adoption barriers and creating community-scale action plans to improve local support for appropriate conservation in agriculture. At the national scale, our stakeholder group of policy and market advisors are working with our farmer leaders to identify ways to change policies and market incentives to meet the needs of farmers using conservation practices. Extension teams across Ohio and Missouri are collaborating with our farmers and local and national teams to share the project’s findings with broad and diverse audiences, including through field days, farmer ambassadors, workshops, and digital media. We are looking for opportunities to partner with extension educators and specialists on extension programming.

Sharing knowledge at the Lincoln University Carver Field Day

“Working with other farmers has helped me grow personally and professionally… We sharpen each other because we all talk about our different techniques, how we do stuff. And we learn from each other. We share ideas.” —Farmer, Ed Mershon Our project also supports internships for undergraduate students in Ohio and Missouri to provide them with hands-on experience doing participatory research and to develop innovative agricultural teaching materials for high-school students. Together, our farmers, researchers, and partners are working FROM THE GROUND UP to improve performance and increase conservation in agriculture across the Midwest, by making conservation practices work better for farmers.

For more information about his project, contact: •

Project Director: Douglas Jackson-Smith | jackson-smith.1@osu.edu | 330-202-3540

•

Project Manager: Alex Jefferies | jefferies.37@osu.edu | 330-263-8066

•

Solutions From the Land: Ernie Shea | eshea@solutionsfromtheland.org | 410-252-7079

•

Central State University: Sakthi Kumaran | ssubburayalu@centralstate.edu | 937-376-6561

•

University of Missouri: Gurbir Singh | singhgu@missouri.edu | 660-739-4410

•

Lincoln University: Tunsisa Hurisso | hurissot@lincolnu.edu | 573-681-5047

This work is supported by the From the Ground Up Project: Using on-farm research and collaboration to accelerate adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices in the Midwest, project award no. 202468012-41752, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture

2025 eFields Report | 47

Your Checkoff Dollars at Work Many eFields projects are made possible by the generous support of our commodity partners, Ohio Corn and Wheat and Ohio Soybean Council. Funding provided by their farmer-led boards make it possible for us to focus research on emerging and critical needs for Ohio farmers.

The Ohio Corn Checkoff and the Ohio Small Grains Checkoffs work on behalf of growers, promoting the use of Ohio-grown corn and wheat. Our partnership with national and state organizations is helping to expand trade markets, grow domestic demand, and work with state and national partners to provide education and research that lead to solutions to issues like vomitoxin in corn and increasing the profitability of wheat. Learn more about what we do at ohiocornandwheat.org.

The Ohio Soybean Council invests in research that provides technologies and information that will increase profit opportunities for Ohio farmers. Through basic and applied soybean research the long-term goals are to protect and increase yield, to provide understandable and usable data to farmers, and to inform them of best management practices to ensure the economic well-being of their operations. The Council’s investment helps develop the next generation of soybean researchers to help Ohio farmers realize their future potential. Learn more at soyohio.org. 48 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

The 2025 eFields Report is proud to share the results from seven projects funded by Ohio Corn and Wheat and Ohio Soybean Council. Thank you for helping drive research and innovation to support Ohio farmers. Farm Management Online Courses, page 36 Preharvest Weed Survey, page 42 DON Hybrid Summary, page 64 Fungicide Application for DON, page 80 Understanding SCN Risk, page 158 DON Resistance - Silage Corn, page 182 Cover Crop Population, Planting Date, page 228

2025 eFields Report | 49

Ohio State Corn Research For 2025, eFields corn research was focused on improving the production and profitability of corn in the greater Ohio area. Some exciting and innovating projects were conducted this year, with 55 unique studies implemented across the state. 2025 eFields corn research investigated many of the topics listed in the eFields focus areas. Highlights include biologicals, fungicide, nitrogen rate, and many other innovative practices. Here is the 2025 eFields corn research by the numbers: 1,261 acres

55 corn studies

For more corn research from Ohio State University Extension, explore the following resources: 2025 Ohio Corn Performance Tests The purpose of the Ohio Corn Performance Trials is to evaluate corn varieties for yield and other agronomic characteristics. This evaluation gives corn producers comparative information for selecting the best varieties for their unique production systems. For more information visit: go.osu.edu/corntrials. Agronomic Crops Team - Corn Research The Agronomic Crops Team performs interesting research studies on a yearly basis. Resources, fact sheets, and articles on corn research can be found here on the Agronomic Crops Team website: go.osu.edu/CropsTeamCorn. The Ohio State Digital Ag Program The Ohio State Digital Ag Program conducts studies related to all aspects of corn production. Research related to planting, inputs, and harvesting technology can be found on the Digital Ag website: digitalag.osu.edu.

50 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Small Grains

Soybean

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Growth Stages - Corn For all corn studies in this eFields report, we define corn growth stages as the following: VE - Emergence - coleoptile is fully visible, yet no leaves are fully developed. V1 - Full development of the first (flag) leaf, achieved when the collar of the leaf is fully visible. VN - N fully developed leaves with collars visible. VT - Tassels fully visible and silks will emerge in 2-3 days. R1 - Silking - silks are visible and pollination begins. R2 - Blister - silks darken and dry out, kernels are white and form a blister containing clear fluid. R3 - Milk - kernels are yellow and clear fluid turns milky white as starch accumulates, kernels contain 80% moisture. R4 - Dough - starchy liquid inside kernels has dough-like consistency, kernels contain 70% moisture and begin to dent at the top. R5 - Dent - nearly all kernels are dented and contain about 55% moisture. R6 - Black layer - physiological maturity is reached and kernels have attained maximum dry weight at 30-35% moisture.

Image Source: University of Illinois Agronomy Guide, 1999.

2025 eFields Report | 51

Alfalfa Management Prior to Corn OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Investigate the yield impacts of various spring alfalfa management practices on the subsequent corn crop.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Fulton County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/31/2025 Harvest Date 10/21/2025 Hybrid Blue River 46-02 Population 35,600 sds/ac Acres 37 Treatments 6 Reps 4 Treatment Width 30 ft. Tillage Conventional Management Fertilizer Previous Crop Alfalfa Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Haskins Loam, 29% Hoytville Clay Loam, 25% Mermill Loam, 13%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

2.70

3.77

3.38

2.48

0.83

1.16

14.32

Cumulative GDDs

200

527

1193

1960

2567

3047

STUDY DESIGN This multi-variable study was conducted in a randomized complete block design. The primary variable was first cutting (spring) alfalfa management before corn: flail mow alfalfa day before tillage termination, harvest and remove alfalfa, and let the alfalfa grow until spring tillage termination. Alfalfa termination was done by spring plowing within 24 hours of manure application and then disking several days later. The secondary variable was adding or omitting 4,000 gal of liquid pig manure on each of the primary alfalfa treatments. Manure treatments were applied on May 12 on the same day as flail mowing. The center 8 rows of each treatment were harvested to eliminate any edge effect.

52 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Aerial view of 3 of 6 treatments (l-r) prior to termination: harvested alfalfa, flail mowed alfalfa, and let alfalfa grow plus manure.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

This site received adequate rainfall in June and July, including during pollination the week of July 25. August and September were abnormally dry. Haylage harvested on May 12 yielded 1.53 dry ton/ac (1.8 ton/ ac at 15% equivalent) and had an average feed analysis (n=3) of 24% CP, 61% TDN, 43.5% NDF, .60 NeL, and 131 RFV. The pig manure analysis was 53-3340 per 1,000 gallons. Weed control was timely and effective. Subjective observations indicate harvested alfalfa had the least accumulation of fodder during tine weeding and alfalfa that was left to grow had the most accumulation of fodder. Pre-sidedress Nitrate Tests (PSNTs) were sampled in every subplot (n=24) on June 24 and none of the treatments indicated that nitrogen was yield limiting (>25 ppm NO3-N level, Purdue recommendations).

•

No statistical corn yield difference among all treatments except harvested alfalfa without manure.

•

Corn after flail mowed alfalfa, corn after harvested alfalfa plus manure, and corn after harvested alfalfa yielded the same, statistically.

•

Corn after harvested alfalfa yielded the lowest and those results can be correlated with the lowest PSNT results from June.

•

Growers need to calculate their own costs and revenues associated with these practices to arrive at their own economic conclusions.

•

Additional replications and year-over-year data will add to the validity of these results.

RESULTS Primary Treatment

Secondary Avg. Emergence PSNT Treatment (plants/ac) (ppm NO3-N)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Flail Mow Alfalfa

Manure

35,300

17.7

229 a

Flail Mow Alfalfa

No Manure

31,200

17.9

223 ab

Harvest Alfalfa

Manure

33,900

17.7

225 ab

Harvest Alfalfa

No Manure

34,100

17.6

217 b

Let Alfalfa Grow

Manure

33,800

18.0

234 a

Let Alfalfa Grow

No Manure

34,400

18.5

228 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Biomass sampling determines what nutrients are contained in a cover crop prior to termination or removal. A one square foot quadrant was used to sample above ground biomass in this study. Alfalfa height averaged 19 inches and 81 shoots per square foot at sampling on May 12. Average biomass sample results (n=5): 4,441 dry lbs biomass/acre, 176 lbs N/ac, 44 lbs P/ac, 218 lbs K/ac, 11 lbs S/ac, and 77 lbs Ca/ac.

LSD: 11 CV: 3.9%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Eric Richer (richer.5@osu.edu) or Kendall Lovejoy (lovejoy.59@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 53

Biologicals - Beauvaria bassiana OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Determine if seed treated with Beauveria bassiana results in higher yields.

Harvest Date 10/18/2025 Hybrid Great Harvest GH5413, Seed Consultants SC1042 Population 34,500 sds/ac Acres 37 Treatments 4 Reps 8 Treatment Width 20 ft. Tillage Conventional Management Fertilizer Previous Crop Alfalfa Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Haskins Loam, 30% Rimer Loamy Fine Sand, 26% Hoytville Clay Loam, 20%

WEATHER INFORMATION MAX. AND MIN. TEMPERATURE (°F)

Planting Date 5/31/2025

Fulton County

100

Fertilizer

Planting Date

Harvest Date

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

DAILY PRECIPITATION (IN)

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

2.70

3.77

3.38

2.48

0.83

1.16

14.32

Cumulative GDDs

200

527

1193

1960

2567

3047

STUDY DESIGN Two corn varieties were tested with and without SPE-120 (Beauvaria bassiana). SPE120 with lubricant, is a powder that is used to improve seed flow through the planter. Treatments were replicated eight times in a randomized complete block design, at field length and at commercial equipment width. The treatment was made on-seed and applied with a planter; no additional equipment was needed. All treatments received the same tillage and weed control passes. Harvest yield and moisture data were collected with a calibrated yield monitor. A simple analysis of variation (ANOVA) was used for statistical analysis.

54 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Combine harvesting research trial on October 18, 2025.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

The corn received normal rainfall in June and July, including pollination. Rainfall in August and September were abnormally low. There was no observed differences in stalk integrity (lodging) at harvest; all corn stood well. Though stand counts were somewhat varied, the final population did not seem to have an impact on yield.

•

There was no statistical difference in yield among GH5413, GH5413 with SPE120, or SC1042 with SPE120.

•

SC1042 and SC1042 with SPE120 treatments yielded the same.

•

SC1042 was the lowest yielding treatment in the trial.

•

Retail price of this product at the recommended use rate is approximately $22-25/ac. Vomitoxin results were not available at time of publishing.

RESULTS Treatments

Avg. Emergence (plants/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

GH5413

28,000

17.7

189 a

GH5413 with SPE120

29,000

17.7

190 a

SC1042

30,700

19.4

182 b

SC1042 with SPE120

27,700

19.5

188 ab

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Monitoring moisture before, during and after drying is important for keeping grain in good condition during storage. This Dickey-John GAC 2700 tester is one industry recognized tool to measure moisture, test weight and temperature of grain.

LSD: 6 CV: 3.9%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Kendall Lovejoy (lovejoy.59@osu.edu) or Eric Richer (richer.5@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 55

Biologicals - Corn Lyte OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Determine if Revline Corn Lyte + Prephyte has an economic benefit as a seed additive in corn.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Madison County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/18/2025 Harvest Date 10/24/2025 Hybrid Ebberts 7660PC RIB Population 34,000 sds/ac Acres 225 Treatments 2 Reps 30 Treatment Width 60 ft. Tillage Vertical Till Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Kokomo Silty Clay Loam, 54% Crosby-Lewisburg Silt Loams, 45% Odell-Lewisburg Complex, 1%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

5.57

4.06

5.99

4.16

0.60

1.54

21.92

Cumulative GDDs

242

566

1256

2036

2624

3104

STUDY DESIGN This trial compared Revline Corn Lyte + Prephyte planter box treatment to corn with a normal seed fluency agent (talc and graphite). It was conducted using a split planter setup so treatments occurred in alternating passes across the entire field. We analyzed 30 replications for statistical analysis.

Treated and untreated strips showed minimal disease.

56 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS Corn was scouted at R1 for disease presence and any other differences. There was no observed difference in disease pressure between treatments and disease was very low overall.

SUMMARY •

Corn Lyte yielded 10 bu more per acre than the untreated strips.

•

The increase of 10 bu - note that this is one field and one year of data.

•

The treated strips were $24/ac more profitable than non-treated. Product cost was $16/ac.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Return Above ($/ac)

Untreated

17.2

197 b

788

Corn Lyte

17.2

207 a

812

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Corn Lyte is a Revline product delivered through the planter box. It contains a seed fluency agent, micronutrients and biologicals.

LSD: 6 CV: 6.5%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Amanda Douridas (douridas.9@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 57

Biologicals - Pivot Proven 40 OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Determine whether the addition of the biological product Pivot Bio Proven 40 on corn seed would reduce the need for nitrogen at sidedress.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Putnam County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/1/2025 Harvest Date 10/11/2025 Hybrid Pioneer P0935AM Population 33,000 sds/ac Acres 36 Treatments 2 Reps 4 Treatment Width 60 ft. Tillage Strip Till Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Paulding Clay, 100%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

4.68

5.54

2.83

5.54

0.56

0.97

20.12

Cumulative GDDs

215

531

1218

2019

2639

3119

STUDY DESIGN The trial was established as a completely randomized design with two nitrogen management treatments applied to corn. The first treatment consisted of seed treated with Pivot Bio PROVEN® 40 and a sidedress application of 45 gal 28% UAN/ac. The second treatment served as the control, using untreated seed and a higher sidedress rate of 55 gal 28% UAN/ac. All other agronomic practices, including planting date, hybrid selection, and pest management, were kept consistent across treatments to isolate the effect of nitrogen strategy. Plot sizes and replication were designed to ensure statistical validity.

58 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn near V4.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS There were no observable differences between treated and untreated plots from planting through harvest.

SUMMARY •

In this trial, plots with untreated seed and 55 gal/ ac of 28% N yielded an average of 5 bushels more per acre than those with Proven 40-treated seed and 45 gal/ac of 28% N at sidedress.

•

The five bushel yield difference was statistically significant.

•

The addition of Pivot Bio Proven 40 this year did not provide a yield benefit with reduced nitrogen rate at sidedress. However, this trial should be repeated under more favorable soil moisture conditions.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

15.0

222 b

Pivot Bio Proven 40

15.0

217 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Pivot Bio PROVEN 40 uses proprietary gene‑edited microbes applied either in-furrow or on-seed to deliver a steady, seasonlong supply of 35–40 lbs of biologically fixed nitrogen directly to corn roots, helping farmers reduce synthetic N inputs without compromising yield. In addition to replacing up to 40 lb/ac of synthetic fertilizer, PROVEN 40 can enhance earlyseason plant biomass, root development, drought resilience, and nitrogen uptake efficiency.

LSD: 4 CV: 1.7%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Beth Scheckelhoff (scheckelhoff.11@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 59

Biologicals - Seed Flow Product OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Evaluate the yield response of corn to a biological seed box treatment, HomeLANDTM Corn Complete, compared to a conventional talc product.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Fayette County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/26/2025 Harvest Date 11/5/2025 Hybrid AgriGold 642-32 Population 35,000 sds/ac Acres 46 Treatments 2 Reps 3 Treatment Width 40 ft. Tillage Strip Till Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 30 in.

Soil Type Celina Silt Loam, 52% Brookston Silty Clay Loam, 23% Miamian Silt Loam, 7%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

5.27

6.16

7.88

6.23

0.56

1.80

27.90

Cumulative GDDs

245

579

1263

2040

2626

3106

STUDY DESIGN This study was conducted utilizing a 16-row planter, utilizing the Brandt Homeland Corn Complete in all sixteen rows alternating another sixteen rows conventional 80/20 talc. Application was made at planting. All other fertility and treatments were applied uniformly across the field. The field was then harvested utilizing a 16-row combine head. Final analysis was done using yield data from the calibrated combine yield monitor.

Harvest of Brandt Homeland Corn Complete trial.

60 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS The crop experienced moderate drought stress which limited yields compared to average for the field. There was very low disease pressure with minimal symptoms of gray leaf spot and tar spot. The final stand was approximately 33,000 at harvest.

SUMMARY •

No yield difference was observed between the control and the Homeland Corn Complete treatments.

•

Without a yield increase, there was no return on investment for the increased cost of the product compared to conventional talc.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control - Conventional 80-20 Talc

14.2

177 a

HomeLANDTM Corn Complete

14.3

177 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE HomeLAND™ Corn Complete is a single-package solution that combines seedflow, shield, and BRANDT enzyme technologies to improve corn crop performance. Seedflow technology enhances seed retention and fluency, while shield technology protects inoculant effectiveness. BRANDT enzyme technology promotes plant health by improving water and nutrient uptake, creating optimal growing conditions.

LSD: 5 CV: 1.2%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Elizabeth Hawkins (hawkins.301@osu.edu) or Ken Ford (ford.70@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 61

Boron OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Evaluate the corn yield response to liquid boron fertilizer applied at sidedress.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Greene County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/19/2025 Harvest Date 11/15/2025 Hybrid Seed Consultants SC1112AM Population 32,000 sds/ac Acres 22 Treatments 2 Reps 5 Treatment Width 40 ft. Tillage No-Till Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide Previous Crop Soybeans Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Xenia Silt Loam, 54% Miamian Silt Loam, 25% Westland Silty Clay Loam, 10%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

6.12

4.85

4.30

5.44

0.90

1.52

23.13

Cumulative GDDs

259

614

1338

2178

2836

3316

STUDY DESIGN The treatments were applied in alternating strips with five replications. The treatments were coulter injected three to four inches deep at sidedress on June 22. The boron was a liquid product with a nutrient analysis of 10% boron. The boron was applied at a rate of 1 qt/ac with 32% UAN. The control treatments received 32% UAN only. The liquid boron product cost approximately $5/ac at the applied rate. Yield data was collected using a calibrated yield monitor. Corn harvest on November 15, 2025.

62 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Wet and cool weather following planting challenged stands early in the season but the crop recovered well when conditions improved in late May and June. The application was made June 22 and rainfall was adequate at that time. A fungicide application was made using a drone in early August to control disease. Disease pressure was very low. Drought conditions later in the summer likely limited yields and potentially reduced the chances of observing a yield response to the boron application.

•

No significant yield difference was seen between the treatment with boron compared to 32% UAN only.

•

Dry conditions may have limited the yield potential and reduced the chance of seeing a yield response.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

15.9

179 a

Boron

16.0

181 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Boron is an essential micronutrient that supports many functions in the plant including flowering, things related to pollination, strengthened cell walls, synthesis and transport of carbohydrates, and fixing atmospheric N. Liquid Boron 10% is a soluble source of B.

LSD: 4 CV: 1.5%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Marina Miquilni (miquilini.1@osu.edu) or Elizabeth Hawkins (hawkins.301@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 63

DON Hybrid Summary OBJECTIVE Assess the difference between hybrids in resistance to deoxynivalenol (DON) mycotoxin production from Gibberella Ear Rot (GER).

eFields Collaborating Farm OSU Extension Statewide In 2024, 89 hybrids were submitted from 11 seed companies. Although weather conditions were less favorable for GER development in 2024 than in 2023, statistically significant differences were still observed among hybrids in terms of average levels of DON contamination. These results can be used to select hybrids with natural partial resistance to DON, or at the very minimum, avoid highly susceptible hybrids. While only 21 hybrids were included in both years, comparing hybrid performance across years is encouraged as it represents a wider range of weather conditions. Keep in mind, hybrids with low DON in 2024 are not guaranteed to have low DON in future years or environments. However, hybrids with consistently high DON across environments are likely susceptible and should not be planted when possible if DON contamination is a concern for your operation.

Corn ear infected with Gibberella Ear Rot in 2024. With support from Ohio Corn and Wheat through the Corn Check Off, OSU conducted its second year of corn deoxynivalenol (DON) hybrid susceptibility screening. The objective of this project was to identify hybrids with partial genetic resistance to DON. Use these results with caution as we were not able to evaluate the effects of all possible weather environments on DON production. This trial was conducted at three locations across the state that represent different production regions: Apple Creek, Bucyrus, and South Charleston. Hybrids varied in maturity, so weather conditions may not have been conducive for ear infection and DON production by the fungus Fusarium graminearum during each individual hybrid pollination window, despite using three different environments. All locations had low levels of natural infection across all maturity groups. To increase Gibberella Ear Rot (GER) development, and consequently, DON contamination of grain, plots were also inoculated at all three locations. DON levels were significantly different between inoculated and naturally infected plots at all locations. Results were summarized, and hybrids are compared, by location and if inoculated or naturally infected.

64 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

The weather conditions at all locations in 2024 deviated from normal. All locations had below-average rainfall during the growing season and above-average temperatures compared to the 10- and 30-year averages. In South Charleston, the month of September received aboveaverage rainfall, with hurricane force wind and rain. Wooster rainfall was about a half inch above-average in May, August, and September, whereas at Bucyrus, rainfall was more than an inch aboveaverage in April and May, but only slightly above average Corn silking during inoculation with in September. Fusarium Graminearum Excessive rainfall in May in Bucyrus created a few emergence challenges. The complete set of monthly weather data is available at: OhioCropTest.cfaes.osu.edu/CornTrials

Corn

Small Grains

Soybean

The table on the following pages summarizes DON contamination (in ppm) by hybrid, and inoculated and naturally infected treatments at each location. DON values with an asterisk (*) are not statistically different from the lowest average DON level at that location. DON levels at all locations were low, with 54 plots having contamination between the limit of detection (considered equivalent to 0 ppm) at Bucyrus, three at South Charleston and one at Wooster. Only four plots had greater than 1 ppm in Bucyrus, 9 in Wooster, and 16 in South Charleston. At Bucyrus, the effect of hybrid on DON contamination was not statistically significant (i.e. contamination was comparable across hybrids) in inoculated plots. However, the hybrid effect on DON contamination was statistically significant in naturally infected plots, meaning that the

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

average level of contamination varied with hybrid. While DON levels were low this year, there are a few trends to look for. For instance, two hybrids had significantly higher DON than other hybrids at all six inoculation treatment by location combinations, while another 8 had statistically higher DON at 4 of the 6 inoculation treatment by location combinations. Thirty-seven hybrids had comparable levels of DON to the least contaminated hybrid at all locations, while another 17 had low DON at all but one inoculation treatment by location combination. When using these results to help with your hybrid selection, look for trends where a hybrid consistently has low DON to increase your chance of selecting those that might have partial genetic resistance. More information on Vomitoxin research being done at OSU can be found at go.osu.edu/vomitoxin.

Summary Table - Gibberella VOM 2024 Brand

Hybrid

Inoculated Average DON (ppm)

South Bucyrus Wooster Charleston (SC)

Natural infection Average DON (ppm)

Bucyrus

Wooster

0.34*

0.14*

0.00*

0.18*

Augusta Seed

A2351

101

0.11*

0.00

Augusta Seed

A2252

102

0.27*

0.14

0.98

0.17*

0.09*

0.93

Augusta Seed

A2357

107

0.00*

0.09

0.29*

0.24*

0.03*

0.16*

Augusta Seed

A2359

109

0.12*

0.00

0.20*

0.22*

0.00*

Augusta Seed

A2564

114

0.07*

0.05

0.59*

0.08*

0.00*

0.49

B&A Genetics

BA24-00 VT2P

100

0.42*

0.05

0.59*

0.57*

0.05*

0.61

B&A Genetics

BA24-03 PCE

103

0.12*

0.06

0.30*

0.16*

0.00*

0.17*

B&A Genetics

BA22-05 VT2P

105

0.28*

0.13

0.67

0.22*

0.04*

0.47

B&A Genetics

BA26-06 PCE

106

0.35*

0.00

0.16*

0.00*

0.06*

B&A Genetics

BA25-07 PCE

107

1.65

0.04

0.60

0.46*

0.12*

0.37

B&A Genetics

BA26-08 PCE

108

1.20

1.17

1.90

1.60

0.18*

0.73

B&A Genetics

BA23-09 VT2P

109

0.80

0.14

0.17*

0.19*

0.17*

0.33*

B&A Genetics

BA26-10 PCE

110

0.27*

0.00

0.86

0.22*

0.04*

0.42

B&A Genetics

BA25-11 VT2P

111

0.17*

0.06

0.66

0.2*

0.03*

0.53

B&A Genetics

BA20-12 VT2P

112

0.36*

0.11

0.47*

0.58*

0.08*

0.43

B&A Genetics

BA23-12 AA

112

0.25*

0.15

0.59*

1.37

1.45

0.29*

Numbers with an asterisk (*) are not significantly different from the lowest DON level at the location - Table continues on following pages -

PROJECT CONTACT

Our Corn Checkoff

For inquiries about this project, contact Jason Hartschuh (hartschuh.11@osu.edu), Stephanie Karhoff (karhoff.41@osu.edu), Pierce Paul (paul.661@osu.edu), or Rich Minyo (minyo.1@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 65

DON Hybrid Summary Brand

Inoculated Average DON (ppm)

Natural infection Average DON (ppm)

Hybrid

Bucyrus

Wooster

Bucyrus

Wooster

B&A Genetics

BA25-12 VT2P

112

0.10*

0.06

0.30*

0.18*

0.04*

0.33*

B&A Genetics

BA26-12 PCE

112

0.41*

0.00

0.38*

1.10

0.00*

0.69

B&A Genetics

BA23-14 VT2P

114

1.70

1.07

0.69

1.65

0.06*

1.00

B&A Genetics

BA26-14 PCE

114

0.12*

0.00

0.35*

0.25*

0.06*

0.25*

B&A Genetics

BA25-16 VT2P

116

1.03

0.33

1.08

3.65

0.54

0.90

Beck's Hybrids

5413Q

104

0.28*

0.00

0.56*

0.18*

0.07*

0.33*

Beck's Hybrids

5794V2P

107

0.16*

0.00

0.04*

0.21*

0.00*

0.21*

Beck's Hybrids

6184V2P

111

0.09*

0.00

0.27*

0.19*

0.00*

0.26*

Beck's Hybrids

6216PCE

112

0.27*

0.50

0.77

1.10

0.00*

0.29*

Beck's Hybrids

6235D1

112

0.26*

0.16

0.54*

0.06*

0.04*

0.11*

DeKalb

DKC48-34RIB

0.11*

0.00

0.87

0.19*

0.00*

0.49

DeKalb

DKC099-11RIB

0.29*

0.17

0.20*

0.53*

0.08*

0.62

DeKalb

DKC101-35RIB

101

0.86

0.08

0.67

0.57*

0.00*

0.27*

DeKalb

DKC102-13RIB

102

0.27*

0.15

0.57*

0.29*

0.05*

0.55

DeKalb

DKC56-26RIB

106

0.37*

0.04

0.27*

0.12*

0.13*

0.11*

DeKalb

DKC56-65RIB

106

0.05*

0.00

0.40*

0.19*

0.05*

0.18*

DeKalb

DKC110-10RIB

110

0.18*

0.05

0.73

0.26*

0.07*

0.48

DeKalb

DKC110-41RIB

110

0.38*

0.05

0.61

0.22*

0.00*

0.68

DeKalb

DKC63-91RIB

113

0.22*

0.00

0.64

0.20*

0.15*

0.45

DeKalb

DKC64-22RIB

114

0.16*

0.00

0.23*

0.29*

0.00*

0.13*

Ebberts Field Seeds

7335PC

105

0.43*

0.05

0.31*

0.80

0.04*

0.23*

Ebberts Field Seeds

7557PC

107

0.90*

0.07

0.11*

0.22*

0.03*

0.06*

Ebberts Field Seeds

7209TR

109

0.07*

0.29

0.55*

0.22*

0.09*

0.60

Ebberts Field Seeds

7660PC

110

0.72*

0.05

0.46*

0.47*

0.00*

0.54

Ebberts Field Seeds

7993PC

113

0.13*

0.00

0.22*

0.33*

0.06*

0.33*

Golden Harvest

G00A97-AA

100

0.17*

0.08

2.27

0.74

0.07*

0.50

Golden Harvest

G00U71-D

100

0.38*

0.13

0.44*

0.18*

0.17*

0.59

Golden Harvest

G01U74-AA

101

0.05*

0.00

0.33*

0.07*

0.00*

0.25*

Golden Harvest

G03U08-D

103

0.19*

0.08

0.55*

0.44*

0.05*

0.80

Golden Harvest

G03B19-AA

103

0.43*

0.31

0.15*

0.36*

0.10*

0.07*

Golden Harvest

G05U86-DV

105

0.24*

0.00

0.18*

0.30*

0.05*

0.21*

Golden Harvest

G08U00-V

108

0.09*

0.00

0.32*

0.06*

0.00*

0.25*

Golden Harvest

G10L16-DV

110

0.35*

0.13

0.32*

0.21*

0.04*

0.38

Golden Harvest

G10U97-V

110

0.00*

0.05

0.24*

0.17*

0.00*

0.17*

Golden Harvest

G10B61-AA

110

0.13*

0.05

0.32*

0.17*

0.05*

0.24*

Golden Harvest

G11V76-AA

111

0.79

1.10

1.01

0.75

0.55

0.28*

Golden Harvest

G12S75-D

112

0.38*

0.05

0.30*

0.93

0.00*

0.22*

Golden Harvest

G12U11-AA

112

0.40*

0.13

0.55*

0.42*

0.00*

0.29*

Golden Harvest

G14B32-DV

114

0.12*

0.07

0.41*

0.17*

0.04*

0.52

Golden Harvest

G15U34-V

115

0.06*

0.00

0.63

0.12*

0.00*

0.55

LG Seeds

LG48C87VT2RIB

0.22*

0.05

0.38*

0.12*

0.00*

0.52

66 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Brand

Small Grains

Forages

Inoculated Average DON (ppm)

Ag Tech

Other

Natural infection Average DON (ppm)

Hybrid

Bucyrus

Wooster

Bucyrus

Wooster

LG Seeds

LG51C62VT2RIB

101

0.16*

0.00

0.39*

0.15*

0.00*

0.18*

LG Seeds

LG53C44VT2RIB

103

0.06*

0.00

0.58*

0.08*

0.00*

0.08*

LG Seeds

LG58C73-3110

108

0.17*

0.04

0.69

0.16*

0.08*

0.28*

LG Seeds

LG59C72VT2RIB

109

0.59

0.18

0.27*

0.47*

0.15*

0.51

LG Seeds

LG59C72 - D

109

0.03*

0.00

0.40*

0.11*

0.05*

0.26*

LG Seeds

LG62C73VT2RIB

112

0.13*

0.05

0.06*

0.17*

0.00*

0.21*

LG Seeds

LG64C43VT2RIB

114

0.95

0.15

0.87

0.99

0.00*

0.53

NK Seeds

NK0252-D

102

0.37*

0.06

0.58*

0.17*

0.10*

0.65

NK Seeds

NK0880-V

108

0.04*

0.00

0.18*

0.13*

0.00*

0.17*

NK Seeds

NK0922-V

109

0.14*

0.06

0.37*

0.64*

0.16*

0.27*

NK Seeds

NK1056-V

110

0.00*

0.12

0.24*

0.14*

0.16*

0.15*

NK Seeds

NK1188-AA

111

0.61

0.12

0.31*

0.65*

0.77

0.17*

NK Seeds

NK1228-V

112

0.69

0.28

1.13

0.22*

0.24

0.30*

NK Seeds

NK1480-DV

114

0.18*

0.00

0.18*

0.13*

0.00*

0.26*

PC Seedco

PC 3305

105

0.19*

0.00

0.44*

0.15*

0.20*

PC Seedco

PC 8407

107

0.29*

0.05

0.46*

0.23*

0.29

0.34

PC Seedco

PC 5510

110

0.28*

0.06

0.58*

0.89

0.07*

0.82

PC Seedco

PC 2212

112

0.82

0.19

1.03

0.60*

0.05*

0.59

PC Seedco

PC 6313

113

0.37*

0.00

0.49*

0.36*

0.06*

0.22*

Pioneer

P06391PCE

106

1.45

0.26

0.87

1.08

0.08*

0.65

Pioneer

P09312V

109

0.09*

0.05

0.11*

0.06*

0.03*

0.04*

Pioneer

P10811AM

110

0.87

0.16

0.57*

0.76

0.27

0.77

Pioneer

P1136AM

111

0.35*

0.09

1.24

0.36*

0.00*

0.43

Pioneer

P13777

113

0.99

0.42

0.54*

0.66*

0.36

0.67

Seed Genetics Direct

AGI 4106PWE

106

1.17

0.14

0.38*

0.36*

0.21

0.50

Seed Genetics Direct

AGI 4111PWE

111

0.20*

0.06

0.36*

0.35*

0.04*

0.38

Seed Genetics Direct

Direct 2111 AA

111

0.46*

0.33

1.22

1.95

0.42

0.38

Seed Genetics Direct

Direct 3111-3110

111

0.78

0.26

0.38*

0.79

0.07*

0.24*

Seed Genetics Direct

Direct 2113-3110

113

0.10*

0.10

0.32*

0.19*

0.09*

0.36

Check

Check B

109

0.28*

0.12

0.33*

0.27*

0.00*

0.35

Check

Check A-2

113

3.45

0.16

0.81

2.30

0.16*

0.60

Check

Check A-1

113

0.86

0.10

0.81

0.92

0.23

2.15

HIGH

3.45

1.17

2.27

3.65

1.45

2.15

AVERAGE

0.41

0.12

0.52

0.47

0.10

0.40

LOW

0.00

0.04

0.06

0.00

LSD .10

0.57

0.55

0.71

0.21

0.33

CV (%)

86.6

149.7

65.4

90.9

157.9

52.9

Numbers with an asterisk (*) are not significantly different from the lowest DON level at the location

2025 eFields Report | 67

Flaming for Weed Control OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Determine if flaming corn for weed control sets back the development of corn, leading to higher moisture at harvest.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Madison County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/26/2025 Harvest Date 10/28/2025 Hybrid Prairie Hybrid 6590 Population 32,000 sds/ac Acres 4 Treatments 2 Reps 4 Treatment Width 30 ft. Tillage Conventional Management Fertilizer Previous Crop Organic wheat, clover cover crop Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Kokomo Silty Clay Loam, 61% Crosby-Lewisburg Silt Loams, 39%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

5.33

6.27

4.61

3.85

0.91

1.27

22.24

Cumulative GDDs

248

571

1249

2022

2600

3080

STUDY DESIGN The study was conducted using a completely randomized design with alternating treatment passes across the field to minimize spatial variability. Two treatments were compared: (1) a single flaming pass for weed control and (2) no flaming pass (control). Flaming was applied to every other pass, resulting in four replications per treatment. The flaming operation occurred on June 13, 2025, when corn was at the V3–V4 growth stage. Prior to flaming, all plots were uniformly cultivated to manage early-season weeds. Standard agronomic practices—including planting date, hybrid selection, fertility program, and pest management were consistent across all treatments to isolate the effect of flaming.

68 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

The growth stage difference could be seen by the height difference in treatments. The left is unflamed and the right is flamed.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Within five hours of flaming, differences in corn could be seen. Severe leaf burning occurred on leaves around the base and tips of larger leaves. The field was relatively weed free at time of flaming due to row cultivation but small weeds could be found within the rows of corn where the cultivator is ineffective. The average growth stage of the flamed corn at the beginning of July was 7.6 leaf collars where unflamed corn was 8.9 indicating the flaming did delay corn growth. Average stand counts were very similar at 30,500 plants/ac in the flamed treatment compared to 30,900 in the unflamed. Weed pressure was evaluated in each plot on a scale of 1 to 3. The flamed treatment averaged 0.75 severity in early July while the unflamed had slightly more weed pressure at 1.5.

•

At harvest, there was no significant difference in corn moisture, despite growth stage differences earlier in the season.

•

The yield difference was also not significant between the two treatments.

•

This is the second year of this study and no moisture difference between treatments has been observed. Yields have not been statistically different either. Both years had dry periods in the latter half of the growing season which may have impacted results.

RESULTS Treatments

Avg. Emergence (plants/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

30,900

15.6

216 a

Flamed

30,500

15.7

213 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Flaming was done with a propane flame toolbar designed with 12 rows at 30 inch spacing.

LSD: 9 CV: 3.1%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Amanda Douridas (douridas.9@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 69

Fungicide OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Evaluate the effectiveness of a fungicide application via drone for yield and economics.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Delaware County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 4/30/2025 Harvest Date 10/22/2025 Hybrid Beck’s 6216PCE Population 34,300 sds/ac Acres 80 Treatments 2 Reps 3 Treatment Width 90 ft. Tillage No-Till Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide Previous Crop Wheat Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Pewamo Silty Clay Loam, 58% Blount Silt Loam, 37% Glynwood Silt Loam, 5%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

4.53

5.07

4.03

5.23

0.91

1.52

21.29

Cumulative GDDs

234

565

1253

2050

2659

3139

STUDY DESIGN This trial was implemented as a randomized complete block design to account for field variability and ensure reliable statistical analysis. Each plot measured 90 feet in width, with blocks arranged to minimize environmental differences across treatments. Two treatments were evaluated: 1) A DJI Agras drone applied Miravis Neo fungicide at a rate of 13.7 oz/ ac. 2) No fungicide application was made. All other agronomic practices, including planting date, hybrid selection, fertility program, and pest management were kept consistent across treatments. The drone application was timed according to recommended growth stages for optimal disease suppression.

70 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Drone applying fungicide to treatment area.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

In-season visual assessments were minimal, and no major differences in plant health or disease incidence noted between treatments during vegetative growth. However, at harvest, grain moisture was consistently higher in plots treated with fungicide compared to the untreated control. This suggests that the fungicide application may have extended grain fill or delayed plant senescence, which could contribute to the observed yield response. No other significant agronomic differences were recorded.

•

Ag Tech

Other

Our findings indicate that using Miravis Neo with a drone led to a significant increase in yield, resulting in a net gain of $6.36/ac above the initial investment. The fungicide treatment cost was $27.50/ac, and cash price at harvest used to calculate return on investment was $4.08/bu of corn.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

17.7

223 b

Miravis Neo

18.9

231 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Drone application is becoming more available making hard to reach fields more accessible.

LSD: 6 CV: 1.1%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Jacci Smith (smith.11005@osu.edu) or Rob Leeds (leeds.2@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 71

Fungicide OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Determine if an application of Delaro Complete fungicide has an impact on corn yield.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Wood County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/29/2025 Harvest Date 10/18/2025 Hybrid Channel 20484VT2RIB Population 34,500 sds/ac Acres 20 Treatments 2 Reps 3 Treatment Width 120 ft. Tillage Strip Till Management Fertilizer, Fungicide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Hoytville Clay Loam, 88% Rimer and Tedrow, 7% Aurand Fine Sandy Loam, 5%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

2.44

2.90

2.46

2.31

0.00

0.14

10.25

Cumulative GDDs

197

491

1159

1958

2590

3070

STUDY DESIGN

This trial was conducted as a randomized complete block design with two treatments and three replications to account for field variability. Each plot was arranged to ensure uniform soil and environmental conditions within blocks. The control treatment received no fungicide application, while the second treatment consisted of Delaro® Complete applied at a rate of 8 oz/ac during the R1 growth stage (silking), which is a critical period for disease management and yield protection. Yield and grain moisture were collected at harvest using a calibrated yield monitor to ensure accuracy. All other agronomic practices were consistent across treatments to isolate the effect of fungicide.

72 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn fungicide was applied on August 1, 2025.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

The growing season started wet and ended with drought conditions. We observed that the application of Delaro Complete kept the plants greener longer later in the growing season. There was little foliar disease pressure of tar spot, gray leaf spot, and northern corn leaf blight due to the drought conditions later into the growing season.

•

Ag Tech

Other

This study shows a significant difference in yield between the foliar application of fungicide and the control.

RESULTS Treatments

Avg. Emergence (plants/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

34,000

19.8

157 b

Fungicide

34,100

20.0

166 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Twin Turbo Jet nozzles are ideal for applying fungicides, insecticides, or herbicides. Its twin style flat fan spray tip is best suited for broadcast spraying where superior leaf coverage and canopy penetration are important.

LSD: 2 CV: 0.7%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Nick Eckel (eckel.21@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 73

Fungicide - Xyway OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Measure corn yield response to Xyway LFR fungicide (flutriafol).

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Clinton County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/26/2025 Harvest Date 10/17/2025 Hybrid Channel 218-66VT2PRB Population 30,000 sds/ac Acres 58 Treatments 2 Reps 5 Treatment Width 20 ft. Tillage No-Till Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide Previous Crop Soybeans Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Miamian Silt Loam, 52% Xenia Silt Loam, 44% Fincastle Silt Loam, 4%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

6.12

4.85

4.30

5.44

0.90

1.52

23.13

Cumulative GDDs

259

614

1338

2178

2836

3316

STUDY DESIGN The treatments were applied as a randomized complete block design with five replications. The Xyway was applied using Precision Planting Conceal on the 8-row planter. The applied rate was 15.2 oz/ac. A foliar fungicide application was made. Yield data was collected with a calibrated yield monitor.

Sidedress application during the 2025 season.

74 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

There were no visual differences between the treatments throughout the growing season. Conditions following planting were very wet and cool which was favorable for seedling diseases. Crown rot was observed in the trial and may have been a separating factor between the treatments at the end of the season. Conditions turned very dry in late July and August; however, yields remained strong overall. Foliar disease pressure was low. Tar spot and gray leaf spot were observed in late August but likely had little impact on yields.

•

Early season conditions were prime for seedling disease and the yield difference may have been a result of Xyway protecting the crop during the cool and wet weather.

•

Foliar disease pressure was not significant later in the season, so this trial cannot project whether the Xyway treatment would have provided control.

•

The repeatability of these results will be dependent on if conditions are favorable for disease development and hybrid susceptibility.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

23.2

230 b

Xyway

24.3

246 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 13 CV: 4.6%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Justin Baum (baum.247@osu.edu) or Elizabeth Hawkins (hawkins.301@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 75

Fungicide - Xyway OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Measure corn yield response to Xyway fungicide (flutriafol) applied at planting.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Defiance County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/12/2025 Harvest Date 11/1/2025 Hybrid Buckeye 5023 Population 32,000 sds/ac Acres 39 Treatments 2 Reps 4 Treatment Width 40 ft. Tillage Strip-Till Management Herbicide Previous Crop Soybeans Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Colwood Loam, 38% Belmore Loam, 23% Blount Loam, 18%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

3.36

3.76

4.34

7.23

0.78

1.68

21.15

Cumulative GDDs

190

502

1152

1911

2528

3008

STUDY DESIGN This trial was established as a randomized complete block design to reduce variability and improve statistical reliability. Two treatments were compared: 1) Xyway was applied in-furrow at planting to provide season-long systemic disease protection. 2) No fungicide was applied. The study included four replications, with each plot measuring 40 feet in width. Blocks were arranged to account for field variability such as soil type and drainage. All other agronomic practices, including hybrid selection, planting date, fertility program, and weed management were kept consistent across treatments to isolate the effect of Xyway. Yield and grain moisture were recorded at harvest using a calibrated yield monitor to ensure accuracy.

76 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

The corn crop prior to harvest.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS There was no visual indication of a difference throughout the growing season. Overall there was very little disease pressure this season, in part due to the lack of precipitation late into the season.

SUMMARY •

No statistical difference was observed between the replication where Xyway was applied versus the control.

•

Due to the lack of disease pressure, it would be worth repeating this trial in subsequent years.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

17.0

169 a

Xyway

16.9

170 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 2 CV: 0.7%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Kyle Verhoff (verhoff.115@osu.edu) or Alan Sundermeier (sundermeier.5@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 77

Fungicide - Xyway OBJECTIVE

Northwest Ag Research Station

Measure corn yield response to Xyway LFR fungicide (flutriafol).

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Wood County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/27/2025 Harvest Date 10/14/2025 Hybrid Pioneer 0306AM Population 34,000 sds/ac Acres 3 Treatments 7 Reps 4 Treatment Width 10 ft. Tillage Conventional Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide Previous Crop Soybeans Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Hoytville Silty Clay Loam, 100%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

4.87

4.74

5.17

2.61

0.26

1.19

18.84

Cumulative GDDs

208

522

1199

1994

2613

3093

STUDY DESIGN The experiment was a randomized block design with four replications. The plots were 10 feet wide and 63.5 feet long. The center 5 feet was harvested for grain yield using a calibrated yield monitor. Grain moisture was adjusted to 15%. Treatments consisted of no fungicide versus Xyway LFR applied 2x2 (15.2 oz/acre) at planting with or without a supplemental foliar fungicide application at V5 or VT growth stage. Foliar fungicide used was Miravis Neo (13.7 oz/acre + NIS .25% v/v). Treatments were also compared to an application of Xyway LFR (15.2 oz/acre) applied at side dress.

78 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Early senescence due to drought conditions.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Tar spot was first diagnosed on July 24, 2025, at the V12 growth stage in the lower canopy at 10% disease incidence and <1% disease severity on affected leaves. Disease pressure remained low, most likely due to drought conditions experienced at this location in 2025. R5 foliar disease ratings were recorded on September 12, 2025, and tar spot, northern corn leaf blight, and gray leaf spot were present, but at low incidence and severity across all treatments. Final stand was measured on October 3, 2025, at the R6 growth stage.

•

Tar spot was diagnosed in late July.

•

No difference in disease severity was observed between untreated and treated plots.

•

Generally, the treatments with Miravis Neo applied at VT resulted in the highest yields, and the Xyway 2x2 with a V5 application of Miravis Neo performed similarly.

•

Final stand did not significantly differ among treatments.

RESULTS Treatments

Avg. Emergence (plants/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

33,000

14.8

156 b

Xyway 2x2

33,750

15.0

156 b

Xyway 2x2 + Miravis Neo Foliar V5

33,500

15.3

158 ab

Miravis Neo Foliar V5

33,750

14.9

156 b

Xyway 2x2 + Miravis Neo Foliar VT

33,750

15.0

164 a

Miravis Neo Foliar VT

33,750

16.0

159 ab

Xyway Sidedress

33,000

15.4

154 b

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Xyway LFR fungicide's active ingredient is flutriafol, which is systemic and is labeled for effective control against common rust, gray leaf spot, head smut, northern corn leaf blight, and southern corn leaf blight. It is also labeled for suppression of tar spot.

LSD: 6 CV: 3.0%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Stephanie Karhoff (karhoff.41@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 79

Fungicide Application for DON OBJECTIVE

Western Ag Research Station

Evaluate the effects of fungicide application methods on corn yield and deoxynivalenol (DON) levels.

STUDY INFORMATION

OARDC Clark County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/31/2024 Harvest Date 10/23/2024 Population 34,000 sds/ac Acres 2 Treatments 16 Reps 4 Treatment Width 10 ft. Tillage Minimum Till Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide Previous Crop Corn Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Kokomo silty clay loam, 83% Strawn-Crosby complex, 17%

STUDY DESIGN This study was a randomized complete block split block, split-plot design with the block split between ground and drone applications and the plot split by fungicide product, with a control for every split plot. The fungicides used were Miravis Neo at 13.7 fluid oz/ac and Proline at 5.7 fluid oz/ac. Application methods used were a ground sprayer with a boom over the top (applying either 15 or 20 gal/ac of product), a ground sprayer with 360 yield under covers (applying 15 or 20 gal/ac of product), and four drone treatments. For the drone treatments, three applied 2.5 gal/ac of product (DJI T25, Hylio with cone nozzles, and Hylio with turbo teejet air induction (TTAI) nozzles), while the fourth (a DJI T25) was the applying 5 gal/ac. Plots were inoculated with Fusarium graminearum 24 hours after fungicide application.

80 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

3.82

0.53

1.67

2.67

2.49

3.33

14.51

Cumulative GDDs

268

790

1431

2133

2800

3353

A view of silks at application.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS A windstorm in October lodged the plots significantly, but less lodging was experienced when Miravis Neo was applied. The lodging created some difficulty with the harvest, leading to header plugging. Foliar disease was significant, with greater disease pressure in the control and Proline treatments than in Miravis Neo. Plots also experienced significant weed pressure from giant ragweed and morning glory.

SUMMARY •

Application method did not have a significant effect, and there was no interaction between application method and fungicide. However, fungicide did have a significant effect on yield. Since only fungicide was significant, only those results are reported.

•

Miravis Neo significantly increased the yield compared to Proline and the control. Miravis Neo contains 3 modes of action and is good to excellent for tar spot, gray leaf spot, and Northern corn leaf blight.

•

DON levels were very low. Plots had high levels of foliar disease pressure.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (dry bu/ac)

DON (ppm)

Control

16.0

137 b

0.37 a

Proline

16.2

140 b

0.24 a

Miravis Neo

16.4

155 a

0.39 a

CV: 13.3%

CV: 28.9%

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different test at alpha = 0.1.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Jason Hartschuh (hartschuh.11@osu.edu), Stephanie Karhoff (karhoff.41@osu.edu), Pierce Paul (paul.661@osu.edu), or Rich Minyo (minyo.1@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 81

Fungicide Application for DON OBJECTIVE

Northwest Ag Research Station

Evaluate the effects of fungicide application methods on corn yield and deoxynivalenol (DON) levels.

STUDY INFORMATION

OARDC Wood County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/23/2024 Harvest Date 10/28/2024 Population 34,000 sds/ac Acres 1.5 Treatments 14 Reps 3 Treatment Width 10 ft. Tillage Minimum Till Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide Previous Crop Corn Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Hoytville clay loam, 95%

STUDY DESIGN This study was a randomized complete block split block, split-plot design with the block split between ground and drone applications and the plot split by fungicide product, with a control for every split plot. The fungicides used were Miravis Neo at 13.7 fluid oz/ac and Proline at 5.7 fluid oz/ac. Application methods used were a ground sprayer with a boom over the top (applying either 15 or 20 gal/ac of product), a ground sprayer with 360 yield under covers (applying 15 or 20 gal/ac of product), three drones (DJI T25, Hylio with cone nozzles, and Hylio with turbo teejet air induction (TTAI) nozzles) applying 2.5 gal/ac of product. Plots were inoculated with Fusarium graminearum 24 hours after fungicide application.

82 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

5.37

5.82

2.76

1.80

3.01

1.84

20.60

Cumulative GDDs

223

714

1385

2072

2726

3251

The high clearance sprayer making an application.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Plots experienced too much rain early on and experienced water damage from early-season flooding, followed by drier conditions later in the season. Corn disease levels, both foliar and ear rots, were very low. At tassel total corn height was only 5-7 feet tall.

•

Application method did not have a significant effect, and there was no interaction between application method and fungicide.

•

However, fungicide did have a significant effect on the DON level. Since only fungicide was significant, only those results are reported.

•

DON levels were very low, and additional research is needed under higher DON levels to determine if these results are consistent.

•

There was no significant effect of application method or fungicide on yield. Plots had very low levels of foliar disease pressure. Weather conditions at this location did not favor foliar or ear disease development.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (dry bu/ac)

DON (ppm)

Control

16.5

131 a

0.29 a

Proline

16.9

134 a

0.15 b

Miravis Neo

16.2

136 a

0.25 a

CV: 7.9%

CV: 36.4%

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Turbo Teejet Air Induction Nozzles are for applying fungicide with a consistent spray droplet size.

2025 eFields Report | 83

Fungicide Application Timing OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Evaluate the agronomic and economic ramifications of fungicide applications when no disease is present at time of application.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Knox County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 4/23/2025 Harvest Date 9/13/2025 Hybrid Seed Consultants 1103AM Population 34,000 sds/ac Acres 51 Treatments 2 Reps 4 Treatment Width 26 ft. Tillage Vertical Till Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide, Insecticide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Bennington Silt Loam, 62% Pewamo Silty Clay Loam, 18% Centerburg Silt Loam, 11%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

4.40

6.21

3.65

4.60

1.17

2.61

22.64

Cumulative GDDs

226

546

1209

1984

2584

3064

STUDY DESIGN Fungicide treatments consisted of Veltyma fungicide versus no fungicide (Check). Veltyma was applied at growth stage R1 at the rate of 7 oz/ac. The experiment was a randomized block design with four replications. Each block was 56 feet wide and 1,300 feet long. The center 20 feet of each block was used for data analysis. Fungicide applications were made with a DJI AGRAS T30 Drone. Applications were made perpendicular to the corn rows. A combine yield monitoring system was used for data collection. Calibration was completed before plot harvest. Ag Leader SMS Advanced software was used to analyze the yield data.

84 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

DJI AGRAS T30 Drone used for fungicide application.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS Little to no disease pressure was observed throughout the growing season. Ear leaf shows no disease present at the time of fungicide application.

SUMMARY •

There was no statistical difference between the two treatments.

•

With similar yields, additional input costs for the fungicide and the application resulted in a reduction in net return of $29.14/ac.

•

A yield increase of 8 bu/ac is required to offset the additional input costs.

RESULTS Treatments

Avg. Emergence (plants/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Return Above ($/ac)

Control

32,660

22.1

233 a

980

Veltyma

32,800

22.3

234 a

951

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE DJI T30 Drone Using drones for spraying pesticides is attractive mainly for four reasons: 1-The topography or soil conditions don't allow the use of traditional ground sprayers or conventional agricultural aircraft. 2-When airplanes and helicopters are not available or are too expensive to use. 3-Drones more efficiently spray small, irregular-shaped fields.

LSD: 6 CV: 1.5%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact John Barker (barker.41@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 85

Fungicide Application Timing OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Evaluate the agronomic and economic ramifications of fungicide applications when no disease is present at time of application.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Knox County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/12/2025 Harvest Date 10/15/2025 Hybrid Channel 209-70 Population 34,000 sds/ac Acres 43 Treatments 2 Reps 3 Treatment Width 20 ft. Tillage Vertical Till Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide, Insecticide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Bennington Silt Loam, 55% Pewamo Silty Clay Loam, 20% Centerburg Silt Loam, 11%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

4.40

6.21

3.65

4.60

1.17

2.61

22.64

Cumulative GDDs

226

546

1209

1984

2584

3064

STUDY DESIGN Fungicide treatments consisted of Veltyma fungicide versus no fungicide (check). Veltyma was applied at growth stage R1 at the rate of 7 oz/ac. The experiment was a randomized block design with four replications. Each block was 56 feet wide and 1,150 feet long. The center 20 feet of each block was used for data analysis. Fungicide applications were made with a DJI AGRAS T30 Drone. Applications were made perpendicular to the corn rows. A combine yield monitoring system was used for data collection. Calibration was completed before plot harvest. Ag Leader SMS Advanced software was used to analyze the yield data.

86 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Water sensitive paper placed within the crop canopy.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS Little to no disease pressure was observed throughout the growing season. The ear leaf showed no disease present at the time of fungicide application.

SUMMARY •

There was no statistical difference between the two treatments.

•

Due to the additional input costs for the fungicide and the application, the treatment results in a reduction in net return of $45.26/ac.

•

A yield increase of 8 bu/ac is required to offset the additional input costs.

RESULTS Treatments

Avg. Emergence (plants/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Return Above ($/ac)

Control

31,800

20.8

258 a

1,086

Veltyma

32,333

20.2

255 a

1,041

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE

Water-sensitive paper (WSP) was placed on the ear leaf of corn plants at various locations throughout the plot to evaluate spray coverage from the drone application. The WSP captured droplet patterns and distribution, allowing for assessment of application uniformity and effectiveness at the ear leaf level — a critical site for nutrient uptake and disease control in corn.

LSD: 29 CV: 4.8%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact John Barker (barker.41@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 87

Fungicide Application Timing OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Evaluate the agronomic and economic ramifications of fungicide applications when no disease is present at time of application.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Knox County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/12/2025 Harvest Date 10/15/2025 Hybrid Channel 207-87 Population 34,000 sds/ac Acres 32 Treatments 2 Reps 3 Treatment Width 26 ft. Tillage Vertical Till Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide, Insecticide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Bennington Silt Loam, 58% Pewamo Silty Clay Loam, 24% Centerburg Silt Loam, 16%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

4.40

6.21

3.65

4.60

1.17

2.61

22.64

Cumulative GDDs

226

546

1209

1984

2584

3064

STUDY DESIGN The entire field received a fungicide application (Veltyma at 7 oz/ac) at VT/R1. A second fungicide treatment consisted of Veltyma fungicide versus no fungicide (check). Veltyma was applied at growth stage R3 at the rate of 7 oz/ac. The experiment was a randomized block design with three replications. Each block was 56 feet wide and 1500 feet long. The center 20 feet of each block was used for data analysis. Fungicide applications were made with a DJI AGRAS T30 Drone. Applications were made perpendicular to the corn rows. A combine yield monitoring system was used for data collection. Calibration was completed before plot harvest. Ag Leader SMS Advanced software was used to analyze the yield data.

88 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

A drone applied fungicide at both R1 on July 23, 2025 and R3 on August 20, 2025 for this trial.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS Little to no disease pressure was observed prior to either application. Ear leaf prior to second fungicide application. The entire field received a fungicide application at tasseling. A second application (with check strips) was made at R3.

SUMMARY •

There was no statistical yield difference between the two treatments.

•

Due to the additional input costs for the fungicide and the application, the treatment resulted in a reduction in net return of $59.93/ac.

•

A yield increase of 16 bu/ac is required to offset the additional input costs.

RESULTS Treatments

Avg. Emergence (plants/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Return Above ($/ac)

Control

31,860

19.2

261 a

1,069

Veltyma

31,840

19.1

256 a

1,009

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Davis Instruments Vantage Pro2 Weather Station was used to collect weather data at this plot. It gathers real-time data on wind speeds up to 200 mph, temperature and humidity, barometric pressure, rainfall and other information such as heat index, dew point, highs and lows, and much more.

LSD: 23 CV: 3.8%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact John Barker (barker.41@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 89

High Clearance Robotic Irrigator OBJECTIVE

Molly Caren Agricultural Center

Demonstrate the in-season application of commercial nutrient sources and water application as a unified strategy to reduce nutrient losses while improving profitability with increased grain yields.

STUDY INFORMATION

OARDC Madison County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 6/3/2025 Harvest Date 11/5/2025 Hybrid Croplan CP4838PCE Population 35,000 sds/ac Acres 60 Treatments 6 Reps 4 Treatment Width 80 ft. Tillage Minimum Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Crosby-Lewisburg Silt Loams, 66% Kokomo Silty Clay Loam, 34%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

5.57

4.06

5.99

4.16

0.60

1.54

21.92

Cumulative GDDs

242

566

1256

2036

2624

3104

STUDY DESIGN Field demonstrations was laid-out in a RCBD strip trial design with treatments that include: in-season irrigated versus non irrigated treatments for corn. The 360Yield Center Rain Irrigator unit was used to apply water in a 15inch band at the base of the corn plant during the growing season.

The robotic irrigator disperses water towards the base of the plants during the duration of the growing season in a 15-inch band.

90 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Small Grains

Soybean

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

This crop was planted in the late planting window. This year the crop received adequate rain through the beginning of the summer and then end of summer was in drought. The irrigator began watering in August and completed in the mid September. The corn crop exhibited drought and heat stress for the non-irrigated treatment. This caused yield loss for the crop. The irrigated portion of the field was watered seven times for a total of 3.0 inches of applied water. No nitrogen was applied through the RAIN unit. Total nitrogen applied for all treatments was 180 lb/ac.

•

Irrigation had a statistically significant affect on yield over non-irrigated.

•

A total of 99 gallons of diesel was used to run the irrigator for this trial for 2025 cropping season across 20 acres.

•

A total of 4,492 kWh were used to run the electric pumps, base station, and well for 2025 growing season across 20 acres.

RESULTS Treatments

Water Applied (in)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Non-irrigated

18.1

214 b

Irrigated

3.0

19.5

249 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE The 360 RAIN has a 80 or 60 foot boom applies water through Y-DROP like hoses. This method of irrigation increases efficiency by reducing the amount of water used. It is also advantageous to use in a field that is irregular shaped and cannot fit a standard center pivot.

LSD: 11 CV: 5.2%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Andrew Klopfenstein (klopfenstein.34@osu.edu), John Fulton (fulton.20@osu.edu), Scott Shearer (shearer.95@osu.edu), or Elizabeth Hawkins (hawkins.301@osu.edu). Project funded by NRCS, ODA, and 360 Yield Center.

2025 eFields Report | 91

High Clearance Robotic Irrigator OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Demonstrate the in-season application of commercial nutrient sources and water application as a unified strategy to reduce nutrient losses while improving profitability with increased grain yields.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Madison County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 6/13/2025 Harvest Date 11/14/2025 Hybrid Beck's 5530PCE Population 32,500 sds/ac Acres 80 Treatments 2 Reps 1 Treatment Width Split Field Tillage No-Till Management Fertilizer, Herbicide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Crosby-Lewisburg Silt Loams, 39% Kokomo Sitly Clay Loam, 16% Miamian-Eldean Silt Loams, 13%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

5.57

4.06

5.99

4.16

0.60

1.54

21.92

Cumulative GDDs

242

566

1256

2036

2624

3104

STUDY DESIGN Field demonstrations was laid-out in a split paired field design with two different watersheds to allow for water quality sampling and treatments that include: irrigated versus non irrigated treatments. The 360Yield Center Rain Irrigator unit was used to apply water in a 15-inch band at the base of the corn plant during the growing season.

Corn crop was planted on June 13, 2025.

92 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Small Grains

Soybean

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

This crop was planted in the late planting window. This year the crop received adequate rain through the beginning of the summer and then end of summer was in drought. The irrigator began watering in late August and completed in the mid September. Ideally, the crop would have started being irrigated in the beginning of August. The corn crop exhibited drought and heat stress for the all treatments. This caused yield loss for the crop. The irrigated portion of the field was watered two times for a total of 1.0 inch of applied water. The irrigated portion received 25% less 28% nitrogen as compared to non-irrigated treatments.

•

Irrigation had a higher yield over non-irrigated while using 25% less nitrogen.

•

A total of 56 gallons of diesel was used to run the irrigator for this trial for 2025 cropping season across 39 acres.

•

A total of 147 gallons of diesel was used to run the generator for the electric pumps, base station, and well for 2025 growing season across 39 acres.

RESULTS Treatments

Water Applied (in)

N Applied (lbs/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Non-irrigated

178

21.6

163

Irrigated

134

21.3

176

2025 eFields Report | 93

Nitrogen Enhancement Product OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Evaluate the ability of Pivot Bio PROVEN® 40 to replace a portion of commercial nitrogen (anhydrous ammonia) for corn production.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Fulton County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/26/2025 Harvest Date 11/17/2025 Hybrid Rob-See-Co RC5134 Population Variable Rate Acres 11 Treatments 6 Reps 3 Treatment Width 20 ft. Tillage Vertical Management Fertilizer, Herbicide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Tedrow Loamy Fine Sand, 28% Ottokee Fine Sand, 22% Oakville Fine Sand, 19%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

2.45

3.95

3.22

4.44

1.32

1.67

17.05

Cumulative GDDs

183

494

1160

1923

2522

3002

STUDY DESIGN Six treatments were evaluated across three replications in a randomized complete block design. Convert (12-58-0) as starter fertilizer with and without Pivot Bio PROVEN® 40 was applied in-furrow at planting. Then at sidedress (V3), three different rates of 82-0-0 anhydrous ammonia were applied to the two treatments: 100, 120, and 140 lbs N/ac. Treatments were eight, 30-inch rows wide by field length. Yield and moisture data were collected using a calibrated yield monitor. The corn was sidedressed on June 16, 2025 using anhydrous ammonia.

94 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Planting conditions were excellent, and early-season growth was strong across the corn crop. However, drought set in late in the season, and sandier farms like this one experienced significant stress due to the lack of rainfall during grain fill. As a result, large sand knolls throughout the trial area performed poorly.

•

The 140 lb/ac nitrogen treatment without Pivot Bio produced the highest yield (194 bu/ac) and was statistically higher than all other treatments.

•

Adding Pivot Bio at any nitrogen rate did not improve yield and did not provide an economic benefit.

•

Moisture was similar across treatments, and no other yield-limiting factors were observed.

•

Overall, the results suggest that Pivot Bio was not advantageous under these conditions, and the 140 lb/ac nitrogen rate without Pivot Bio is recommended for optimal yield and economic return.

RESULTS Treatments (lb N/ac)

Avg. Emergence (plants/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Return Above N ($/ac)

140

29,512

18.6

194 a

707

140 + Pivot Bio

28,012

18.0

176 b

616

120

29,179

18.6

178 b

652

120 + Pivot Bio

30,346

17.9

174 b

619

100

27,678

18.0

171 b

635

100 + Pivot Bio

28,679

18.1

171 b

619

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 14 CV: 5.2%

TOOLS OF THE TRADE

PROJECT CONTACT

An Ag Leader InCommand 1200 was critical for collecting as-applied data at planting and sidedress as well as collecting yield data at harvest.

For inquiries about this project, contact Kendall Lovejoy (lovejoy.59@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 95

Nitrogen - Green Lightning OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Determine if Green Lightning was an adequate substitute for commercial nitrogen fertilizer while comparing to a typical nitrogen application rate.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Fayette County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/19/2025 Harvest Date 10/21/2025 Hybrid DIRECT 2111-AA Population 34,000 sds/ac Acres 3 Treatments 4 Reps 4 Treatment Width 10 ft. Tillage Conventional Management Fertilizer, Herbicide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Brookston Silty Clay Loam, 58% Crosby Silt Loam, 42%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

5.27

6.16

7.88

6.23

0.56

1.80

27.90

Cumulative GDDs

245

579

1263

2040

2626

3106

STUDY DESIGN The study compares three application rates of Green Lightning (GL) to the normal 32% UAN rate. All treatments received 30 units of UAN at planting, with treatment 1 later getting 176 additional units at sidedress. Treatments 2, 3, and 4 received 27 gallons of GL and 1 gallon of molasses per acre; treatments 2 and 4 repeated this rate, while treatment 3 received 16.25 gallons of GL and 0.6 gallons of molasses. A third round was applied by drone: treatment 2 received 27 gallons of GL and 1 gallon of molasses, and treatment 3 received 16.25 gallons of GL and 0.6 gallons of molasses. GL contains 2.96 units of N/gal.

96 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Applying Green Lightning as foliar.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Throughout the growing season, the color of the different treatments did not visually vary. The height of the corn was the same throughout the beginning half of the growing season. It was until VT that the corn plants started to vary in size. The commercial nitrogen treatment tasseled more even, where the GL treatments were slower in reaching the VT stage. The rain was decent until middle of July when it stopped. We believe this was a key reason because there were 42 bushels different in the two treatments that received the same amount of total nitrogen. We think additional research with a more consistent rainfall could result more favorably towards the GL product.

•

Commercial fertilizer application outperformed the GL applications.

•

The overall yield of the commercial fertilizer treatment was below the average county yield for this growing season.

•

The GL product requires additional application passes to apply the same amount of actual nitrogen.

•

The lack of overall rain did play a key role in the overall results of this project.

RESULTS Treatments (N rate)

Nitrogen Green Lightning Avg. Emergence (lbs/ac) (gal/ac) (plants/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

32% Nitrogen

176

32,350

16.3

196 a

GL - High Rate

240

33,542

16.6

129 c

GL - Typical Rate

176

33,542

16.9

155 b

GL - Low Rate

160

33,833

17.3

117 d

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE The DJI Agras T40 with DJI SmartFarm Software is a powerful, efficient, and userfriendly drone designed to advance precision farming. It revolutionizes crop spraying with intelligent operations, optimized spray patterns, and exceptional flight stability.

LSD: 11 CV: 23.2%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Ken Ford (ford.70@osu.edu) or Andrew Klopfenstein (klopfenstein.34@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 97

Nitrogen - Green Lightning OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Determine if Green Lightning is an adequate substitution for commercial nitrogen fertilizer.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Madison County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/29/2025 Harvest Date 10/28/2025 Hybrid USA EXP7475 Population 36,000 sds/ac Acres 34 Treatments 4 Reps 4 Treatment Width 40 ft. Tillage Strip-Till Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Kokomo Silty Clay Loam, 53% Crosby-Lewisburg Silt Loam, 47%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

5.57

4.06

5.99

4.16

0.60

1.54

21.92

Cumulative GDDs

242

566

1256

2036

2624

3104

STUDY DESIGN This study was laid out to compare standard commercial nitrogen source, liquid 28%, with Green Lightning (GL) in alternating 40-foot strips. GL is a new product that looks at taking nitrogen from the atmosphere and creating psuedo lightning through its production process to create a nitrogen rich product. This product is meant to be produced on farm with grower providing electricity, water, and storage for product once produced.

Three applications of Green Lightning were applied: June 25, 2025; July 7, 2025; and July 19, 2025.

98 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Small Grains

Soybean

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

The corn crop was planted later than normal for this area. It was well established and had excellent yields for control, but the limiting factor was still rain due to drought conditions in August. The nitrogen program was 180 units with all units of nitrogen sidedressed for commercial nitrogen. GL treatments had 3 applications of product with one being rate applications of 31, 37, 44 gal/ac at sidedress and the balance of GL 20 gal/ ac coming as 2 foliar applications. Sugarshot was used recommended rates for GL treatments.

•

Commercial nitrogen was statistically significant on yield versus GL.

•

It is noted that too much GL was applied in one application that may have contributed to yield difference.

•

More research is needed to confirm this product and rates for this crop.

RESULTS Treatments (N rate)

Nitrogen (lbs/ac)

Green Lightning (gal/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Commercial N

180

17.2

227 a

GL High

240

17.6

120 b

GL Mid

228

17.4

113 b

GL Low

207

17.3

116 b

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 10 CV: 5.2%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Andrew Klopfenstein (klopfenstein.34@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 99

Nitrogen - Green Lightning OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Determine if Green Lightning is an adequate substitution for commercial nitrogen fertilizer.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Paulding County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 4/28/2025 Harvest Date 10/4/2025 Hybrid DeKalb 5982 Population 34,000 sds/ac Acres 42 Treatments 4 Reps 4 Treatment Width 30 ft. Tillage Vertical Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Hoytville Silty Clay, 100%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

3.13

3.91

3.19

3.90

0.68

0.85

15.66

Cumulative GDDs

226

560

1259

2068

2694

3174

STUDY DESIGN This study was laid out to compare standard commercial nitrogen source, liquid 28%, with Green Lightning in alternating 30-foot strips. Green Lightning (GL) is a new product that looks at taking nitrogen from the atmosphere and creating pseudo lightning through its production process to create a nitrogen rich product. This product is meant to be produced on farm with grower providing electricity, water, and storage for product once produced. Corn was harvested on October 4, 2025.

100 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Small Grains

Soybean

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

The corn crop was planted earlier than normal for this area. It was well established and had excellent yields, but the limiting factor was still rain due to drought conditions in July and August. The nitrogen program was 179 units with 44 gal/ac of 28% sidedressed and the balance coming at planting. GL treatments had 16 gal/ac of 28% at planting and 2 applications of GL with one being 27 gal/ac at sidedress and the balance of GL coming as foliar application. Boost was used at a rate of 1 gal/ac during sidedress for GL treatments.

•

Commercial nitrogen was statistically significant on yield versus GL. While there was a statistically significant difference this product showed a return on ROI with the reduced input cost of commercial nitrogen compared to GL.

•

For upcoming cropping season different rates of GL will be used to account for differences in nitrogen content per gallon and further verification of product.

RESULTS Treatments (N rate)

Nitrogen (lbs/ac)

Green Lightning (gal/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Commercial N

179

15.7

203 a

GL High

199

15.7

196 b

GL Match

179

15.8

195 b

GL Low

159

15.8

194 b

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Green Lightning™ nitrogen strives to create long term farm profitability, higher yields, and a lasting legacy for their families and communities to prosper by creating a commercial nitrogen substitute through a different nitrogen fixation process.

LSD: 2 CV: 85.0%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Andrew Klopfenstein (klopfenstein.34@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 101

Nitrogen Placement OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Understand the impact of various sidedress nitrogen application methods on harvest moisture and yield in corn.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Union County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 6/3/2025 Harvest Date 10/25/2025 Hybrid DeKalb 6422 Population 34,000 sds/ac Acres 12 Treatments 3 Reps 4 Treatment Width 40 ft. Tillage Vertical Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide, Insecticide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Wetzel Silty Clay Loam, 36% Pewamo Silty Clay Loam, 30% Blount Silt Loam, 29%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

7.32

5.67

2.13

2.68

1.40

0.87

20.07

Cumulative GDDs

230

542

1219

1999

2579

3059

STUDY DESIGN This study was a randomized complete block design trial consisting of three sidedress nitrogen application methods. Each application consisted of 52 gallons of 28-0-0-2(S) per acre at corn growth stage V4-V5. One application applied all fertilizer through injection into the soil between the rows at an average depth of three inches. The second application applied one third of the fertilizer through injection as in the first application and two thirds of the fertilizer through Y-drops. The final application applied all the fertilizer through Y-drops. Harvest moisture and yield data were collected in the fall with a calibrated yield monitor.

102 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fertilizer injected between the rows at an average depth of 3 inches.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS The rainfall from July through September was well below average, normally 3 inches or more per month. There were no noticeable visual differences among the sidedress treatments in the corn. Disease pressure was relatively mild, likely due to the dry conditions.

SUMMARY •

A statistical advantage in yield was determined in the fully injected treatment over the split application with y-drops and y-drops only.

•

Given the lack of precipitation, the surface applied and mostly surfaced applied application may have had higher than expected volatilization of nitrogen leading to lower yields.

•

This study is intended to be multi-year, so weather effects may be mitigated.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Injected

19.8

226 a

1/3 Injected, 2/3 Y-Drops

20.0

218 b

Y-Drops

20.1

218 b

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE The Unverferth Nutrimax 1800 Liquid Fertilizer Applicator has the option of applying fertilizer via Y-drop, injection, or a combination of the two. The single coulter system and higher toolbar on this model allow for flexibility in timing and method of application.

LSD: 7 CV: 2.4%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Wayne Dellinger (dellinger.6@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 103

Nitrogen Rate OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Evaluate use of the Sentinel Ag nitrogen (N) tool for helping recommend sidedress rates in central Ohio.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Miami County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 4/18/2025 Harvest Date 9/27/2025 Hybrid Ebberts 7770PC Population 36,000 sds/ac Acres 65 Treatments 2 Reps 3 Treatment Width 120 ft. Tillage Conventional Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide, Insecticide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Eldean Loam, 85% Westland Silty Clay Loam, 13% Eldean-Casco Gravelly Loams, 1%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

5.68

4.72

5.96

4.84

0.75

1.43

23.38

Cumulative GDDs

251

613

1318

2128

2750

3230

STUDY DESIGN This study was a randomized complete block. The field had center pivot irrigation with 7.5 inches applied over the growing season. Treatments included a control representing the farmer's N package and then using the Sentinel Ag tool to recommend the N rate at sidedress. The farmer N package included applying 20 gal/ ac of UAN28 post spray at planting, 5 gal/ac of 6-18-6 in-furrow at planting, and 48 gal/ac UAN28 at sidedress. Sentinel recommended a sidedress N rate of 46 gal/ac of UAN28. A prescription N map was generated for applying the replicated treatments with all treatments installed under the pivot. A John Deere S680 combine with a calibrated yield monitor was used.

104 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Sidedress nitrogen application during the growing season.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

This field faced challenging environmental conditions over the growing season, marked by a wet spring , followed by periods of drought stress and variable rainfall. Despite these stresses, crop maturity progressed ahead of average, though yields were influenced by uneven moisture availability. Droughty conditions persisted starting in late August and last through harvest. Remote sensed imagery (RGB, NDVI and thermal) collected over the growing season showed no differences between the treatments. The Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE) was 0.81 for the Sentinel treatment and 0.93 for the control treatment. The total N savings for the Sentinel treatment was $4.62 compared to the control but overall the control was more profitable in 2025 for this field.

•

There was no significant difference in grain moisture between the two treatments at harvest. The Sentinel treatment had a high NUE 0.81 compared to 0.93 for the farmer treatment.

•

No significant difference in corn yield between treatments; farmer-managed nitrogen was slightly higher. The farmer control treatment was more profitable at a $8.98/ac compared to the Sentinel treatment.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

21.1

252 a

Sentinel

20.7

249 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Precision Planting EMHD (Electromagnetic Hydraulic Drive) - The Precision Planting EMHD (Electromagnetic Hydraulic Drive) module is a liquid rate control system that ensures precise application of fertilizers and other liquid products. This liquid control unit provide variable-rate application capabilities.

LSD: 8 CV: 1.7%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact John Fulton (fulton.20@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 105

Nitrogen Rate OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Determine the optimal nitrogen (N) rate for a corn field by considering yield variability, economic profitability, and nitrogen requirements.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Seneca County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/30/2025 Harvest Date 10/24/2025 Hybrid Seed Consultants SC10HR43 Population 34,800 sds/ac Acres 201.5 Treatments 5 Reps 3 Treatment Width 40 ft. Tillage Conventional Management Fertilizer, Herbicide Previous Crop Soybeans Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Tiro Silty Loam, 74% Pandora Silt Loam, 23%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

4.54

4.46

3.76

4.18

0.46

2.26

19.66

Cumulative GDDs

213

514

1177

1947

2528

3008

STUDY DESIGN This study was laid out to determine the appropriate amount of nitrogen to be applied for adequate yields. It was a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with five treatments and three replications. Treatments were 100, 110, 120, 130, 140 lbs N/ac. All treatments of anhydrous ammonia (NH3) were applied using the Blu-Jet anhydrous bar. Cab view of field during anhydrous application.

106 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Throughout the growing season there was no significant color variation in the stalks of each treatment.

•

As a result of the nitrogen rate variation per treatment, no significant yield difference was observed.

•

A conclusion can be determined to decrease the units of nitrogen throughout the farm.

RESULTS Treatments (lbs N/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Return Above N ($/ac)

100

22.8

201 a

777

110

22.9

202 a

739

120

22.8

205 a

744

130

22.8

204 a

734

140

22.8

202 a

720

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE The Blu-Jet anhydrous bar uses a pressurebased system to push the liquid NH3 from the tanks into the ground. It uses a knife and coulter combo to cut the ground before the NH3 is placed under the soils surface, then the rear coulters cover up the trench.

LSD: 5 CV: 1.6%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Pressley Buurma (buurma.20@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 107

Nurizma Insecticide OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Evaluate the effect of an in-furrow application of Nurizma insecticide (BASF) on Asiatic Garden Beetle (AGB) grub control, early-season stand, and corn yield.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Williams County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 4/25/2025 Harvest Date 10/22/2025 Hybrid Beck's 5794V2P Population 34,800 sds/ac Acres 8 Treatments 2 Reps 4 Treatment Width 40 ft. Tillage Vertical Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide, Insecticide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Kibbie Very Fine Sandy Loam, 34% Lamson Very Fine Sandy Loam, 20% Tuscola Variant Fine Sandy Loam, 20%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

2.86

3.70

3.36

3.76

1.31

2.22

17.21

Cumulative GDDs

185

495

1158

1931

2541

3021

STUDY DESIGN Two treatments were evaluated in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Each treatment strip consisted of a full-length pass with a 16-row corn planter. For treatments receiving Nurizma, a grounddriven pump ensured the product was applied at the target rate (1 oz product with 5 gal water per acre). All other field management practices, including starter fertilizer, sidedress nitrogen, and fungicide applications, were kept consistent across treatments. Yield and moisture data were collected using a calibrated yield monitor.

108 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Aerial image June 20, 2025 vs October 13, 2025.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

This farm was one of the earliest planted in the area, which increased the crop’s exposure window to AGB larvae. Despite this, the corn showed no visible signs of stress or injury throughout the growing season. Overall growth remained consistent; however, a sand ridge running through the field performed noticeably lower than the surrounding areas at harvest.

•

Nurizma-treated strips showed improved early stand emergence, suggesting the product may be effective in promoting early-season establishment and protection against AGB.

•

The Nurizma treatment yielded statistically higher than the untreated control and had improved stand counts, indicating an early-season benefit.

•

Secondary observations from hand sampling showed that while AGB larval counts were not statistically different, the Nurizma-treated plots had lower grub counts for most weeks following planting.

•

Overall, the results are conclusive for this year’s conditions, and future work could evaluate repeated applications or timing effects to confirm consistency across seasons.

RESULTS Treatments

Avg. Emergence (plants/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

33,639

20.8

270 b

Nurizma

34,555

20.8

276 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE This ground-driven John Blue pump delivered Nurizma at the target rate through an infurrow injection system. The drive gear chain could be quickly removed to switch to treatments without Nurizma.

LSD: 6 CV: 1.2%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Kendall Lovejoy (lovejoy.59@osu.edu), Kayla Wyse (wyse.34@osu.edu), Kelley Tilmon (tilmon.1@osu.edu), or Amy Raudenbush (raudenbush.3@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 109

Nurizma Insecticide OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Evaluate the effect of an in-furrow application of Nurizma insecticide (BASF) on Asiatic Garden Beetle (AGB) grub control, early-season stand, and corn yield.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Williams County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/31/2025 Harvest Date 10/29/2025 Hybrid Beck's 5332AM Population 33,500 sds/ac Acres 9 Treatments 2 Reps 4 Treatment Width 40 ft. Tillage Vertical Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide, Insecticide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Lenawee Silty Clay Loam, 32% Kibbie Very Fine Silty Loam, 30% Ottokee Fine Sand, 29%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

3.23

3.61

4.07

2.91

0.92

2.36

17.10

Cumulative GDDs

185

495

1158

1931

2541

3021

110 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

The later planting date for this field resulted in limited exposure to AGB larvae, with weekly sampling only continuing for three weeks after planting. Growth remained consistent throughout the season, and the corn did not display any major signs of stress. Overall, the crop progressed uniformly, with no notable issues observed prior to harvest.

•

While the control exhibited slightly better earlyseason emergence, the difference did not carry through the growing season and no meaningful differences in stand, vigor, or final performance were observed.

•

Yield differences were not statistically significant, though the Nurizma treatment showed a 6-bushel improvement over the control, a small but noteworthy increase.

•

Grub counts were only collected for three weeks after planting, limiting the assessment of AGB pressure. The later planting date may have reduced AGB impact, an effect that should be studied further in future trials.

•

Overall, the results suggest potential trends but are not conclusive.

RESULTS Treatments

Avg. Emergence (plants/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

32,264

22.0

235 a

Nurizma

31,598

22.4

241 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE A golf cup cutter was used to collect soil samples for counting Asiatic Garden Beetle (AGB) grubs, providing a consistent and efficient method for assessing pest pressure across plots.

LSD: 6 CV: 1.1%

2025 eFields Report | 111

Starter Fertilizer OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Measure corn yield response to multiple in-furrow starter fertilizer applications.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Henry County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/28/2025 Harvest Date 10/29/2025 Hybrid Seed Consultants SC1084AM Population 34,000 sds/ac Acres 5 Treatments 4 Reps 4 Treatment Width 20 ft. Tillage No-Till Management Fertilizer, Herbicide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Haskins Loam, 66% Hoytville Clay Loam, 34%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

3.76

4.10

3.53

2.62

0.62

1.56

16.19

Cumulative GDDs

205

532

1203

1964

2567

3047

STUDY DESIGN The experiment was a complete randomized block design with four treatments including the control and was replicated four times. Treatment plot design was 20 feet by 300 feet. Treatments include no starter (control), in-furrow pop-up starter (6-24-6), in-furrow pop-up starter, fulvic acid, and Growthful, and an organic based starter fertilizer. A 6-row corn head was used on a Case IH 6150 combine to harvest the center of each treatment. All yield data collected was from a fully calibrated Case IH Pro 700 Monitor.

112 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn planter equipped with an in-furrow starter fertilizer system.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

None of the treatments were statistically different compared to the control which received no starter fertilizer. The straight 6-24-6 did show a 18 bu yield increase compared to the control. The 6-24-6 starter had a slightly higher yield than the other two mixes possibly due to the higher nitrogen content of this treatment. Due to the wet spring, planting was delayed which may have affected the performance of the starter fertilizers. The nitrogen side dress application was delayed due to wet weather in June which affected the overall yield of all treatments.

•

No statistical difference between treatments.

•

The control had the greatest ROI of the four treatments at a $4.00 corn market value. With corn at a hypothetical $6.00 market value, the 6-24-6 treatments had the greatest ROI of the four treatments.

•

Delayed planting potentially reduced the effectiveness of the in-furrow fertilizer.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Return Above ($/ac)

Control

15.7

130 a

519

In-furrow pop-up starter

15.7

148 a

495

In-furrow pop-up starter, fulvic acid, and Growthful

15.8

136 a

174

Organic based starter fertilizer

15.7

142 a

398

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Keeton Seed Firmer is an aftermarket attachment for planters that gently presses every seed into the bottom of the trench to tuck it firmly in the soil, ready to take in the needed moisture and heat. It presses out any air pockets to avoid late germination, emergence, and yield loss. With this, liquid products for insecticides, fungicides, and proper in-furrow fertilizers can be applied.

LSD: 22 CV: 12.1%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Alan Leininger (leininger.17@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 113

Strip Till with Cover Crop OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Determine the effects of fall strip-till on corn yield with different cover crops, utilizing wheat cover and cereal rye cover applied with strip-till compared to no cover crop.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Ottawa County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/30/2025 Harvest Date 11/17/2025 Hybrid Brevant B06V25 Population 34,000 sds/ac Acres 7 Treatments 2 Reps 3 Treatment Width 30 ft. Tillage Strip-Till Management Fertilizer, Herbicide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Toldeo Silty Clay, 94% Nappanee Silty Clay Loam, 6%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

3.40

5.08

3.25

6.24

1.02

1.00

19.99

Cumulative GDDs

200

503

1177

1976

2590

3070

STUDY DESIGN With strip-till showing yield increases on previous studies on this farm, and incentives in Northwest Ohio for the use of cover crops, the operator and precision ag company sought to further research the effect of different cover crops on corn yield. Many producers are choosing wheat over the more commonly used cereal rye cover crop for ease of management in spring and lower seed cost, providing two variables to compare to no cover crop on strip-tilled ground. This study utilized random block design with three replications and a calibrated combine yield monitor for moisture and yield data. Starter N was not used; however, variable rate MAP and K were applied according to soil samples with strip-till unit.

114 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Wheat cover crop prior to termination.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Due to the wet early spring, the cover crop was not terminated until just a few days before planting. This caused both the wheat and rye to be much more mature than desired at the time of termination. This resulted in significantly more biomass than intended. Weed populations were noticeable at planting in the areas without cover crops, with good control achieved after herbicide application. Planting conditions were near ideal, although late. Stand counts were not performed, but emergence was excellent and the stand was extremely uniform throughout the season. Notable yield differences were identified during harvest through observation in the combine, with the no cover crop areas out yielding the rye and wheat. There were noticeable weed populations, mostly waterhemp, in the no cover areas at harvest, while the rye and wheat cover crop treatments were mostly weed free. Corn moisture was consistent across the trial. Rainfall was above average for June and early July, below average in late July, and minimal August 8 through September 20.

•

With no cover crop outperforming both the cereal rye and wheat cover crop treatments, this is obviously the favorable production practice from an economic standpoint in this trial.

•

The significantly higher yield in the rye cover compared to the wheat cover would indicate an economic advantage for rye if there is additional reason to include cover crop in a normal production practice like strip-till under this trial's timing and conditions

•

Late termination and resulting maturity of the wheat could have played a part in nutrient use, resulting in the lower yield, but additional studies would have to be performed to test this theory.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

18.3

219 a

Cereal Rye Cover

18.5

215 ab

Wheat Cover

18.3

198 b

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Orthman strip-till row units provide reduced compaction in the root zone, a warmer and more consistent seed bed for ideal seed to soil contact while minimizing disturbance of soil structure outside of the root zone. This 12-row unit also provides broadcast application of cover crop seed for a one pass fall tillage and cover crop seeding.

LSD: 18 CV: 4.9%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Allen Gahler (gahler.2@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 115

Sulfur OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Evaluate corn yield response to sulfur applied with Y-drops at growth stage V5.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Hancock County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/28/2025 Harvest Date 10/26/2025 Hybrid Dyna-Gro D44CC25 Population 31,817 sds/ac Acres 8 Treatments 3 Reps 7 Treatment Width 60 ft. Tillage Minimum Management Fertilizer, Herbicide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Glynwood-BlountHoucktown, 45% Pewamo Silty Clay Loam, 36% Houcktown-GlynwoodJenera, 19%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

3.35

6.60

4.01

3.23

0.85

0.81

18.85

Cumulative GDDs

214

528

1206

1985

2608

3088

STUDY DESIGN Three treatments were included in a corn study to see potential yield benefits from sulfur applied with Y-drops at the base of the plants at V5: 1) a control receiving no fertilizer; 2) 5 gallons of ammonium thiosulfate (12-0-0-26S) providing 5.65 lbs N/ac and 14.5 lbs S/ac; 3) 5 gallons of potassium thiosulfate (0-0-2517S) providing 15 lbs K/ac and 11.5 lbs S/ac. The experimental design was a completely randomized block replicated seven times. Analysis was performed by SASS.

116 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn crop mid season.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS There were no significant yield differences observed between the control treatment without additional sulfur and the two sulfur treatments.

SUMMARY •

Results of this study would suggest no yield benefit from applying sulfur to corn.

•

The use of sulfur would cause additional input cost without increasing yields. This conclusion would agree with the recommendations by The Ohio State University for typical mineral soils in Northwest Ohio.

RESULTS Treatments

Avg. Emergence (plants/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

29,000

17.0

191 ab

ATS

29,000

16.8

194 a

KTS

29,000

16.8

186 b

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 6 CV: 3.2%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Ed Lentz (lentz.38@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 117

Tar Spot Surveillance OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Scout Ohio corn fields to better understand the conditions in which tar spot thrives and how it impacts corn yield.

OSU Extension Statewide

STUDY DESIGN Twenty-two corn fields across seven Ohio counties were scouted weekly starting at the V7 growth stage until the R5 (dent) growth stage for tar spot presence and progression (Table 1). Disease severity (percentage of leaf area that is diseased) on the ear leaf and disease incidence (number of plants with tar spot present) were recorded at the R5 (dent) growth stage. Management information and field yield was collected from participating growers to correlate practices with tar spot presence. Management survey information included planting date, corn hybrid, tillage history, irrigation, crop rotation, fungicide program, cover crop history, history of tar spot presence, and harvest date. The data was combined and analyzed to look for trends across Ohio.

Figure 1. Greater disease pressure was observed in Pickaway County.

RESULTS Table 1. Number of surveyed fields, percent of fields with tar spot present, and average ear leaf disease severity at the R5 (dent) growth stage of participating counties.

County

No. of Surveyed Fields

Champaign

83%

Knox

Clinton

100%

Hardin

100%

Pickaway

100%

10%

Preble

100%

Marion

100%

118 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

% of Fields with Tar Avg. R5 EL Disease Spot Present Severity

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Figure 2. Average corn yield (bu/ac) of fields with no tar spot detected (N=4) and those with tar spot present (N=18).

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Figure 3. Average corn yield (bu/ac) of fields with tar spot present that either had no fungicide applied or a fungicide applied between V5 and R5.

SUMMARY Tar spot was detected in 82% of surveyed fields, with R5 ear leaf disease severity ranging from 1% to 10%. The earliest tar spot was observed was August 7 in Pickaway County and overall disease progression was later compared to previous years. Tar spot spread and infection is favored by leaf wetness, moderate temperatures, and relative humidity greater than 75%, so it is likely that dry conditions in 2025 slowed tar spot development. Though the timing and severity of tar spot infection ranged across surveyed fields, there was a numerical difference between fields with and without tar spot present. On average, fields where tar spot was observed yielded 31 bu/ac less than those where no disease was detected (Figure 2). However, the total number of surveyed fields in 2025 is limited, and three of the four fields without tar spot present were in Knox County, so yield differences are confounded by location. Since 2018, tar spot has become an annual problem for Ohio corn growers when favorable environmental conditions occur. Continued scouting coupled with field management information will provide Ohio-specific data to inform future management strategies and fungicide decisions. When tar spot was present, there was a numerical difference between fields with and without a fungicide applied (Figure 3). Fungicide application timing ranged from the V5 growth stage and the R5 (dent) growth stage. In most years, a single fungicide application between VT/R1 and R3 (milk) is recommended for managing tar spot. If you are interested in participating in the 2026 Tar Spot Surveillance eFields study, contact your local OSU Extension office or the project contacts listed below.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

PROJECT CONTACT

Thank you to the following Extension Educators for participating: Ambria Small, John Barker, Justin Baum, Nic Baumer, Mike Estadt, Savannah Ballweg, and Tim Barnes.

For inquiries about this project, contact Elizabeth Hawkins (hawkins.301@osu.edu), Stephanie Karhoff (karhoff.41@osu.edu), Dara Barclay, Jason Hartschuh, Nic Baumer, or Pierce Paul.

2025 eFields Report | 119

Wheat Straw Removal OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Measure corn yield response to different management practices of wheat straw and cover crop red clover.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Fulton County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 6/2/2025 Harvest Date 10/24/2025 Hybrid Great Harvest 5413 Population 36,000 sds/ac Acres 15 Treatments 4 Reps 4 Treatment Width 30 ft. Tillage Conventional Management Fertilizer Previous Crop Wheat Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Blount Loam, 46% Glynwood Loam, 31% Pewamo Clay Loam, 23%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

2.70

3.77

3.38

2.48

0.83

1.16

14.32

Cumulative GDDs

200

527

1193

1960

2567

3047

STUDY DESIGN This study evaluated four different management practices (treatments) after 2024 wheat harvest but prior to the 2025 corn crop. The treatments were replicated four times and randomized at field length. Treatment width was 30 feet as determined by the combine grain table. All tillage and weed control passes were consistent across all treatments. Red clover was frost seeded on February 13, 2024 at a rate of 15 lbs/ac. In treatments where a stover product was not removed, subplots were flail mowed on September 30, 2024. Cattle manure was applied as fertilizer on October 1, 2024.

120 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Flail mowing was used on treatments that did not get stover baled and removed.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Both straw (0.75 ton/ac) and clover yield (0.45 ton/ac) were lower than anticipated on this field. Emergence on this trial seemed slow, yet even. Early mechanical weed control appeared to reduce the stand evenly in this trial.

•

There was no significant difference in yield among all treatments.

•

More replications and year over year data will add to the validity of these results. Repeating this trial in a high yield situation would provide additional insight for growers.

•

Growers should consider additional costs and revenues associated with baling off straw and/ or clover hay as a part of farm-level economic analysis.

RESULTS Treatments

Stover Tonnage in 2024 (T/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

No stover removed

20.4

114 a

Clover only removed

0.45

20.4

128 a

Straw only removed

0.75

20.5

110 a

Straw and clover removed

0.75 & 0.45

20.4

122 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Red clover can be interseeded (frost-seeded) prior to the last freeze-thaw events at a rate of 10-12 lbs/ac (pure live seed). Red clover as a cover crop produces organic nitrogen, improves soil tilth, and provides excellent pollinator habitat, among many other benefits.

LSD: 19 CV: 12.3%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Eric Richer (richer.5@osu.edu) or Kendall Lovejoy (lovejoy.59@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 121

SEPTEMBER 22-24, 2026 Molly Caren Agricultural Center

London, Ohio

Tickets available preshow for $10 online or from Ohio State University Extension offices and local agribusinesses. Tickets are $15 at the gate. Children 5 and under are free.

fsr.osu.edu

We are tackling today’s grand challenges in every corner of Ohio. Sustainability Simultaneously ensuring viable agricultural production, food security and safety, and environmental and ecosystem sustainability simultaneously. One Health We study the nexus where human, animal, plant, and environmental health intersect or interact.

Rural-Urban Interface We explore the tensions and opportunities created in the communities, industries, policies, economies, and communications between rural and urban residents. Leadership We are preparing the next generation of scientists and leaders.

The Ohio State University College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences is Ohio State’s cornerstone college. Through our teaching, research, and Extension, we sustain life.

wooster

columbus

statewide

Ohio State Soybean Research For 2025, eFields soybean research was focused on improving the production and profitability of soybeans in the Ohio. Some exciting and innovating projects were executed this year, with 17 studies being conducted across the state. 2025 soybean research presented in eFields covers biologicals, fungicide, sulfur applications, and more. Below are highlights of the 2025 eFields soybean research. 502 acres

17 soybean studies

For more soybean research from Ohio State University Extension, explore the following resources: 2025 Ohio Soybean Performance Tests The purpose of the Ohio Soybean Performance Trials is to evaluate soybean varieties for yield and other agronomic characteristics. This evaluation gives soybean producers comparative information for selecting the best varieties for their unique production systems. For more information visit: go.osu.edu/soybeantrials. Agronomic Crops Team - Soybean Research The Agronomic Crops Team performs interesting research studies on a yearly basis. Resources, fact sheets, and articles on soybean research can be found here on the Agronomic Crops Team website: go.osu.edu/ CropsTeamSoybean. The Ohio State Digital Ag Program The Ohio State Digital Ag Program conducts studies related to all aspects of the soybean production cycle. Research related to soybean planting, inputs, and harvesting technology can be found on the Digital Ag website: digitalag.osu.edu.

124 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Growth Stages - Soybeans For all soybean studies in this eFields report, we define soybean growth stages as the following: VE - Emergence - Cotyledons appear above the soil surface and provide nutrients for 7 to 10 days. VC - Cotyledons have fully expanded and unifoliate leaves have unfolded. V1 - First Trifoliate: Second true node, first node at which a trifoliate leaf is produced. Nodules visible. V2 - Two fully developed trifoliates unfolded. The plant is roughly 8 in. tall. Nodules are actively fixing nitrogen. Cotyledons have fallen off plant. V3 - V4 - A dramatic increase in the number of nodules visible on roots takes place by these stages. V5 - VN - Lateral roots extend 15 in. away from main stem and grow to the center of 30 in. rows. Branches begin developing on the lowest nodes. Total number of nodes the plant may produce is set at V5. R1 - Beginning Bloom - one flower is open at any node on the main stem. R2 - Full Bloom - An open flower at one of the two uppermost nodes of the main stem with a fully developed leaf. R3 - Beginning Pod - Pods are 3/16 in. long at one of the four uppermost nodes on the main stem. R4 - Full Pod - Pod is 3/4 in. long at one of the four uppermost nodes on the main stem. This the most critical period for seed yield. R5 - Beginning Seed - Seed in one of the four uppermost nodes with fully developed leaves is 1/8 in. long. R6 - Full Seed - Pod containing a green seed filling the pod cavity is present at one of the top four nodes. R7 - Beginning Maturity - One normal pod on the main stem has reached its mature pod color. R8 - Full Maturity - Ninety-five percent of the pods on the plant have reached their mature color. Approximately 5 to 10 days of good drying weather is needed to bring crop to less than 15% moisture.

Image Source: University of Illinois Agronomy Guide, 1999.

2025 eFields Report | 125

Biologicals - Seed Treatment OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Determine if an organic seed treatment with B4 and HeadsUp increases yield in organic soybeans.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Fulton County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 6/3/2025 Harvest Date 10/8/2025 Variety Kapi KG3554 Population 185,000 sds/ac Acres 29 Treatments 3 Reps 4 Treatment Width 40 ft. Tillage Conventional Management Organic Previous Crop Corn Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Blount Loam, 25% Mermill Loam, 24% Pewamo Clay Loam, 23%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

2.70

3.77

3.38

2.48

0.83

1.16

14.32

Cumulative GDDs

200

527

1193

1960

2567

3047

STUDY DESIGN This study consisted of three treatments in a randomized complete block design. At planting, there were two different biological treatments and one untreated check (control) in this study. The treatments were applied on-seed and planted with a 16-row planter. All tillage and weed control passes were consistent over all treatments. Plot centers were harvested with a 35-foot grain platform. Yield and moisture data were collected with a calibrated yield monitor and confirmed with a commercial moisture tester. Statistics were analyzed with a simple analysis of variance (ANOVA).

126 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

All treatments received the same tillage and weed control treatments.

Soybean

Corn

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Emergence of all treatments seemed consistent. Each subplot had two stand counts at harvest which resulted in an average of 10 counts per treatment. The resulting harvest stand counts indicated that the HeadsUp alone treatment resulted in approximately 20,000 more plants per acre as compared to the other two treatments. This site received adequate rainfall in June and July but August and September were abnormally dry. There was no observed incidence of white mold. A small patch of sudden death syndrome appeared to affect all treatments similarly, predominantly in sandier soil types.

•

There was no statistical difference in yield among all treatments.

•

More replication and multi-year data will increase the validity of these results.

RESULTS Treatments

Avg. Emergence (plants/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

118,300

13.1

48 a

HeadsUp

142,000

13.0

46 a

HeadsUp + B4

122,800

13.1

47 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE HeadsUp Plant Protectants is a biological formulation of plant-extracted biochemicals that is designed to give plants a "heads up" against yield-robbing diseases, such as white mold and sudden death syndrome. (source: HeadsUp product guide).

LSD: 2 CV: 3.5%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Kendall Lovejoy (lovejoy.59@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 127

Biologicals - Seed Treatment OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Determine if an organic seed treatment with B4 and HeadsUp increases yield in organic soybeans.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Madison County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 6/4/2025 Harvest Date 10/3/2025 Variety Kapi GL 3500 Population 150,000 sds/ac Acres 11 Treatments 2 Reps 4 Treatment Width 30 ft. Tillage Conventional Management Fertilizer Previous Crop Corn Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Kokomo Silty Clay Loam, 79% Crosby Silt Loam, 21%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

5.33

6.27

4.61

3.85

0.91

1.27

22.24

Cumulative GDDs

248

571

1249

2022

2600

3080

STUDY DESIGN This study was laid out in a randomized complete block design with three treatments replicated four times. The treatments utilized B4+HeadsUp and MicroMax seed treatments applied to organic soybean seed. Unfortunately, complications arose with the MicroMax treatment and we are unable to report results for that treatment.

Organic soybean planting, Madison County.

128 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Soybean

Corn

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS Stand counts were taken in early July. No statistical difference was seen between treatments at that time. There were no visible differences in plant health and disease pressure throughout the growing season. The latter half of the growing season was abnormally dry.

SUMMARY •

The results of this study showed no significant difference in yield between the soybeans receiving the seed treatment and the control.

•

In all plots, observed disease and insect pressure was low.

RESULTS Treatments

Avg. Emergence (plants/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

117,000

9.8

45 a

HeadsUp + B4

108,000

9.7

45 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 2 CV: 2.9%

TOOLS OF THE TRADE

PROJECT CONTACT

B4 is a seed treatment from DakotaBio that blends 4 microorganisms. The goal is to convert the nutrients P, K, S, Zn, and Fe in the soil from their unavailable forms to plant available forms.

For inquiries about this project, contact Amanda Douridas (douridas.9@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 129

Biologicals - Seed Treatment OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Determine if an organic seed treatment with B4 and HeadsUp increases yield in organic soybeans.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Madison County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 6/3/2025 Harvest Date 10/1/2025 Variety Kapi 3500 Population 180,000 sds/ac Acres 10 Treatments 2 Reps 5 Treatment Width 30 ft. Tillage Conventional Management Organic Previous Crop Corn Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Kokomo Silty Clay Loam, 69% Crosby-Lewisburg Silt Loams, 31%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

5.33

6.27

4.61

3.85

0.91

1.27

22.24

Cumulative GDDs

248

571

1249

2022

2600

3080

STUDY DESIGN This study was laid out in a randomized complete block design with two treatments replicated five times. The treatment utilized B4 seed treatment applied to organic soybean seed.

Organic soybean harvest, Madison County, Ohio.

130 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Soybean

Corn

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS Stand counts were taken in early July. No notable difference was seen between treatments at that time. There were no visible differences in plant health and disease pressure throughout the growing season. The latter half of the growing season was abnormally dry.

SUMMARY •

The results of this study showed no significant difference in yield between the soybeans receiving the seed treatment and the control.

•

In all plots, observed disease and insect pressure was low.

RESULTS Treatments

Avg. Emergence (plants/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

111,000

10.9

44 a

HeadsUp + B4

117,000

10.9

44 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 2 CV: 3.6%

TOOLS OF THE TRADE

PROJECT CONTACT

B4 is a seed treatment from DakotaBio that blends 4 microorganisms. The goal is to convert the nutrients P, K, S, Zn, and Fe in the soil from their unavailable forms to plant available forms

For inquiries about this project, contact Amanda Douridas (douridas.9@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 131

Biologicals - Seed Treatment OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Determine if an organic seed treatment with B4 and HeadsUp increases yield in organic soybeans.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Ottawa County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 6/14/2025 Harvest Date 10/17/2025 Variety Kapi KG3500 Population 180,000 sds/ac Acres 9 Treatments 2 Reps 3 Treatment Width 30 ft. Tillage Conventional Management Organic Previous Crop Corn Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Latty Silt Clay, 65% Fulton Silty Clay Loam, 16% Toledo Silty Clay, 15%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

3.40

5.08

3.25

6.24

1.02

1.00

19.99

Cumulative GDDs

200

503

1177

1976

2590

3070

STUDY DESIGN This trial included two treatments: an untreated check (control) and soybean seed treated with HeadsUp and B4 biological products onseed. The trial was replicated three times in alternating strips (not randomized). The trial was conducted at field-scale and the width of commercial equipment. A simple analysis of variation (ANOVA) was used to determine statistical significance.

Weed zapper to control lates season weed escapes.

132 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Soybean

Corn

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Emergence and stand were good. Weed pressure was average for this plot area. Rainfall in June and July was lower than average. Rainfall in August was much lower than normal. There was little to no evidence of white mold or sudden death syndrome across all treatments.

•

There was no significant difference in yield between the treatments.

•

More replications and multi-year data will add to the validity of these results.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

12.0

49 a

HeadsUp + B4

12.0

48 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 1 CV: 0.6%

TOOLS OF THE TRADE

PROJECT CONTACT

This Hiniker 6000 single sweep cultivator is designed for high residue situations. It can be set up with cut away discs and ridging shovels to maximize mechanical weed control.

For inquiries about this project, contact Allen Gahler (gahler.2@osu.edu) or Eric Richer (richer.5@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 133

Biostimulant Seed Treatments In 2022 and 2023, soybean agronomists evaluated biostimulant seed treatments in over 103 different growing environments, across 22 states. Research Highlights: • •

No yield differences between the untreated check and biostimulant seed treatments were found. Agronomic practices affected soybean yield more than any biostimulant seed treatment product.

What is a biostimulant?: In 2018, U.S. legislators provided a definition of plant biostimulant as “a substance or microorganism [biological] that, when applied to seeds, plants, or the rhizosphere, stimulates natural processes to enhance or benefit nutrient uptake, nutrient efficiency, tolerance to abiotic stress, or crop quality and yield.” Biostimulant seed treatment products may include one or multiple types of microbes. Some commonly used microbes include Azospirillum, Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Figure 1. Locations where biostimulant seed treatments were evaluated in Bradyrhizobium, and Trichoderma which 2022 and 2023. Locations were grouped into similar growing environments, have proposed benefits of enhancing early or clusters, based on a similar set of soil properties (soil pH, cation growth, vigor, and root mass, improved plant exchange capacity, organic matter, phosphorus, and potassium) and nutrient uptake and nitrogen fixation, and weather (30-year normal precipitation and temperature). increased yield.

Why study biostimulant seed treatments?: Although there are benefits associated with biostimulant seed treatments, most of the published efficacy research was conducted in a laboratory or greenhouse environment, and previous field studies were regional in scope. In 2022 and 2023, soybean agronomists across the U.S. worked together to evaluate several commercially available biostimulant seed treatments in field settings in over 100 environments across 22 states, including six counties in Ohio (Henry, Sandusky, Mercer, Union, Darke, and Clinton) (Figure 1). The full treatment list is shown in Table 1. Biostimulant seed treatments were applied to soybean seed previously treated with a commercially available fungicide and insecticide seed treatment. Great care was taken Figure 2. Average soybean yield for each biostimulant to ensure all biostimulant seed treatments were compatible seed treatment for each environmental cluster in 2022 with fungicide and insecticide treatments and product handling and 2023 compared to untreated control (treatment #10). and application guidelines were followed according to each company’s instructions. Biostimulant seed treatment products were compared to a non-treated control (soybean seed treated with fungicide and insecticide only). Research Findings: Among the tested biostimulant seed treatments, none of the products consistently improved soybean yield compared to the non-treated control (Figure 2).

Why was there a lack of yield response?: Some Hypotheses 1. Conditions may not have been adequate for a successful symbiotic relationship between the microbe and soybean plant. For a symbiotic relationship to occur, three conditions need to be present at the same time: soybean plant, plant-beneficial microbe, and a conducive environment. If these factors don’t exist at the same time, there will not be a symbiotic relationship between the microbe and plant. 2. The microbe may not have been alive. In the case of biostimulant seed treatments, not only does the microbe need to be present, but it also needs to be applied to the seed at a high concentration and be alive. 3. The microbe may not have been able to outcompete the native microbial population in the soil. One teaspoon of soil may contain 1 billion individual microscopic cells. Microbes introduced as part of a seed treatment need to outcompete and survive among the native populations of microbes within the soil.

134 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Soybean

Corn

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Table 1. Commercially available biostimulant seed treatment products evaluated in 2022 and 2023. Product Year Marketed Benefits Active ingredient Number Tested (According to Company) 1

Both

Azospirillum brasilense, Bacillus licheniformis, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Bacillus subtillis, Pseudomonas fluorescens, Rhizobium

Enhance early growth, vigor, and root mass

2022

Trichoderma virens

No information provided

2023

Kosakonia cowaii

Suppress seedling diseases

Both

Bradyrhizobium japonicum

Enhance nitrogen fixation and improve grain yield

2022

Bacillus subtillis, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Bradyrhizobium japonicum

Protection against fungal root diseases, enhance nitrogen fixation, and improve grain yield

2023

Bacillus subtillis, Bradyrhizobium japonicum

Improve plant nutrient uptake, plant growth and resilience, and grain yield

2023

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens

Protection against plant parasitic nematodes

2023

Methylobacterium hispanicum

Enhance root area, root depth, and root tips, increase nutrient uptake and plant efficiency, and increase yield

Both

Bradyrhizobium elkanii, Delftia acidoyorans, Bacillus velezensis

Increase crop establishment, improve root vigor and plant growth, solubilize phosphorus from organic and inorganic reservoirs, and increase grain yield

Both

Bacillus velezensis

Increase crop establishment, improve root vigor and plant growth, solubilize phosphorus from organic and inorganic reservoirs, and increase grain yield

Both

Glomus intraradices, Glomus mosseae, Glomus aggregatum, Glomus etunicatum

Improve plant vigor, enhance water and nutrient absorption, enhance phosphorus uptake

What management factors DO influence soybean yield?: Although biostimulant seed treatments did

not influence soybean yield, using the same dataset, we identified factors that DID influence soybean yield. Across the U.S., the main factor that influenced soybean yield was row spacing (≤ 15 inch rows outyielding >15 inch rows). Other management factors that influenced soybean yield included seeding rate, foliar insecticide, and tillage.

KEY REMINDERS

• Although our research showed that no product consistently improved soybean yield, there are many products available on the market, and we were only able to test a subset of the commercially available products. • Companies are investing significant resources in new products and new application methods to improve efficacy. • If a farmer chooses to use a biostimulant seed treatment, it is extremely important they follow handling and application guidelines provided by the company. • If possible, farmers should work with their university Extension system to test products on-farm.

This research was co-funded by the United States Department of Agriculture NIFA AFRI and the United Soybean Board (grant number 2023– 6701339818). See more in the article: Commercial biostimulant seed treatments showed minimal impact on soybean seed yield across the United States. Field Crops Research, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378429025004356

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Laura Lindsey (lindsey.233@osu.edu) or Fabiano Colet, Graduate Student (colet.1@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 135

Compost vs Raw Manure OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Compare the yield response from applying bed pack cattle manure, compost manure, and commercial fertilizer.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Henry County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 6/3/2025 Harvest Date 10/14/2025 Variety Kapi GLN2817 Population 150,000 sds/ac Acres 47 Treatments 3 Reps 4 Treatment Width 15 ft. Tillage None Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide Previous Crop Corn Row Spacing 15 in. Soil Type Hoytville Clay Loam, 84% Nappanee Loam, 10% Haney Fine Sandy Loam, 3%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

4.03

3.52

3.13

2.29

0.58

0.94

14.49

Cumulative GDDs

202

518

1191

1971

2589

3069

STUDY DESIGN The study was designed as a randomized complete block design with three treatments replicated four times. Manure and compost was applied in 2023 after wheat harvest and 150 lbs/ac of potash was applied to the control field in the fall of 2023 per soil test data. All nitrogen applications were equally applied to all treatments during planting as starter fertilizer and sidedress.

Composter bed pack cattle manure, Henry County.

136 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Soybean

Corn

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS In the second year of the project there were no observations that were unique to this trial of soybeans. Future wheat crops will be observed to compare yield responses. Soil test levels will also be compared to see if each treatment affect the phosphorus and potassium levels in each treatment area.

SUMMARY •

There were no statistical differences between treatments of bed pack cattle manure, compost, and commercial fertilizer in 2025.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

10.7

35 a

Bed Pack Straw Manure

10.8

38 a

Compost Manure

10.6

37 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE HCL 120 compost turner (6 ft. x 12 ft. model). Used for mixing, sizing and aerating composted manure. Requires 110 horsepower at the PTO and variable-speed or hydrastatic transmission to travel slowly.

LSD: 3 CV: 5.3%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Alan Leininger (leininger.17@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 137

Cover Crop Species and Termination OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Evaluate the effects of cover crop species and termination method on weed suppression and soybean yield.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Putnam County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 4/29/2025 Harvest Date 10/6/2025 Variety Beck's 2950E3 Population 127,000 sds/ac Acres 8 Treatments 6 Reps 3 Treatment Width 60 ft. Tillage None Management Herbicide Previous Crop Wheat Row Spacing 7.5 in. Soil Type Hoytville Clay Loam, 100%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

2.16

5.8

3.94

4.42

0.61

1.02

17.95

Cumulative GDDs

225

563

1261

2035

2651

3131

STUDY DESIGN This study was a randomized complete block design with two cover crop mixes - cereal rye planted at 75 lbs/ac and a mixed species cover crop consisting of 44% oats, 12% crimson clover, 29% perennial rye, 3% sunflower, 9% buckwheat, and 3% radish at 38 lbs/ac. Three termination treatments consisted of a preplant burndown, herbicide burndown following planting, and termination with a roller crimper following planting.

Cereal rye terminated by roller crimper (left) versus chemical burndown (right).

138 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Soybean

Corn

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Very little rainfall was received throughout the growing season. Crimping treatments were applied on June 24, 2025. Mixed cover crops in crimped treatment plots continued to grow following treatment, which may have contributed to lower yields in these plots with soil moisture deficits this season.

•

There was difference observed in weed pressure for velvetleaf, grasses, or waterhemp for any treatments in this study.

•

Crimped treatments had lowest yield values numerically, but only the mixed species cover crop was statistically different than all other treatments.

•

Crimping treatments were made three weeks after target date, enabling cover crop species to compete with growing soybean plants.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Rye burndown

9.6

50 ab

Rye green

9.3

51 ab

Rye crimped

9.4

46 b

Mixed burndown

9.4

53 ab

Mixed green

9.5

57a

Mixed crimped

8.9

27 c

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 9 CV: 13.0%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Beth Scheckelhoff (scheckelhoff.11@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 139

Foliar Nutrition - VersaMax OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Evaluate the effect of VersaMax foliar fertilizer on soybean yield.

Planting Date 5/19/2025 Harvest Date 10/10/2025 Variety Pioneer P31Z32E Population 176,000 sds/ac Acres 3 Treatments 2

Defiance County

WEATHER INFORMATION MAX. AND MIN. TEMPERATURE (°F)

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension

Treatment Width 60 ft. Tillage No-Till Management Fertilizer Herbicide Previous Crop Soybeans Row Spacing 15 in. Soil Type Del Ray Variant Silt Loam, 54% Mermill Loam, 45% Haskins Loam, 1%

DAILY PRECIPITATION (IN)

Reps 3

100

Planting Date

Fertilizer

Harvest Date

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

4.73

3.77

4.36

4.03

0.57

1.22

18.68

Cumulative GDDs

211

544

1210

2002

2635

3115

STUDY DESIGN The study was a randomized complete block design with three replications of two treatments. The treatments were a foliar application of Versa Max foliar fertilizer and an untreated control with wheel traffic. VersaMax contains nitrogen, sulfur, iron, manganese, and zinc. The product was applied at 2 qts/ac at R1. Plots were 60 ft. wide and the center 30 ft. was harvested and recorded with a calibrated yield monitor.

Soybeans preharvest.

140 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Soybean

Corn

Small Grains

Forages

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

The soybeans emerged well and maintained a good stand. There was no observable differences between the treatments, and no significant disease, insect, or weed pressure was present. There were originally four replications, but due to an error, one replication was removed.

•

Ag Tech

Other

There was no significant difference in the yield between the foliar application of Versa Max and the untreated control.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

9.6

93 a

Versa Max

9.6

86 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE VersaMax Soybean is a combination of nitrogen, iron, sulfur, manganese, and zinc that can be applied as a foliar treatment in soybean at late vegetative or early reproductive stages.

LSD: 25 CV: 11.7%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Kyle Verhoff (verhoff.115@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 141

Fungicide OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Determine how a treatment of fungicide impacts yield in soybeans.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Wood County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/18/2025 Harvest Date 9/29/2025 Variety Channel 2622XF Population 140,000 sds/ac Acres 15 Treatments 2 Reps 3 Treatment Width 120 ft. Tillage Vertical Management Fungicide Previous Crop Corn Row Spacing 15 in. Soil Type Hoytville Clay Loam, 100%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

2.44

2.90

2.46

2.31

0.00

0.14

10.25

Cumulative GDDs

197

491

1159

1958

2590

3070

STUDY DESIGN This trial was a randomized complete block design with two treatments and three replications. Three plots received a fungicide treatment and three did not. Fungicide was applied with a self-propelled sprayer using duel jet spray nozzles. Delaro Complete was applied at a rate of 8 oz/ac at the R3 growth stage. Yield and moisture were measured at harvest using a calibrated yield monitor.

Soybean plants in-season.

142 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Soybean

Corn

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

The growing season had a lot of moisture early and drought conditions late in the year. The fungicide application of Delaro Complete was applied at the R3 growth stage. There was little to no disease in the field due to the dry conditions.

•

The results from this study did show a significant difference between the control and fungicide treatments.

•

The fungicide treatment showed an yield advantage of 2 bu/ac.

RESULTS Treatments

Avg. Emergence (plants/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

135,000

12.6

52 b

Fungicide

134,500

12.6

54 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 2 CV: 2.9%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Nick Eckel (eckel.21@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 143

High Clearance Robotic Irrigator OBJECTIVE

Molly Caren Agricultural Center

Demonstrate the in-season application of commercial nutrient sources and water application as a unified strategy to reduce nutrient losses while improving profitability with increased grain yields.

STUDY INFORMATION

OARDC Madison County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 6/5/2025 Harvest Date 10/6/2025 Variety Croplan CP3620E Population 135,000 sds/ac Acres 140 Treatments 2 Reps 8 Treatment Width 160 ft. Tillage Minimum Management Fungicide, Herbicide, Insecticide Previous Crop Corn Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Crosby-Lewisburg Silt Loams, 59% Kokomo Silty Clay Loam, 40% Crosby Silt Loam, 1%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

5.57

4.06

5.99

4.16

0.60

1.54

21.92

Cumulative GDDs

242

566

1256

2036

2624

3104

STUDY DESIGN Field demonstrations was laid-out in a RCBD strip trial design with 160-foot wide blocks and treatments that include: irrigated versus non irrigated treatments. The 360Yield Center Rain Irrigator unit was used to apply water in a 15-inch band at the base of the soybean plant during the growing season.

360 Rain Unit irrigating soybean crop during August of growing season.

144 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Soybean

Corn

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

This crop was planted in the late planting window. This year the crop received adequate rain through the beginning of the summer and then end of summer was in drought. The irrigator began watering in August at pod fill R4/5 and completed in the early part of September. The soybean crop exhibited drought and heat stress for the non-irrigated treatment. This caused yield loss for the crop. The irrigated portion of the field was watered 5 times for a total of 2.5 inches of applied water.

•

Irrigation had a statistically significant affect on yield over non-irrigated.

•

A total of 129 gallons of diesel was used to run the irrigator for this trial for 2025 cropping season across 36.5 acres.

•

A total of 6,495 kWh were used to run the electric pumps, base station, and well for 2025 growing season across 36.5 acres.

RESULTS Treatments

Water Applied (in)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Non-irrigated

9.5

53 b

Irrigated

2.5

10.2

61 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 2 CV: 3.8%

2025 eFields Report | 145

Nitrogen Rate OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Determine the yield impact of a sidedress nitrogen application on soybeans.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Darke County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 4/28/2025 Harvest Date 10/16/2025 Variety Remington Enlist 3.8 Population 130,000 sds/ac Acres 46 Treatments 2 Reps 3 Treatment Width 120 ft. Tillage No-Till Management Fertilizer, Fungicide Herbicide, Insecticide Previous Crop Corn Row Spacing 15 in. Soil Type Crosby Silt Loam, 52% Brookston Silt ClayLoam, 48%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

5.80

2.78

5.41

1.55

0.83

21.78

Cumulative GDDs

246

612

1335

2149

2781

3261

STUDY DESIGN This experiment was a randomized complete block design with two treatments and three replications.The nitrogen treatment received an application of 25 lbs N/ac as a sidedress application of 28% UAN in mid-June and was compared to a control treatment that received no nitrogen. A yield monitor was used to collect data.

Soybean harvest on October 16, 2025.

146 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Soybean

Corn

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Darke County experienced very dry conditions this growing season, but the location of the trial received more rain than the surrounding areas. Weed, insect, and disease pressure appeared minimal in all plots.

•

There was a significant difference between treatments, with the plots receiving supplemental nitrogen averaging approximately 7 bushels higher than the plots that did not receive supplemental nitrogen.

•

The increased yield of the plots that received a nitrogen application was significant at this location in 2025, but return on investment may be dependent on nitrogen and application costs, as well as soybean price.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Return Above N ($/ac)

Control

7.7

66 b

693

N Application

8.1

73 a

751

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 5 CV: 2.8%

TOOLS OF THE TRADE

PROJECT CONTACT

A John Deere 4920 Sprayer was used to apply fungicide and insecticide to all soybean treatment plots in this study

For inquiries about this project, contact Caden Buschur (buschur.46@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 147

Phosphorus OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Evaluate phosphorus fertilizer impact on soybean yield by comparing no phosphorus applied to MAP and Struvite fertilizer.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Sandusky County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 4/28/2025 Harvest Date 10/1/2025 Variety Stine 30EH32 Population 145,000 sds/ac Acres 33 Treatments 5 Reps 3 Treatment Width 60 ft. Tillage Strip-Till Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide, Insecticide Previous Crop Corn Row Spacing 15 in. Soil Type Hoytville Silty Clay Loam, 72% Haskins Sandy Loams, 12% Mermill Loam, 8%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

3.40

5.08

3.25

6.24

1.02

1.00

19.99

Cumulative GDDs

200

503

1177

1976

2590

3070

STUDY DESIGN This study supports the H2Ohio goal of reducing phosphorus fertilizer application. A randomized complete block design with five treatments was used. Treatments included MAP fertilizer applied at full rate (115 lbs/ ac) and half rate. Struvite fertilizer (4-22-0) applied at full rate (275 lbs/ac) and half rate. A zero phosphorus treatment was also included as a control. All treatments were applied during a fall strip-till. For yield assessment, only a central 35-foot width of each strip was harvested along the full length of the strip. Yield data was collected and recorded using the combine yield monitor.

148 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Soybean plots scouted in season.

Soybean

Corn

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Strip tillage provided a residue free zone for soybean planting. Drought conditions were observed during the months of August to October but sufficient rain during June - July enabled soybean to maintain good yield potential. Struvite applied plots did not show any visual difference as compared to MAP. Nutrient availability appeared adequate across all treatments, with no obvious deficiency symptoms observed. Overall crop vigor remained uniform throughout the growing season across fertilizer sources.

•

No significant difference in soybean yield was observed between treatments.

•

No phosphorus deficiency symptoms were observed. Struvite has the potential to maintain soybean yield sustainability as compared to soluble MAP fertilizer.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control - No P

11.5

67 a

MAP - 1X

11.5

66 a

MAP - 0.5X

11.2

65 a

Struvite - 1X

10.9

67 a

Struvite - 0.5X

11.1

66 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Struvite (SmartPhosDG analysis 4-22-0 with 8% Mg) is a slow release phosphorus byproduct from wastewater treatment plants.

LSD: 2 CV: 1.8%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Mithlesh Bhambi (mithlesh.1@buckeyemail.osu.edu), Vinayak Shedekar (shedekar.1@osu. edu), Kyle Verhoff, William Osterholz, or Alan Sundermeier.

2025 eFields Report | 149

Red Crown Rot in Ohio RED CROWN ROT CONFIRMED IN OHIO: DIAGNOSTIC GUIDANCE Red crown rot (RCR), caused by Calonectria ilicicola, was confirmed for the first time in Ohio in 2025. With continued support from the Ohio Soybean Council, the OSU Soybean Pathology and Nematology Lab will assist growers with diagnosis throughout 2026, helping determine whether the disease is isolated or more widespread. Because RCR is new to the state and its early symptoms resemble other common soybean problems, accurate diagnosis is essential.

Figure 1. Red crown rot (RCR) symptoms observed in Delaware County, Ohio (August 2025). Top left: soybean field with patches of premature yellowing and death during pod fill. Top center: soybean leaf showing interveinal chlorosis and necrosis. Top right: red fungal reproductive structures (perithecia) at the base of the stem near the soil surface. Bottom left: external crown rot with red fungal structures on the stem surface. Bottom center: reddish-brown discoloration of lower stem and root tissues.

Diagnostic Guidance for Growers Submit whole symptomatic plants (including crowns, taproots, and surrounding soil) to a trusted diagnostic lab. Reliable Ohio options include the: • OSU Soybean Pathology & Nematology Lab (Columbus Campus) • C. Wayne Ellett Plant & Pest Diagnostic Clinic (Wooster Campus) Growers may also use any reputable diagnostic laboratory. Proper confirmation requires isolating the pathogen and verifying its identity using both morphological and molecular diagnostics. A DNA-only test on bulk tissue is not sufficient for diagnosing RCR.

Symptoms, Confusion with Other Diseases RCR frequently appears as irregular patches of stunted, chlorotic soybeans, with symptoms that closely resemble other root and crown diseases such as sudden death syndrome (SDS), Phytophthora root and stem rot, and Fusarium root rots. Because foliar symptoms can be nearly indistinguishable from SDS, including yellowing and interveinal chlorosis, RCR cannot be diagnosed from leaves alone. The most reliable field indicators occur belowground, where reddish-orange perithecia cluster around the crown and upper taproot, often accompanied by root rot, poor nodulation, and discoloration or decay of crown tissues (Figure 1) . Since these aboveground symptoms overlap with several other diseases, digging plants and examining the crown region is essential before suspecting RCR.

150 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Biology and Favorable Conditions The pathogen survives in soil and crop residue and infects soybean roots shortly after emergence. Warm, wet earlyseason conditions, followed by warm temperatures during vegetative growth, promote disease development. Although RCR is historically associated with southern states, recent weather patterns in Ohio, including saturated soils in May and warm conditions in June, can support infection. Once introduced, the pathogen may persist in soil for several years.

Management Considerations With no fully resistant soybean varieties available, management aims to reduce disease pressure and slow spread. Rotate infested fields to non-host crops such as corn or small grains for at least two years, avoid early planting into warm, wet soils, and improve field drainage to limit infection. Fungicide seed treatments may offer limited early suppression but must be paired with cultural practices. To prevent further spread, clean equipment to avoid moving infested soil, as long-term management is primarily preventative. Because RCR is new to Ohio, documentation of confirmed cases will help refine management recommendations.

Key Takeaways for Growers Red crown rot is newly detected in Ohio, and its early symptoms closely resemble SDS and other root diseases, making accurate diagnosis essential. Dig symptomatic plants and inspect the crown and taproot for the characteristic reddishorange perithecia. Final confirmation should come from a diagnostic lab able to isolate and identify the pathogen using morphological and molecular methods. Reliable options include the OSU Soybean Pathology & Nematology Lab (Columbus) and the C. Wayne Ellett Plant & Pest Diagnostic Clinic (Wooster), though growers may use any trusted lab. With no resistant varieties and limited chemical suppression, management depends on improving drainage, rotating to non-host crops, sanitation, and continued monitoring. Submitting samples in 2026 will support statewide surveillance and help refine recommendations for this emerging disease.

What to Do if You Suspect RCR 1. Scout fields during pod fill, especially if you see yellowing leaves in patches (Figure 1, upper left). August and September are the optimal months for scouting, as RCR develops progressively over time. Weekly scouting is recommended during this period to monitor symptom progression effectively. 2. Dig plants (do not pull) and check for reddish crown discoloration. 3. Place plants in a plastic zip-top bag, removing as much air as possible to reduce moisture loss. Include field details (county, variety, planting date, recent weather). 4. Submit samples.

RESOURCES

PROJECT CONTACT

Red crown rot confirmed in Ohio soybeans for the first time

For inquiries about this project, contact Horacio Lopez-Nicora (lopez-nicora.1@osu.edu).

Agronomic Crops C.O.R.N. Newsletter

go.osu.edu/RCRin2025

2025 eFields Report | 151

Residue Breakdown OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Evaluate the effectiveness of a residue breakdown product in following year crop for yield and economics

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Delaware County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 4/22/2025 Harvest Date 9/12/2025 Variety Beck’s 2050E3 Population 130,000 sds/ac Acres 40 Treatments 2 Reps 3 Treatment Width 120 ft. Tillage No-Till Management Fungicide Herbicide Previous Crop Corn Row Spacing 15 in. Soil Type Stone Silty Clay Loam, 52% Scioto Silt Loam, 28% Glynwood Silt Loam, 11%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

5.54

4.42

3.44

4.17

0.58

1.47

19.62

Cumulative GDDs

247

581

1294

2096

2707

3187

STUDY DESIGN This study was a randomized complete block design. This trial was of importance to the farmer to potentially improve planting conditions in a no-till scenario. Each plot was 120 feet wide applied with a sprayer. There were two treatments an application of “Breakdown” in the fall post corn harvest at a rate of 13.7 oz/ac and a control, no application treatment replicated three times. The yield data was collected using a calibrated yield monitor.

Soybean harvest on September 12, 2025.

152 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Soybean

Corn

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

In the no-till situation, a great amount of corn stalk residue breakdown was noticed at planting ensuring a better planting environment. During the growing season the weather turned dry in August with drought like conditions. The plants had little to no stress of insect, disease, or weed pressure. Overall, crop health remained consistent throughout the season despite the challenging weather and field conditions.

•

Overall, a significant yield difference was not observed between the control and Breakdown treatments.

•

Despite this lack of observed difference in yield, there were noticeable effects in the spring with corn stalk breakdown at planting. The product’s ability to improve planting conditions was not in the objective of this study, however through this study the farmer has seen a value to the product that is not specifically tied to yield or economics.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

12.5

65 a

Breakdown

12.3

67 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Learn more about this trial by scanning this QR code to watch a video.

LSD: 5 CV: 3.3%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Robert Leeds (leeds.2@osu.edu) or Jacci Smith (smith.11005@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 153

Seeding Rate OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Determine the yield response of soybeans to seeding rate.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Fayette County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/19/2025 MD/DD/2020 Harvest Date 10/22/2025 MD/DD/2020 Variety Seed Genetics Direct ET-4736-Enlist E3 Population 00,000 sds/ac Population Acres See 00 Treatments Acres Treatments Treatments Reps

10 0 3 0

Reps 5 Treatment Width 00 ft. TreatmentTillage Width 40 ft. Tillage Conventional Management Management Previous Crop Herbicide Previous Crop Corn Row Spacing 00 in. RowSoil Spacing Type 15 Soilin. Type, (52%) Soil Type, (23%) Soil Type Brookston Silty Clay Loam, 88% Crosby Silt Loam, 11% Udorthent, 2%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

5.27

6.16

7.88

6.23

0.56

1.80

27.90

Cumulative GDDs

245

579

1263

2040

2626

3106

STUDY DESIGN This study was designed by using the eFields soybean seeding rate protocol. The seeding rates were predetermined to have a uniform set comparing other sites around the state. The treatments were planted with a 40-foot planter and randomized for each replication for the field. The treatments were replicated three times. The final populations were determined by the stand count averages for each treatment.

Soybean harvest on October 22, 2025.

154 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Soybean

Corn

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

The soybeans were planted on May 19, 2025. The ground conditions were dry with good soil moisture. All seeding rates were germinated and out of ground by May 26, 2025. Growing conditions continued to be warm and with plenty of moisture through the middle of July. While conducting stand counts, we observed no disease pressure and very little weed pressure. The soybeans continued to grow and set pods into August. Even with a need for rain in mid August, none of the seeding rates showed signs of drought stress. By September 12, 2025, the soybean plots were beginning to senesce. All seeding rates seemed to mature at the same rate. By September 26, 2025, all seeding rates had lost all leaves and were ready to be harvested.

•

There was no significant difference between the treatments.

•

Additional moisture in late July and August could have changed the overall results between the seeding rates.

RESULTS Treatments (seeds/ac)

Avg. Emergence (plants/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Return Above Seed ($/ac)

80,000

78,000

8.4

68 a

679

120,000

119,000

8.4

66 a

641

160,000

150,000

9.0

67 a

634

200,000

194,000

8.5

66 a

606

240,000

219,000

8.2

67 a

599

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 6 CV: 4.9%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Ken Ford (ford.70@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 155

Sulfur OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Evaluate the impact of ammonium sulfate (AMS) fertilizer application on soybean yield in central Ohio.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Miami County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 4/24/2025 Harvest Date 9/28/2025 Variety Ebberts G3190E Population 140,000 sds/ac Acres 101 Treatments 2 Reps 4 Treatment Width 90 ft. Tillage Minimum Till Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Insecticide, Herbicide Previous Crop Corn Row Spacing 15 in. Soil Type Eldean Loam, 56% Eldean-Casco Gravelly Loams, 15% Warsaw Silt Loam, 15%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

5.68

4.72

5.96

4.84

0.75

1.43

23.38

Cumulative GDDs

251

613

1318

2128

2750

3230

STUDY DESIGN This study was designed as a randomized complete block with four replications. The field had center pivot irrigation. Treatments included a control with 180 ft strips with no AMS applied with strips with AMS applied. The AMS strips were applied in the spring at a rate of 129 lbs/ ac or 31 lbs S /ac. All treatments were located under the pivot irrigation. A John Deere S680 combine with a calibrated yield monitor was used at harvest. Yield was collected from the center two combine passes within the control and AMS strips. Statistical analysis was conducting using a confidence interval of 0.01.

156 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Yield maps are generated live during harvest.

Soybean

Corn

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS Throughout the growing season, there were no visual differences in crop vigor and color between the two treatments. Remote sensed imagery collected over the season also verified no differences in biomass and plant color between the treatments.

SUMMARY •

There was no significant difference in yield between the two treatments.

•

There was a significant difference in grain moisture at harvest with the AMS treatments having a higher moisture at 12.2% compared to 11.7% for the control or no application treatment.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

11.7

84 a

AMS

12.2

85 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE L4000 G4 Spreader Box delivers precise nutrient application with advanced variable rate technology, enabling operators to adjust material flow to match field conditions. With wide spread widths and multi-product capability, it ensures uniform coverage while optimizing efficiency and supporting sustainable crop management.

LSD: 3 CV: 1.8%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact John Fulton (fulton.20@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 157

Understanding SCN Risk OHIO RESULTS AND TOOLS FOR 2026 Soybean cyst nematode (SCN) remains the most damaging pathogen of soybean in Ohio and across North America. Yield losses can occur without any visible symptoms, making soil testing the most reliable way to detect infestations and prevent irreversible damage. Supported by the Ohio Soybean Council, OSU’s Soybean Pathology and Nematology Lab continues statewide SCN testing and virulence profiling to help growers understand their risk and guide effective management.

Statewide Testing and Trends From 2018 through 2025, the OSU Soybean Pathology and Nematology Lab processed more than 2,200 soil samples submitted by Ohio soybean growers (Figure 1). Based on the most recent dataset, just under 40% of samples showed no detectable SCN, while more than 60% of samples contained measurable SCN levels. Of the samples with SCN present, 21% were in the trace range (<200 eggs/100 cm³), 24% were low (200 – 2,000 eggs/100 cm³), 8% were moderate (2,000 – 5,000 eggs/100 cm³), and 7% exceeded 5,000 eggs/100 cm³, a range associated with substantial yield loss (Figure 2). These results demonstrate that SCN continues to be widespread across Ohio, and that many fields harbor populations capable of reducing yield even when plants appear healthy aboveground.

Virulence Profiles: Why Knowing Your Type Matters To evaluate resistance performance in Ohio, 150 SCN populations with more than 500 eggs/100 cm³ were screened for virulence. Over 80% reproduced on PI 88788, often at 30 – 60% of the rate on susceptible soybeans. While fewer populations reproduced on Peking alone, nearly 40% reproduced on both Peking and PI 88788, undermining the durability of the two main resistance sources used in commercial varieties. Only about 10% of populations were classified as SCN Type 0. These results reinforce the need for growers to know both their SCN numbers and SCN type when selecting soybean varieties and planning long-term management.

Figure 1. Distribution and average soybean cyst nematode (SCN) counts (eggs per 100 cm³ soil) from growersubmitted samples collected across Ohio between 2018 and 2025. Counties are shaded by mean SCN density, with darker colors indicating higher egg counts associated with greater yield risk. Gray counties represent areas where no samples were submitted during this period.

158 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Figure 2. Distribution of soybean cyst nematode (SCN) levels in 2,206 grower-submitted soil samples collected across Ohio from 2018 to 2025. Nearly 40% of samples had no detectable SCN, while the remaining samples ranged from trace to high egg densities, including levels associated with significant yield loss.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Decision-Support Tools and Free Testing To help growers estimate the potential economic impact of SCN, The SCN Coalition developed the SCN Profit Checker Calculator. By entering field-specific values, such as egg counts, soil pH, sand content, and the female index on PI 88788, growers can approximate yield loss and compare the return on different management strategies. Free SCN testing will continue in 2026 thanks to the support of the Ohio Soybean Council, allowing growers to submit up to two soil samples at no cost.

Key Takeaways for Growers

SCN detected in soybean roots. Photo courtesy of University of Wisconsin.

Collecting Soybean Samples for Disease Diagnostics

OSU Extension go.osu.edu/SoybeanSampleGuide

More than 60% of soil samples submitted to OSU from 2018 to 2025 contained detectable SCN, and many exceeded levels where yield loss is likely. While nearly 40% of samples had no detectable SCN at the time of testing, the continued presence of trace, low, moderate, and high populations across most samples highlights the importance of regular soil sampling. Some fields still contain high populations exceeding 5,000 eggs/100 cm³, reinforcing that SCN remains a persistent and economically important threat. Because most Ohio SCN populations can reproduce on PI 88788, understanding both egg counts and virulence type is essential for choosing effective soybean varieties and implementing an integrated management plan. With free testing available and new decision-support tools, growers have practical resources to evaluate SCN risk and protect soybean yield across Ohio.

Sample for SCN After Harvest Agronomic Crops C.O.R.N. Newsletter go.osu.edu/AfterHarvestSCN

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Horacio Lopez-Nicora (lopez-nicora.1@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 159

Department of Horticulture and Crop Science Your future grows here. We sustain life and grow the future for Ohio and our world through innovative plant science. Our department is where cutting-edge research meets practical application, driven by a passion for plants. From maximizing yields in row crops to developing resilient ornamental landscapes and perfecting fruit and vegetable quality, we cover the full spectrum of plant life. Explore our degree programs, state-of-the-art facilities and field sites to discover how you can join our community of scientists, growers and doers.

Learn more by scanning the code, following us on social media or visiting hcs.osu.edu

@OSU_HortCropSci

Soil Fertility and Health Research and Outreach

Soil sampling, testing, and outreach for soil fertility and health.

Advancing soil research and outreach across Ohio and beyond

Soil Fertility and Health School of Environment and Natural Resources 210 Kottman Hall 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210

soilfertility.osu.edu

soilhealth.osu.edu

CFAES provides research and related educational programs to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis. For more information, visit cfaes.osu.edu/nondiscrimination. For an accessible format of this publication, visit cfaes.osu.edu/accessibility.

Ohio State Small Grain Research For 2025, eFields small grains research was focused on improving the production and profitability of wheat in Ohio. Some exciting and innovating projects were executed this year, with 7 studies being conducted across the state. 2025 small grains research presented in eFields covers nutrient management and seeding rate initiatives. Below are highlights of the 2025 eFields small grains research: 209 acres of small grains

7 small grains studies

For more small grains research from Ohio State University Extension, explore the following resources:

2025 Ohio Wheat Performance Tests The purpose of the Ohio Wheat Performance Test is to evaluate wheat varieties for yield and other agronomic characteristics. This evaluation gives wheat producers comparative information for selecting the best varieties for their unique production systems. For more information visit: go.osu.edu/OhioWheat. Agronomic Crops Team - Wheat Research The Agronomic Crops Team performs interesting research studies on a yearly basis. Resources, fact sheets, and articles on wheat and barley research can be found here on the Agronomic Crops Team website: go.osu.edu/CropsTeamWheat and go.osu.edu/CropsTeamBarley. The Soybean and Small Grain Crop Agronomy Program The Soybean and Small Grain Crop Agronomy Program in the Department of Horticulture and Crop Science at The Ohio State University is directed by Dr. Laura Lindsey. The goal of the research program is to meet the needs of Ohio farmers through research-based agronomic recommendations. Research related to small grains planting, cropping inputs, and harvesting technology can be found on the program’s website: stepupsoy.osu.edu/home.

162 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Small Grains

Soybean

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Growth Stages - Small Grains For all wheat and barley trials in this eFields report, we define growth stages as the following: Feeke’s 1.0 - Germination period to the first emerged leaf. Feeke’s 2.0 – Tillers become visible. Feeke’s 3.0-4.0 – Tiller formation. Feeke’s 5.0 – Strongly erect leaf sheaths. Growing point is still below the soil surface. Feeke’s 6.0 – First node visible. The growing point is above this node. Tiller production is complete. Feeke’s 7.0 – Second node visible. Rapid stem elongation is occurring. Feeke’s 8.0 – Flag leaf visible. Feeke’s 9.0 – Flag leaf completely emerged and leaf ligule is visible. Feeke’s 10.0 – Boot stage. Head is fully developed and can be seen in the swollen section of the lead sheath below the flag leaf. Feeke’s 10.5 – Heading and flowering. Head is fully emerged. Feeke’s 10.5.1 – Early flowering, anthers are extruded in the center of the head. Feeke’s 10.5.2 – Mid flowering, anthers are extruded in the center and top of the head. Feeke’s 10.5.3 – Late flowering, anthers are extruded in the center, top, and base of the head. Feeke’s 11.0 – Ripening. Feeke’s 11.1 – Milk stage. Feeke’s 11.2 – Mealy stage. Feeke’s 11.3 – Hard kernel. Feeke’s 11.4 – Harvest ready.

Image adapted from: Ohio Agronomy Guide, 15th Edition.

2025 eFields Report | 163

Biologicals - Seed Treatment OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Determine if SeedFlare Seed Treatment has any effect on wheat stand.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Wood County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 10/10/2024 Harvest Date 7/3/2025 Variety Advanced Genetics AGI 217B Population 150 lbs/ac Acres 55 Treatments 2 Reps 4 Treatment Width 30 ft. Tillage No-Till Management Fertilizer Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 7.5 in. Soil Type Hoytville Clay, 100%

Growing Season Weather Summary OCT

NOV-FEB

MAR APR

MAY

JUN

Total

Precip (in.)

1.79

3.14

2.02

2.44

2.90

2.46

14.75

Cumulative GDDs

352

499

628

825

1119

1787

STUDY DESIGN The study was a randomized complete block design trial with four replications. The treatments included the untreated wheat seeds and the wheat seeds treated with the SeedFlare AEA biological seed treatment. SeedFlare AEA seed treatment is a nutritional seed treatment that provides trace minerals directly into the seed to stimulate rapid germination and emergence.

Collecting NDVI data on May 23, 2025 using a GreenSeeker.

164 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

At the Feekes 3 sampling date (April 8, 2025) and 10.5 sampling date (May 23, 2025), there was no difference in growth stage. Tiller count, growth stage, NDVI readings were all taken on April 8th, 2025. On May 23, 2025, chlorophyll meter and NDVI readings were taken.

•

The treated plots did not show any significant differences in the number of tillers per square foot, in the NDVI reading in April, nor the NDVI reading in May.

•

High NDVI values, usually above 0.6, tend to correspond with more densely packed vegetation in an area. This caused a higher NDVI rating in May than in April, simply due to more biomass accumulation in the wheat crop.

•

The tiller counts are a way to estimate yield potential for a wheat crop, as more tillers generally produce more potential seed heads at harvest. Both treatments showed adequate tillering, and there was no statistical advantage to utilizing SeedFlare for tillering in this wheat crop.

•

These two parameters illustrate that SeedFlare did not provide any benefit to wheat stand in this situation.

RESULTS Treatments

Tiller Count 4/8/25 (tillers/square foot)

NDVI 4/8/25

NDVI 5/23/25

No Seed Treatment

134 a

0.27 a

0.66 a

SeedFlare Seed Treatment

116 a

0.28 a

0.68 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 32 CV: 18.8%

LSD: 0.01 CV: 3.8%

LSD: 0.04 CV: 4.5%

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Green Seeker is an optical sensor that measures the amount of light reflected back from the plant canopy to calculate the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) which is tied to plant health and chlorophyll content.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Amber Emmons (emmons.118@osu.edu), Rachel Henry (henry.1394@osu.edu) or Heather Torlina (torlina.1@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 165

Fungicide OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Evaluate the effect of fungicide applied at wheat Feekes growth stage 10.5.1 on yield and Fusarium head blight.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Crawford County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 10/4/2024 Harvest Date 7/7/2025 Variety Inspire FS 624 Population 1.4 million/ac Acres 48 Treatments 2 Reps 3 Treatment Width 40 ft. Tillage Conventional Management Fertilizer, Fungicide Previous Crop Corn Row Spacing 10 in. Soil Type Blount Silt Loam, 56% Pewamo Silty Clay Loam, 36% Glynwood Silt Loam, 7%

Growing Season Weather Summary OCT NOV-FEB MAR APR

MAY

JUN

Total

Precip (in.)

0.35

10.95

2.50

4.06

4.63

4.11

26.60

Cumulative GDDs

309

434

578

804

1121

1795

STUDY DESIGN This trial was a randomized complete block design with two treatments; treated and untreated. Wheat was planted in the fall after harvest and harvested in July. Treatment spraying was done at Feekes growth stage 10.5.1 in late May by drone. The wheat was sprayed with Miravis Ace 2 at 2.5 gal/ac.

A visual difference in color was apparent between treatments prior to harvest.

166 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

A visible difference between treatments could be seen in the field before harvest. The probability for headscab according to the Fusarium Risk Tool was Medium-Low during the time of flowering. No visible spots of head scab were found when the fungicide was being applied.

•

Ag Tech

Other

Fungicide used for Fusarium head blight statistically increased wheat yield.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

11.3

92 b

Treated

11.2

101 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Head Scab Risk Assessment Tool is a webbased model to predict the risk of Fusarium head blight for a given area. The tool uses weather and crop information to guide growers, crop consultants, and processors in disease management decisions. https://wheatscab.psu.edu. .

LSD: 5 CV: 2.8%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Kendra Rose (rose.1919@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 167

Fungicide - Drone Applied OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Measure levels of Deoxynivalenol (DON) in parts per million on wheat treated with fungicide.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Morrow County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 10/10/2024 Harvest Date 7/10/2025 & 7/11/2025 Variety Seed Consultants 13504 Population 1.5 million sds/ac Acres 102 Treatments 3 Reps 3 Treatment Width 60 ft. Tillage No-Till Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 7.5 in. Soil Type Blount Silt Loam, 58% Pewamo Silty Clay Loam, 40% Glynwood Silt Loam, 2%

Growing Season Weather Summary OCT NOV-FEB MAR APR

MAY

JUN

Total

Precip (in.)

0.19

9.15

2.56

4.15

4.66

3.48

24.19

Cumulative GDDs

303

429

579

817

1145

1833

STUDY DESIGN The experiment was randomized plots testing 3 different fungicides applied by a DJI AGRAS T50 drone. The fungicide was applied 27 feet per second and 10 feet above the crop. Each fungicide was replicated 3 times. The plots were 35 feet wide and 300 feet long. The center was harvested out of each plot for grain yield. Yields were measured by a weigh wagon. The grain moisture was tested at the local Co-Op. Treatments consisted of no fungicide vs. Miravis Ace at 13.7 oz/ac, Prosaro 13.6 oz/ac, Sphaerex 8 oz/ac applied at flowering.

168 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fungicide was applied with a drone on May 21, 2025.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Pressure from Italian ryegrass weeds was observed in the field, potentially affecting yield. Plots received adequate rain in April, May, June, and July. The plots were scouted throughout the spring and were sprayed with fungicide on May 21st, at Feekes stage 10.5.1. The plots were scouted after fungicide application and Fusarium head blight was in some of the plots with the untreated control plot having the heaviest presence.

•

The application of fungicides did show a reduction of DON when compared to the control plots.

•

The yield however was not significantly different but the control plots could have be rejected at the mill if greater than 5 ppm or docked $0.10/bu if over 2 ppm.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

DON Levels (ppm)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

13.3

3.2 a

54 a

Spaerex

13.5

0.9 b

58 a

Miravis

13.7

0.6 b

57 a

Prosaro

13.5

0.5 b

53 a

LSD: 1.2 CV: 10.8%

LSD: 9 CV: 10.8%

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Carri Jagger (jagger.6@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 169

Nitrogen Rate OBJECTIVE

Northwest Ag Research Station

Measure the effects of spring nitrogen on wheat yields.

STUDY INFORMATION

OARDC Wood County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 10/7/2024 Harvest Date 7/8/2025 Variety Dyna-Gro 9231 Population 1.8 million/ac Acres 1 Treatments 5 Reps 4 Treatment Width 10 ft. Tillage No-Till Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 7.5 in. Soil Type Hoytville Silty Clay Loam, 100%

Growing Season Weather Summary OCT NOV-FEB MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

Total

Precip (in.)

1.05

7.89

2.77

4.87

4.74

5.17

26.49

Cumulative GDDs

312

433

559

767

1081 1758

1758

STUDY DESIGN Dyna-Gro 9231, a medium-early soft red wheat variety, was planted at 7.5-inch row spacing by a drill in the fall of 2024 on the OARDC Northwest Agricultural Research Station near Custar, Ohio. Eight nitrogen rate treatments were applied as urea-ammonium nitrate at greenup. Rates included in the study were 0, 60, 80, 100, 120, 140, 160, and 180 lbs/ac. All treatments received 30 lbs N/ac prior to planting. Treatments were applied to plots 10 feet wide and 54-63 feet long. The center 11 rows were harvested for grain yield. Experimental design was a completely randomized block replicated four times. Analysis was a simple ANOVA.

170 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Treatment receiving 0 lbs/ac nitrogen.

Corn

Small Grains

Soybean

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

The test site was responsive to nitrogen rate. Yields increased with each larger increment of nitrogen applied until about the 140 lb N/ac rate. Yields were similar to the three largest application rates of 140, 160 and 180 lbs N/ac. Excessive rainfall occurred in the months of April and May which may have increased N loss from the site compared to other years, favoring larger N rates.

•

This site was responsive to N since all treatment yields were significantly larger than the 0 N rate.

•

Yields increased with additional N until the 140 lb N rate. There was no additional yield response to rates above 140 lbs N/ac. 180 lbs N/ac had similar yields to the area with only 160 lbs N/ac.

•

Yield goals for this field would have recommended a rate of 100 lbs N/ac. However, the producer would have had 12 fewer bushel per acre at the lower rate this year.

•

This is only one year at one site. More locations would be necessary to make a general N rate recommendation for wheat.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Ed Lentz (lentz.38@osu.edu).

RESULTS Treatments (lbs N/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Return Above N ($/ac)

15.9

55 d

305

16.0

81 c

414

16.3

84 c

419

100

16.3

90 b

441

120

15.7

94 b

451

140

16.0

102 a

484

160

15.6

106 a

494

180

16.1

106 a

482

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 5 CV: 4.3%

2025 eFields Report | 171

Nitrogen Timing OBJECTIVE

Northwest Ag Research Station

Measure the effects of timing of spring nitrogen on wheat yields.

STUDY INFORMATION

OARDC Wood County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 10/7/2024 Harvest Date 7/8/2025 Variety Dyna-Gro 9231 Population 1.8 million/ac Acres 1 Treatments 3 Reps 4 Treatment Width 10 ft. Tillage No-Till Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 7.5 in. Soil Type Hoytville Silty Clay Loam, 100%

Growing Season Weather Summary OCT NOV-FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

Total

Precip (in.)

1.05

7.89

2.77

4.87

4.74

5.17

26.49

Cumulative GDDs

312

433

559

767

1081 1758

1758

STUDY DESIGN Dyna-Gro 9231, a medium-early soft red wheat variety, was planted at 7.5-inch row spacing by a drill in the fall of 2024 on the OARDC Northwest Agricultural Research Station near Custar, Ohio. Eighty pounds per acre of nitrogen from urea-ammonium nitrate (UAN) were applied as single applications at three different times: Greenup, Feekes GS 6, and Feekes GS 7. All treatments received 30 lbs N/ac prior to planting. Treatments were applied to 10-foot by 54 to 63foot plots. The center 11 rows were harvested for grain yield. Experimental design was a completely randomized block replicated four times. Analysis was a simple ANOVA.

172 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Wheat scouted during early spring greenup.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

There were significant differences among application times for a single spring nitrogen application. The largest yields were observed with nitrogen applied at Feekes GS 6. Lowest yields were observed with the Greenup application. The Feekes GS 7 application had larger yields than Greenup but lower yields than Feeks GS 6.

•

For this study, applying spring nitrogen at Feekes GS 6 provided the largest yields. Nitrogen applied at greenup had the lowest yields.

•

The potential for nitrogen loss would be the greatest for greenup since nitrogen uptake by wheat is minimal until Feekes GS 6.

•

These results would suggest that the greenup application lost a significant amount of nitrogen by Feekes GS 6.

•

Feekes GS 7 application yields were better than Greenup but lower than Feekes GS 6 application, suggesting that the crop needed more nitrogen earlier than Feekes GS 7 for maximum yields.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Greenup

16.3

84 c

Feekes GS 6

16.1

99 a

Feekes GS 7

15.7

93 b

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 6 CV: 5.1%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Ed Lentz (lentz.38@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 173

Nitrogen Timing OBJECTIVE

Northwest Ag Research Station

Determine the effects on yield of a split spring nitrogen application to winter wheat.

STUDY INFORMATION

OARDC Wood County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Growing Season Weather Summary OCT NOV-FEB MAR APR

MAY

JUN

Total

Precip (in.)

1.05

7.89

2.77

4.87

4.74

5.17

26.49

Cumulative GDDs

312

433

559

767

1081 1758

1758

STUDY DESIGN Dyna-Gro 9231, a medium-early soft red wheat variety, was planted by a drill in the fall of 2024. Eighty pounds per acre of nitrogen from ureaammonium nitrate (UAN) were applied as single applications at three different times: Greenup, Feekes GS 6, and Feekes GS 7. In addition, two split applications were applied - each receiving 40 lbs N/ac from UAN at Greenup followed by 40 lbs of N applied at Feekes GS 6 or at Feekes GS 7. All treatments received 30 lbs N/ac prior to planting. Treatments were applied to 10-foot and 61-foot plots. The center 11 rows were harvested for grain yield. Experimental design was a completely randomized block. Analysis was a simple ANOVA.

174 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Wheat field before harvest.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

The split application at Greenup/Feekes 6 yielded less than other treatments. The split application at Greenup/ Feekes GS 7 yielded more than a single nitrogen application at Greenup. It had a similar yield to the single nitrogen application at Feekes GS 7. Neither split application had larger yields than a single nitrogen application at Feekes GS 6.

•

A single application of nitrogen at Feekes GS 6, had larger yields than either of the split applications.

•

Besides lower yields compared to Feekes GS 6, they would have a high input cost from two field applications.

•

Possibly, a split application with a later split at Feekes GS 7 may be beneficial compared to a single Greenup application

•

Delaying the single application later would have a greater benefit than a split with the first partial application at Greenup.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Greenup

16.3

84 c

Feekes 6

16.1

99 a

Feekes 7

15.7

93 b

Early Split

16.0

78 d

Later Split

16.0

93 b

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 5 CV: 4.2%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Ed Lentz (lentz.38@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 175

Sulfur OBJECTIVE

Northwest Ag Research Station

Observe the effects of sulfur on yield in wheat production.

STUDY INFORMATION

OARDC Wood County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 10/7/2024 Harvest Date 7/8/2025 Variety Dyna-Gro 9231 Population 1.8 million/ac Acres 1 Treatments 2 Reps 4 Treatment Width 10 ft. Tillage No-Till Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 7.5 in. Soil Type Hoytville Silty Clay Loam, 100%

Growing Season Weather Summary OCT NOV-FEB MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

Total

Precip (in.)

1.05

7.89

2.77

4.87

4.74

5.17

26.49

Cumulative GDDs

312

433

559

767

1081 1758

1758

STUDY DESIGN Dyna-Gro 9231, a medium-early soft red wheat variety, was planted by a drill in the fall of 2024 on the OARDC Northwest Agricultural Research Station. Two treatments were applied, 80 lbs N/ ac from urea-ammonium nitrate (UAN) and 80 lbs of N from UAN plus ammonium thiosulfate (ATS) where the S rate was 20 lbs/ac. Fertilizer was broadcast applied at greenup (Feekes 3.04.0). All treatments received 30 lbs N/ac prior to planting. Treatments were applied to 10-foot and 54 to 63-foot plots. The center 11 rows were harvested for grain yield. Experimental design was a completely randomized block replicated four times. Analysis was a simple ANOVA.

176 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Wheat following Greenup.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS Statistically, sulfur did not increase wheat yields.

SUMMARY •

Adding supplemental sulfur did not significantly increase yields.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

13.2

84 a

Sulfur

12.9

90 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 6 CV: 4.2%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Ed Lentz (lentz.38@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 177

COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Agronomy and Farm Managemend Podcast Stay on top of what is happening in the ﬁeld and the farm office. This podcast takes a bi-monthly dive into speciﬁc issues that impact agriculture, such as: weather, land value, policies, commodity outlooks, and more. Available on Apple Podcasts and Youtube.

150+

Farm Mgt

Episodes Hear from a wide range of experts.

Bottom Line Improve economic sustainability.

Agronomy Unbiased Scientifc backed agronomic advice.

podcast.osu.edu/agronomy/ CFAES provides research and related educational programs to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis. For more information, visit cfaesdiversity.osu.edu. For an accessible format of this publication, visit cfaes.osu.edu/accessibility.

eBarns connecting science to farmers

Read the latest eBarns Report to discover advances in technology, farm management practices, and feed production. This report collects the latest applied research from The Ohio State University Digital Ag Team, the Department of Animal Sciences, Ohio Producers, and Extension Educators. View the report online and contact the eBarns Team to get more information: go.osu.edu/eBarnsReports

Get Involved: Are you a livestock producer interested in learning more about your operation through data collection and on-farm research? Get your county on the map in 2026!

Ohio State Forages Research For 2025, eFields forage research was focused on increasing forage production in Ohio. Some exciting and innovating projects were executed this year, with 4 unique studies being conducted across the state. 2025 Forage research presented in eFields covers both precision nutrient management and species selection. Below are highlights of the 2025 eFields Forage research: 31 acres of forages

4 forage studies

For more forage research and feeding management from Ohio State University Extension, explore the following resources:

Ohio Forage Performance Tests The purpose of the Ohio Forage Performance Test is to evaluate forage varieties of alfalfa, annual ryegrass, and cover crops for yield and other agronomic characteristics. This evaluation gives forage producers comparative information for selecting the best varieties for their unique production systems. For more information visit: go.osu.edu/OhioForages. Agronomic Crops Team - Forages Research The Agronomic Crops Team performs interesting research studies on a yearly basis. Resources, fact sheets, and articles on alfalfa, winter annuals, and summer annuals can be found here on the Agronomic Crops Team website: go.osu.edu/CropTeamForages.

Forage Team

180 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Dairy Team

Ohio Forage Performance Tests

Agronomic Crops Team Forage Research

Beef Team

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Species for Planting by Mid-July Corn Plant Silage

Highest single cut forage yield potential of all choices. Silage quality will be lower than with normal planting dates. Risk will be getting it harvested at right moisture for good fermentation.

Forage Sorghum Sorghum Sudangrass Sudangrass

Best harvested as silage. Brown midrib (BMR) varieties are best for lactating cows. Conventional varieties are okay if BMR seed is not available. Can produce 3-4 tons of dry matter/acre. Risk of prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide gas) if frosted.

Soybean Silage

Reasonable alternative to replace alfalfa forage. Check seed treatment and herbicide labels, many restrict forage use.

Teff Grass

Best suited to beef and sheep; lower yield than sorghum grasses. Can harvest as hay or silage.

Millets

Best suited to beef and sheep; many produce a single harvest. Best harvested as silage. Pearl millet does not produce prussic acid after frost damage.

Mixtures of annual grasses with soybean

Best harvested as silage. Mixtures of sorghum grasses or millets or even oats and spring triticale with soybean are feasible and can improve forage quality characteristics.

Species for Planting Late-July to Mid-September Oat or Spring Triticale

Can be mowed and wilted to correct harvest moisture. Harvesting as hay can be challenging. Earlier planting dates provide more autumn yield.

Oat or Spring Triticale Plus Winter Cereals

Winter cereals (Winter rye, Winter wheat, Winter triticale) can be added to oat or spring triticale to add a forage harvest early next spring. Winter rye can also contribute a little extra autumn yield to the mixture.

Oat or Spring Triticale Plus Field Peas

Field peas can improve forage quality (especially crude protein content) but will increase seed cost.

Italian Ryegrass

Earlier planting dates provide more autumn yield. Excellent forage quality in the fall. Potential for three harvests next year starting in late April.

2025 eFields Report | 181

DON Resistance - Silage Corn OBJECTIVE

Wooster Campus Farms

Evaluate corn silage hybrid resistance to the production of the mycotoxins Deoxynivalenol and Zearalenone.

STUDY INFORMATION

OARDC Wayne County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 6/5/2025 Harvest Date 9/19/2025 Variety Treatments Population 34,800 sds/ac Acres 2 Treatments 16 Reps 4 Treatment Width 10 ft. Tillage Minimum Management Fertilizer Previous Crop Corn Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Canfield Silt Loam, 100%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

3.92

4.25

5.22

4.91

0.73

2.27

21.30

Cumulative GDDs

200

493

1140

1892

2455

2935

STUDY DESIGN This experiment was designed as a randomized complete block split-split plot design to evaluate the resistance of corn silage hybrids to the production of the mycotoxins Deoxynivalenol and Zearalenone. Plots were managed for high yields. At wet silk, plants were inoculated with Fusarium Graminearum spores using a backpack inoculation sprayer method. Plots were harvested using a 2-row plot corn silage harvester. Silage samples were fermented for 30 days in vacuum-sealed bags. Mycotoxins were tested using highperformance liquid chromatography, and tandem mass spectrometry.

182 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fermented corn silage for analysis.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Foliar disease pressure was low in plots, but hybrids responded very differently to drought conditions. Some ears were still at 0% milk line; however, whole plant plot moisture was 46-60%. Yield averages by hybrid ranged from 16.3-26.3 ton/ac at 65% moisture.

•

Deoxynivalenol and Zearalenone levels between hybrids were significantly different.

•

The within hybrid plot to plot variations in DON and Zearalenone levels were large this year.

•

Recent research shows that conditions that slow silage fermentation such as lower moisture can promote mycotoxin growth during storage.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Jason Hartschuh (hartschuh.11@osu.edu) or Rich Minyo (minyo.1@osu.edu).

RESULTS Treatments

DON (ppm)

Zearalenone (ppm)

Channel 208-18

0.70 ab

15.06 b

Channel 210-46

1.66 ab

19.54 b

Channel 214-78

1.35 ab

36.45 b

Channel 215-09

1.25 ab

2.88 b

Channel 215-60

4.81 a

63.07 b

Channel 216-36

1.40 ab

24.08 b

NK 0604-DV

3.26 ab

23.86 b

NK1480-DV

2.85 ab

19.03 b

NK 1228-AA

0.83 ab

18.37 b

Enogen E102K7-D

1.10 ab

0.00 b

Enogen E107C1-D

2.84 ab

173.83 a

Enogen E108K4-DV

1.94 ab

21.22 b

Enogen E111V7-D

1.35 ab

2.73 b

Enogen E112S5-D

0.99 ab

0.00 b

Enogen E114C4-DV

0.49 b

18.45 b

Enogen E117Z7-D

0.28 b

0.00 b

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 4.16 CV: 172.5%

LSD: 105.7 CV: 326.4%

2025 eFields Report | 183

Drone Seeded Barley OBJECTIVE

Wooster Campus Farms

Evaluate the effect of planting date, seeding rate, and fall applied nitrogen on yield and quality of drone seeded barley intended for harvest as forage.

STUDY INFORMATION

OARDC Wayne County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 8/20/2024 & 10/3/2024 Harvest Date 5/16/2025 Variety VNS Cereal Barley Population Treatments Acres 7 Treatments 24 Reps 4 Treatment Width 30 ft. Tillage No-Till Management None Previous Crop Soybeans Row Spacing Broadcast Soil Type Canfield Silt Loam, 96%, Ravenna Silt Loam, 4%

Growing Season Weather Summary OCT NOV-FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

Total

Precip (in.)

0.33

8.06

1.85

3.92

4.25

5.22

23.63

Cumulative GDDs

308

445

578

778

1071

1718

STUDY DESIGN The study was a randomized complete block design with four replications. There were 24 treatments consisting of two planting dates (Aug 20 and Oct 3, 2024), four seeding rates (60, 100, 150, 200 lbs/ac), and three fall applied nitrogen rates (0, 50, 100 lbs). Urea applications were made to the Aug 20 planting on Oct 3, and the Oct 3 planting was fertilized on Oct 21. All seedings and urea nitrogen applications were conducted via a drone into standing soybeans. NDVI measurements were taken in mid-Nov prior to fall dormancy and again in early spring at green up. All plots were harvested as forage on May 16, 2025 and subsamples were collected for dry matter and feed analysis evaluation.

184 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Forage harvesting on May 16, 2025.

Corn

Small Grains

Soybean

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Spring rain delayed harvest of plots and field conditions at time of harvest prevented harvest of 12 of the 96 plots. Plots were harvested at the soft dough stage (Fleeks 10.5). Seeding date had the most dramatic effect on yield with the late August seeded barley out yielding the early October seeding (10374 lbs vs 6167 lbs). Seeding rate affected nutritional value of the harvested forage. Fall nitrogen rate had no effect on final forage quality.

•

Although maturity at harvest was not measured for each plot, it was observed that the August seeded barley matured earlier in the spring than the October seeded plots.

•

August seeded barley yielded more pounds of forage than October seeded barley. Although not significant, the later seeded barley had crude protein and Total Digestible Nutrient (TDN) values higher than the earlier seeded plots. Possibly as a result of a more advanced growth stage at harvest for the early seeded plots.

•

150 lbs/ac seeding rate produced the greatest yield when aerially applied with a drone into standing soybean.

•

Fall nitrogen rate had no effect on forage yield or quality in this study.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact John Yost (yost.77@osu.edu), Alex Thomas (thomas.5083@osu.edu), or Frank Becker (becker.587@osu.edu).

RESULTS Seeding Date

Fall NDVI

Spring NDVI

Dry Yield (lb/ac)

Crude Protein (%)

NDF (%)

TDN (%)

8/20/2024

0.48 a

0.45 a

1,833 a

13.26 a

59.42 a

51.13 a

10/3/2024

0.37 b

0.42 a

1,084 b

14.12 a

57.27 b

51.94 a

Seeding Rate

Fall NDVI

Spring NDVI

Dry Yield (lb/ac)

Crude Protein (%)

NDF (%)

TDN (%)

60 lbs/ac

0.35 a

0.36 a

1,049 b

15.29 a

56.20 a

53.46 b

100 lbs/ac

0.41 a

0.44 ab

1,310 b

13.70 ab

58.44 a

50.73 a

150 lbs/ac

0.46 a

0.45 ab

1,863 a

13.02 b

59.71 b

50.77 a

200 lbs/ac

0.46 a

0.47 b

1,562 a

12.80 b

58.86 a

51.25 a

Fall N Rate

Fall NDVI

Spring NDVI

Dry Yield (lb/ac)

Crude Protein (%)

NDF (%)

TDN (%)

0 lbs

0.41 a

0.39 a

1,431 a

13.54 a

57.71 a

51.73 a

50 lbs

0.41 a

0.44 a

1,359 a

13.85 a

58.50 a

51.28 a

100 lbs

0.44 a

0.47 a

1,519 a

13.73 a

58.61 a

51.66 a

2025 eFields Report | 185

Forage Production Under Solar OBJECTIVE Evaluate the impact of the solar site on forage crop yield and quality and demonstrate the feasibility of producing a forage crop on a utility-scale solar site..

eFields Collaborating Farm OSU Extension Madison County

STUDY OVERVIEW Agrivoltaics is the practice of farming within solar sites including under the panels, between the rows, and around the border of the site. The primary goal of this project is to build upon the understanding of forage production in solar farms to reduce land use impacts of utility-scale solar installations by developing best practices for establishing forages, integrating complimentary grazing strategies, maximizing soil health, and utilizing precision agriculture technologies and equipment to minimize error and risk. Overall, results from this research will be used to identify strategies to implement hay, grazing, and solar production with key developer considerations such as system design, equipment, contracts, liabilities, and economic gain or loss.

Figure 1. Forage harvest field activities with the solar panels mowing (left), raking (middle), and baling (right).

Figure 2. Alfalfa stand in June (left), cool-season hay stand in June (middle), and bale coring for quality analysis (right).

186 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

FORAGE YIELD AND QUALITY RESULTS To evaluate the impacts of the solar site on the production of forage, two forage types (alfalfa and cool-season hay mix) were compared inside the solar arrays to control plots outside of the arrays. The control plots were planted outside of the solar arrays at 100% of the current recommended seeding rate. Within the solar arrays between the rows of panels each forage type was planted at three seeding rates: 75%, 100%, and 125% of the current recommended seeding rate. The trial was a randomized complete block design replicated four times. Plots were mowed and baled as small square bales in June, July, and August of 2025. Yields were calculated from total bale weights for all three cuttings. Forage quality was tested using near-infrared spectroscopy from cores taken from each bale. Wet areas with poor drainage were observed, preventing forage establishment in some plots. Improving drainage could lead to higher yield in this environment.

Figure 3. Total yields for alfalfa (left) and quality (right). Letters indicate significant differences between treatments.

Figure 4. Total yields for cool-season hay (left) and quality (right). Letters indicate significant differences between treatments.

SUMMARY •

First year forage yields were comparable between the control and within the panels for the alfalfa and higher within the panels for the cool-season hay.

•

Forage establishment and performance was impacted by abnormally dry conditions in both 2024 and 2025.

•

Forage quality improved with later cuttings both within the panels and in the control area, with the highest quality cutting being the third cutting in August. Crude protein was similar when comparing treatments within each cutting.

•

This demonstrates the agronomic feasibility of forage production on a utility-scale solar site. Continued research will lead to improved recommendations for forage production on solar sites.

2025 eFields Report | 187

Forage Production Under Solar OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Evaluate compaction remediation strategies and identify key considerations for agrivoltaics implementation.

OSU Extension Madison County

STUDY OVERVIEW This project seeks to better understand how building utility-scale solar farms affects farmland and topsoil, and to identify effective ways to restore and improve soil health. In addition, we aim to identify the main obstacles preventing the widespread use of agrivoltaics, so we can better connect the solar industry with agriculture. This will help guide important decisions about system design and ensure that farming remains possible on these sites after construction. Overall, results from this research will be used to identify strategies to implement hay, grazing, and solar production with key developer considerations such as system design, equipment, contracts, liabilities, and economic gain or loss.

COMPACTION REMEDIATION Cone penetrometer sampling was conducted to evaluate soil compaction caused by site construction. Figure 1 shows compaction for both pre-construction (2023 – red), post construction (2024 – black), and following the first year cropping season (2025 – gray). Compaction through the root zone increased post-construction, on average. A distinct compaction layer was present near an 8-inch depth on average across the site. Various cover crops were compared for their ability to remediate this compaction. Compaction levels, on average, was reduced to near the pre-construction baseline after one year of cropping. No differences were observed between the cover crop or forage species. Compaction data will be continued to be monitored on an annual basis during the spring of each year.

2023 - Pre-Construction 2024 - Post-Construction 2025 - 1 year Cropping

0 -2

Depth (in)

-4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16 -18

100

150

200

250

300

350

Soil Cone Index (psi) Figure 1. Cone penetrometer readings (psi) taken to 18-inches pre-construction, post-construction, and following the first cropping year. Dashed lines indicate +/- one standard deviation.

188 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR UTILITY-SCALE AGRIVOLTAICS

SUMMARY •

One year of crop production on the site reduced soil compaction across all treatments including the cover crops and forage species. Drought conditions in 2024 limited cover crop establishment success.

•

The team noted four key considerations that may impact successful production: challenges with post-construction drainage (surface and subsurface), adequate turning radii for equipment between panels, alley obstructions, and row spacing. These potential limitations should be considered pre-construction and may impact equipment selection and logistical feasibilty.

This project is being funded in part by

Logo was developed by the U.S. Department of Energy to indicate receipt of DOE funding. Not an endorsement by DOE.

Learn more about agrivoltaics here.

PROJECT CONTACT

For inquiries about this project, contact Christine Gelley (gelley.2@osu.edu), Amanda Douridas (douridas.9@osu.edu), Brady Campbell (campbell.1279@osu.edu), Elizabeth Hawkins, Eric Romich, Trevor Corboy, Scott Shearer, and Andrew Klopfenstein. Special thanks to Savion Energy and Kubota Tractor Corporation for their collaboration on this research effort.

2025 eFields Report | 189

Nitrogen Rate - Cereal Rye OBJECTIVE

NC Ag Research Station

Use spring NDVI readings to assist making spring nitrogen application management decisions and determine if fall applied nitrogen increases density and protein in cereal rye.

STUDY INFORMATION

OARDC Sandusky County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 10/8/2024 Harvest Date 5/11/2025 Variety Cereal Rye VNS Population 2 bu/ac Acres 1 Treatments 16 Reps 4 Treatment Width 10 ft. Tillage Minimum Management Fertilizer Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 7.5 in. Soil Type Hoytville Clay Loam, 100%

Growing Season Weather Summary OCT NOV-FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

Total

Precip (in.)

1.53

7.15

2.42

3.45

3.63

3.24

21.42

Cumulative GDDs

326

454

593

800

1096

1765

STUDY DESIGN This trial was a randomized complete block design split-plot design with four nitrogen rates in the fall (0, 25, 50, and 75 lbs/ac) and four nitrogen rates in the spring (0, 30, 60 and 90 lbs/ac) over the fall rates in cereal rye. Rye was planted in October and harvested in May. NDVI and Canopeo readings were taken in December before fall dormancy and in the spring before greenup to determine the greenness and density of green matter. Canopeo is a smartphone application that is used to quantify the percent canopy cover of live green vegetation for any agricultural crop, turf, or grassland.

190 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

There was no visual difference between the different treatments in the fall, but there was a visual difference in the spring while taking NDVI and Canopeo readings. The 0 lbs N/ac treatment was visibly thinner, shorter, and more yellow compared to the other treatments at harvest time.

•

Forage protein increases with spring nitrogen applications.

•

Not applying fall nitrogen significantly decreased the amount of dry matter in cereal rye regardless of spring nitrogen. (0 lbs total N/ac statistically had the greatest energy.)

•

To maximize cereal rye yield and Crude Protein at the lowest total nitrogen rate, a minimum of 25 pounds of fall nitrogen and 60 pounds of spring nitrogen is needed.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Jason Hartschuh (hartschuh.11@osu.edu) or Kendra Rose (rose.1919@osu.edu).

RESULTS Treatments

TDN (%)

NDF (%)

Crude Protein (%)

Yield (tons/ac)

Fall 0, Spring 0

64.8 a

57.6 abcd

9.6 g

1.5 e

Fall 0, Spring 30

64.2 abc

57.9 abc

13.0 cd

1.9 bcd

Fall 0, Spring 60

62.9 bcdefg

56.1 bcd

13.7 bc

2.2 abc

Fall 0, Spring 90

62.8 cdefg

58.1 ab

15.1 a

2.0 bcd

Fall 25, Spring 0

64.6 ab

55.5 cd

11.5 ef

1.7 de

Fall 25, Spring 30

63.8 abcd

57.6 abcd

12.6 cd

2.1 abcd

Fall 25, Spring 60

63.0 bcdefg

57.0 bcd

15.2 a

2.0 abcd

Fall 25, Spring 90

62.0 fgh

58.1 ab

14.5 ab

2.0 bcd

Fall 50, Spring 0

63.7 abcde

55.7 bcd

10.4 fg

1.9 cd

Fall 50, Spring 30

62.7 cdefgh

58.1 ab

12.1 de

2.4 a

Fall 50, Spring 60

60.8 h

56.3 bcd

14.6 ab

2.2 ab

Fall 50, Spring 90

61.4 gh

59.0 a

15.2 a

2.3 ab

Fall 75, Spring 0

63.7 abcdef

57.1 abcd

12.8 cd

2.1 abcd

Fall 75, Spring 30

62.1 efgh

56.3 bcd

14.7 ab

2.2 abc

Fall 75, Spring 60

63.3 abcdef

57.1 abcd

15.0 a

2.1 abc

Fall 75, Spring 90

62.2 defgh

55.3 d

15.2 a

2.0 bcd

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 0.1 CV: 2.3%

LSD: 2.5 CV: 3.7%

LSD: 1.1 CV: 7.2%

LSD: 0.3 CV: 14.2%

2025 eFields Report | 191

Ohio State Technology Research Helping growers make the most of precision and digital ag technologies. The Digital Ag program at The Ohio State University embodies the best of the land grant mission - creation, validation and dissemination of cutting-edge agricultural production technologies. The central focus of this program is the interactions of automation, sensing and data analytics to optimize crop production in order to address environmental quality, sustainability and profitability. The team works on the development of hand-held devices for in-field data collection, apps that aid in calibration of applicators, remote sensing and monitoring, and enhanced data analysis for shorter turnaround time. For more technology research and information from The Ohio State University’s Department of Food Agricultural and Biological Engineering and industry partners, explore the following resources: The Ohio State Digital Ag Program The Ohio State Digital Ag Program conducts studies related to all aspects of the corn production cycle. Research related to corn planting, cropping inputs, and harvesting technology can be found on the Precision Ag website: digitalag.osu.edu.

192 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Small Grains

Ag Tech Ohio No-TillForages Council

Soybean

Other

Does $50 per acre increase in net income interest you (and your banker)? Experience and learn how to reduce input costs with continuous no-till and cover crops. Topics include no-till equipment, nutrient management, digital ag, and how to build soil health to make your fields more resilient to drought.

2026 Events

March 10-11 Conservation Tillage and Technology Conference ctc.osu.edu

December 2 Ohio No-Till Conference Plain City

Several field days (full or half day) will be scheduled this Summer. Dates and details will be announced on our website and in Ohio’s Country Journal (see below). We anticipate partnering with the All-Ohio Chapter of SWCS, The Nature Conservancy, Ohio Farm Bureau, Conservation Action Project (CAP), and OSU Extension to present top speakers and hands-on learning opportunities. The Ohio Soybean Council and Ohio Corn Marketing program are major sponsors.

Visit ohionotillcouncil.com to view event details and register. Look for an updated “Ohio No-Till News” page in each mid-month issue of Ohio’s Country Journal. 2025 eFields Report | 193

Digital Agriculture Survey OBJECTIVE Understand the adoption of digital tools by farmers across the Midwest.

INTRODUCTION Farmers face the dual challenge of producing more food to meet global demand while maintaining profitability and protecting natural resources. Digital technologies such as precision mapping, autonomous equipment, and artificial intelligence (AI) are increasingly turning farm data into actionable insights that improve decision making, boost yields, reduce input costs, and strengthen already thin economic margins. Yet, until now, no regional survey has asked farmers directly about their perceptions and adoption of these tools, making this study the first to provide a clearer picture of digital technology use in agriculture across the Midwest.

Between November 2024 and March 2025, a survey was conducted with 247 agricultural producers across nine sates in the Midwest and surrounding region. It was designed to capture producer perspectives and practices related to digital trechnology use in agriculture. Responses were compiled and statistically analyzed to identify trends and patterns in adoption.

PERCEIVED BENEFITS

IMPACT ON MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

Farmers identified three main benefits when adopting digital technologies: • Financial profitability (36%) • Optimization of input use (18%) • Increased productivity (16%) It is important to note that, although farmers recognize environmental benefits, these were reported in low proportion as primary drivers of adoption. However, 56% reported using digital technologies for soil and crop conservation to conserve natural resources such as water, soil, and biodiversity.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)

When farmers were consulted about the role of AI in agricultural decision-making, 58% of respondents expressed agreement or strong agreement that AI will assist in the agricultural decision-making process. This positive outlook suggests growing acceptance of AI-driven tools among farmers, recognizing the potential of these emerging technologies with the main goal of assisting on increasing productivity, reducing labor, increasing savings, and improving economic margins. As AI applications continue to evolve and demonstrate practical value, adoption rates are expected to increase exponentially.

VARIABLE RATE TECHNOLOGY

Regarding variable rate technology for fertilizers, farmers estimated possible reductions in application: • 25% estimated a potential reduction by 10-14% • 24% anticipated reductions greater than 15% • 25% indicated they would apply the same amount but distributed differently within the field, with more fertilizer going to high yielding areas

194 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

87% of farmers reported having modified their management decisions with the utilization of new digital tools. The decisions with a high percentage of changes were: • Nutrient management strategies (47%) Adjustment of fertilizer rates and timing • Variable seeding rate prescriptions (17%) • Hybrid or variety selection (13%)

PRODUCTION CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS

Farmers identified the following challenges that they would like to solve with digital technologies: • Increasing efficiency in fertilizer use (27%) • Improving pest and disease management (18%) • Enhancing water management (13%) • Improving soil care (12%) • Increasing productivity (8%)

BARRIERS TO ADOPTION

Despite recognized benefits, 57% of farmers attempted to integrate additional digital technologies but encountered various barriers to adoption. The main obstacles were: • Excessive cost versus perceived benefit (34%) • Insufficient farm size (17%) • Equipment incompatibility (15%) We found important differences according to producer experience: • >10 years: primarily cited "difficulty keeping up with rapid technological changes" and "incompatible machines" • <10 years: more frequently reported "insufficient farm size" and "lack of information about proper use"

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

KEY FINDINGS 93% of farmers reported using some form of digital agricultural technology, demonstrating widespread adoption across the region. Technologies with the highest long-term adoption (more than 10 years of use) were: • Auto-guidance (59%) • Yield mapping (56%) • General mapping (43%): including soil pH, electrical conductivity, organic matter • Variable rate technology (36%) • Data management platforms (24%) • Field sensors (19%)

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

SUMMARY • Digital technology adaption in Midwest agriculture is primarily driven by economic considerations. • While producers recognize potential conservation and environmental benefits, adaption decisions ultimately center on profitability and input optimization. • Cost barriers remain significant, particularly for smaller operations, contributing to a digital divide that may worsen existing inequalities in the sector. • Future development should prioritize accessible technologies and solutions that demonstrate clear economic value. • The digital transformation of agriculture will succeed only when innovations align with producers' operational realities, capabilities, and priorities.

Figure 1. Current Technology Adoption, years with experience working with digital technology, darker colors represent more years of use of technology.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Priscila Belen Cano (pcano@purdue.edu), Ignacio Ciampitti (iciampit@purdue.edu), John Fulton (fulton.20@osu.edu), and Elizabeth Hawkins (hawkins.301@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 195

Drone Applied Fertilizer OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Measure corn yield response to aerially applied foliar fertilizer.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Henry County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/28/2025 Harvest Date 10/29/2025 Hybrid Seed Consultants SC1084AM Population 34,000 sds/ac Acres 5 Treatments 2 Reps 4 Treatment Width 20 ft. Tillage No-Till Management Fertilizer, Herbicide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Haskins Loam, 56% Nappanee Loam, 44%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

3.76

4.10

3.53

2.62

0.62

1.56

16.19

Cumulative GDDs

205

532

1203

1964

2567

3047

STUDY DESIGN The experiment was a randomized complete block design with two treatments, replicated four times. Treatment plot size was 20 feet x 300 feet. The product used was Aero Blitz (117-4 + 0.02 B, 0.1 Fe, 0.06 Mn, 0.003 Mo, 0.06 Zn) at a rate of 5 gal/ac, applied with a Hylio 130 drone. A 6-row corn head was used on a Case IH 6150 combine to harvest the center of each treatment. All yield data collected was from a fully calibrated Case IH Pro 700 Monitor. Planter running in May 2025.

196 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Small Grains

Soybean

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS Corn planting date was late in May due to weather conditions; side dress nitrogen was delayed due to rainfall during the ideal application time. Dry conditions late in the growing season affected overall crop yield.

SUMMARY •

There was no statistical difference between the control and the treated area.

•

Low return on investment per acre.

•

More research on this type of product needs to be conducted to determine the value.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Return Above ($/ac)

Control

15.5

159 a

635

Aero Blitz

15.6

151 a

480

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Aero-Blitz® is a specialized micronutrient blend specifically designed for aerial application via drones, airplanes, and helicopters on row and field crops. This blend of micronutrients is designed to help mitigate midseason stress to help boost yields at harvest.

LSD: 18 CV: 6.9%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Alan Leininger (leininger.17@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 197

Drone Applied Fertilizer OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Measure soybean yield response to aerially applied foliar fertilizer.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Henry County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 6/4/2025 Harvest Date 10/11/2025 Variety Seed Consultants SC7315E Population 140,000 sds/ac Acres 10 Treatments 2 Reps 4 Treatment Width 40 ft. Tillage No-Till Management Fertilizer, Herbicide Previous Crop Corn Row Spacing 15 in. Soil Type Haskins Loam, 46% Nappanee Loam, 22% Shoals Silt Loam, 19%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

3.76

4.10

3.53

2.62

0.62

1.56

16.19

Cumulative GDDs

205

532

1203

1964

2567

3047

STUDY DESIGN The experiment was a randomized complete block design with two treatments, replicated four times. Treatment plot size was 40 feet x 300 feet. The product used was Aero Blitz (117-4 + 0.02 B, 0.1 Fe, 0.06 Mn, 0.003 Mo, 0.06 Zn) at a rate of 5 gal/ac applied with a Hylio 130 drone. A 30-foot draper head was used on a Case IH 6150 combine to harvest the center of each treatment. All yield data collected was from a fully calibrated Case IH Pro 700 Monitor.

198 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

A Hylio 130 drone before application.

Corn

Small Grains

Soybean

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Soybean planting date was early in June due to weather conditions. No disease pressure was observed during the growing season, and no nutrient deficiencies were observed. Dry Conditions late in the growing season overall crop yield was not noticeable compared to previous growing seasons. SOLUTIONS AERIAL APPLICATION

•

There is no statistical difference between the control and the treated area.

•

Low return on investment per acre.

•

More research on this type of product needs to be conducted to determine the value.

RESULTSFEATURES & BENEFITS •

Specifically designed for foliar application with drone and aerial application technology

Moisture • Delivers nutrients when crops need them most, especially Treatments aiding in the relief of plant stress (%) •

Great for all crops

•

Built to optimize reproductive growth in most crops

•

Formulated to be used as part of a tank mix with other crop protection products, reducing the number of passes needed in the field

Control

Molybdenum

Zn Zinc

When should I apply Aero-Blitz? On field, row, and vegetable crops apply Aero-Blitz post emergence at the vegetative growth stages.

Q: A:

What is the use rate for Aero-Blitz? Aero-Blitz is applied at a rate of 16-32 oz per acre.

Q: A:

Can variable rate be used to apply Aero-Blitz? Yes. When applied with aerial applications, variable rate technology can be utilized to create a custom application plan that allows for fertilizer application rates to be adjusted throughout the field to accommodate the various nutrition needs.

Q: A:

Can Aero-Blitz be mixed with crop protection products? Yes, Aero-Blitz is compatible with many crop protection products. The Andersons recommends a compatibility (jar) test before field mixing and application. Always read and follow all individual product labels before use. For more information, visit AndersonsPlantNutrient.com/TankMix.

Yield (bu/ac)

Return Above ($/ac)

73 a

728

78 a

Manganese

Boron

Q: A:

What is the benefit of drone and aerial application

according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) Q: How does applying Aero-Blitz with aerial applications test at alpha = 0.1. save time and money?

Potassium

Iron

Aero Blitzmethods for fertilizer applications? 9.3

Using aerial fertilizer applications increase efficiency by covering large cropping areas quickly and precisely. Drones also minimize waste by delivering fertilizer where it is required without the need of traditional foliar Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different application methods.

Phosphorus

Nitrogen

9.3

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Aero-Blitz® is a specialized micronutrient blend specifically designed for aerial application via drones, airplanes, and helicopters on row and field crops. This blend of micronutrients is designed to help mitigate midseason stress to help boost yields at harvest.

Q: A:

657

How does Aero-Blitz relieve plant stress? Aero-Blitz efficiently delivers essential nutrients to crops during critical growth stages. These nutrients relieve plant stress by allowing crops to focus their energy on reproduction, improving yields at harvest.

LSD: 12 CV: 9.3%

Fertilizer application with a drone can save time by quickly applying products to fields. Drone applications allow fertilizer use rates to be lowered by customizing applications through the field to where the nutrients are needed most.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE FOR MORE INFORMATION

800-831-4815 png@andersonsinc.com AndersonsPlantNutrient.com

AgroSol Flight Control Software - Hylio’s flagship ground control software platform. It is a one-stop shop that enables you to plan crop treatments, command your fleet of AgroDrones, analyze application data, and more.

PROJECT CONTACT

CONNECT WITH THE ANDERSONS PLANT NUTRIENT GROUP ON SOCIAL MEDIA

For inquiries about this project, contact Alan Leininger (leininger.17@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 199

Drone Applied Fungicide OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Measure corn yield response to different foliar fungicide drone applications.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Henry County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/28/2025 Harvest Date 10/29/2025 Hybrid Seed Consultants SC1084AM Population 34,000 sds/ac Acres 5 Treatments 4 Reps 4 Treatment Width 40 ft. Tillage No-Till Management Fertilizer, Fungicide, Herbicide Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 15 in. Soil Type Haskins Loam, 56% Nappanee Loam, 44%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

3.76

4.10

3.53

2.62

0.62

1.56

16.19

Cumulative GDDs

205

532

1203

1964

2567

3047

STUDY DESIGN The experiment was a randomized complete block design with four treatments ,replicated four times. Treatment plot design was 40 feet by 300 feet. The three products used were Miravis Neo 6.8 oz/ac, Approach 6.8 oz/ac, and Trivapro 13.6 oz/ac. A 30-foot head was used on a Case IH 6150 combine to harvest the center of each treatment. All yield data collected was from a fully calibrated Case IH Pro 700 Monitor.

Plot planter running during the trial.

200 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Prior crop was corn grown in a no-till system. The seeds were planted with a Kinze DF2000 planter in 15-inch rows. Weather conditions did not promote significant disease growth, and few observable signs of disease pressure were found. The lack of observed disease explains why none of the products showed any effect on yield in this study.

•

There was no statistical difference yield between the treatments though practically speaking the Approach and Control treatments had the lowest yields.

•

No difference in grain moisture was measured at harvest between the treatments.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

15.6

148 a

Miravis Neo

15.7

157 a

Trivapro

15.7

153 a

Approach

15.7

142 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Hylio AG-130 UAS was used to apply fungicide to all plots in this study. A .shp file was created for each plot using QGIS and then uploaded into the AgroSol flight planning software. AgroSol then created a flight plan for each plot to spray the products in the correct location.

LSD: 19 CV: 9.8%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Alan Leininger (leininger.17@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 201

Drone Applied Fungicide OBJECTIVE

Northwest Ag Research Station

Evaluate the effect of different fungicide application methods on corn yield.

STUDY INFORMATION

OARDC Wood County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/29/2025 Harvest Date 10/22/2025 Hybrid Ebberts 6883DGVT2PRIB Population 34,000 sds/ac Acres 1 Treatments 8 Reps 1 Treatment Width 10 ft. ground 20 ft. drone Tillage No-Till Management Fungicide, Herbicide, Insecticide Previous Crop Corn Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Hoytville Clay Loam, 100%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

4.87

4.74

5.17

2.61

0.26

1.19

18.84

Cumulative GDDs

208

522

1199

1994

2613

3093

STUDY DESIGN This study employed a randomized complete block design organized in a split-split block with fungicide application method as the main plot and fungicide product as the subplot. The fungicides used were Miravis Neo at 13.7 fl oz/ ac and Proline at 5.7 fl oz/ac applied at R1. Application methods were: ground sprayer with boom over the top (applying 15 or 20 gal/ ac of product using XR1103VS tips at 40 psi), ground sprayer with 360yield under covers (3 Turbo Tee Jet 015 tips at 40 psi applying 15 or 20 gal/ac of product), four drone (a DJI AGRAS T20P or a Hylio AG130) treatments applying 2.5 or 5 gal/ac at 8 feet above the canopy.

202 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fungicide applied with a drone on August 8, 2025.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Northwest Ohio was under severe drought-stressed conditions by R1, resulting in leaf rolling during fungicide application. Ground applications were made first, followed by the drone application, with leaves curling more throughout the day. Leaf curling may have impacted fungicide deposition in drone applications as plots were treated after ground sprayer applications. The south side showed even more drought stress than the rest of the plot, yielding about 40 bushels less, leading to one replication being removed for data analysis.

•

There was no difference in yield between the two fungicide products. There were significant differences between application methods.

•

One block was removed prior to data analysis due to outlier low-yield data.

•

The drops applying at 15 gal/ac yielded significantly higher than the untreated control. The 2.5 gal/ac drone treatments yielded significantly less than other fungicide treatments. The 5 gal/ac rate for the drones has the same statistical yield as the ground application and the control.

RESULTS

Treatments (gal/ac)

Test Weight

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

19.6

102 bc

Boom 20

19.5

113 ab

Boom 15

18.5

110 ab

Drops 20

19.5

111 ab

Drops 15

19.2

115 a

DJI 2.5

21.0

94 c

DJI 5

19.4

103 abc

Hylio 2.5

19.4

91 c

Hylio 5

20.2

103 abc

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 2 CV: 13.8%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Nina Nebesh (nebesh.3@osu.edu), Jason Hartschuh (hartschuh.11@osu.edu), John Fulton (fulton.20@osu.edu), Stephanie Karhoff (karhoff.41@osu.edu), Pierce Paul (paul.661@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 203

Drone Seeding Cover Crops OBJECTIVE Evaluate how crop canopy maturity in corn and soybeans affects dronebased interseeding of cover crops.

eFields Collaborating Farm OSU Extension Madison County

STUDY DESIGN This study was conducted across multiple corn and soybean fields in Ohio, with crops planted at different row spacings. Drones were used to broadcast cereal rye cover crop seed at three distinct crop canopy stages: green, partially dry (50%), and fully dry or defoliated. Seed deposition was measured using collection pans randomly placed in the fields, and application rates were calculated for each treatment. The drone application parameters, such as flight speed and altitude, were standardized, and efforts were made to avoid dew on leaves to minimize seed interception by the canopy. Statistical analysis was performed to compare seed distribution and uniformity across crop types, row spacings, and canopy conditions, providing insights into the optimal timing and conditions for drone-based cover crop interseeding.

Figure 1. Images of the crop canopy at the time of spreading for the three timings. Corn at green canopy (a), corn with a canopy that has ~50% dried canopy (b), corn that has ~100% dried canopy (c), soybeans with a green canopy and no defoliation (d), soybeans at ~50% defoliation (e), and soybeans at 100% defoliated (f).

OBSERVATIONS During the study, several important observations were made regarding drone-based interseeding of cover crops. It was found that the maturity of the crop canopy significantly influenced seed deposition.

Figure 2. Illustration of the funneling effect of the green soybean canopy, causing the product to be concentrated between the plant rows. In this case, this leads to a higher rate of cereal rye seeds in the collection devices.

204 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

In corn fields, green canopies tended to intercept more seeds, with some seeds landing on leaves or getting trapped in leaf collars, reducing the amount reaching the soil. In soybean fields, a dense green canopy created a funneling effect, concentrating seeds between the rows and resulting in less uniform distribution. As the canopy dried down or defoliated, both corn and soybeans showed improved seed deposition to the soil and more uniform coverage. Timing of application was also critical; spreading cover crops before a rainfall event increased the likelihood of successful establishment. Operational factors such as dew on leaves and wind speed affected seed interception and distribution, highlighting the importance of careful timing and equipment calibration. Overall, the study demonstrated that waiting for partial or full canopy dry-down, when environmental conditions allow, can enhance the effectiveness of drone-based cover crop interseeding.

Corn

Small Grains

Soybean

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

SUMMARY •

Drone-based interseeding of cover crops was tested in corn and soybean fields at different canopy maturity stages (green, partially dry, and fully dry/defoliated).

•

Timing of application, especially before rainfall and after dew had evaporated, was important for successful cover crop establishment.

•

Green crop canopies intercepted more seed, especially in corn, while dense soybean canopies funneled seed between rows, affecting spread uniformity.

•

Operational factors like drone calibration, wind speed, and field conditions influenced seed distribution and overall effectiveness.

•

Seed deposition improved and became more uniform as crop canopies dried down or defoliated.

•

Based on the results, the application rate should be 20% higher than the intended target rate to ensure sufficient seed lands on the ground.

RESULTS Table1. Effective mean application rate for each field at green, 50% dried canopy, and 100% dried canopy with an LSD designation to indicate statistical difference within each field at the different canopy conditions (rowwise comparison).

Crop Corn (30in.) Soybeans (30in.) Soybeans (15in.)

Field

Mean Application Rate (lb/ac) ---------- Canopy Condition ----------Green 50% 100%

34 a

27 b

29 a

27 a

29 a

23 b

30 a

42 a

30 ab

25 b

33 a

29 ab

25 b

33 a

25 a

28 a

35 a

32 a

48 a

26 b

30 ab

*LSD designations compare mean application rate between canopy conditions within fields (rows).

TOOLS OF THE TRADE DJI Agras T20P application drone can be equipped with a single disc spreader offered through DJI. The spreader attachment has a capacity of 55 lbs of dry product, and comes with two hopper gates (small and large) to meter products onto the spinner disc depending on application rate. The system must be routinely calibrated for different products to ensure accurate metering.

Figure 3. Corn canopy interception of the cereal rye seeds observed on the leaves and in the leaf collar at 50% dry down.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact John Fulton (fulton.20@osu.edu) or Alex Thomas (thomas.5083@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 205

Drone Spray Deposition OBJECTIVE Evaluate differences in fungicide deposition in corn resulting from applications made with drone sprayers and ground sprayers.

Northwest Ag Research Station OARDC Wood County

Figure 1. Water-sensitive card images collected from the inside ear leaf for the different application methods: (a) Hylio at 5 gal/ac, (b) Hylio at 2.5 gal/ac, (c) DJI at 5 gal/ac, (d) DJI at 2.5 gal/ac, (e) 360 Undercover drops at 20 gal/ac, (f) 360 Undercover drops at 15 gal/ac, (g) boom sprayer at 20 gal/ac, and (h) boom sprayer at 15 gal/ac.

STUDY DESIGN This study was conducted in a corn field at the Northwest Agricultural Research Station, with 96 plots divided into 32 untreated controls and 64 treated plots. Eight application methods were tested, each replicated four times. Ground sprayer treatments included a boom sprayer with XR 11003 VS tips at 40 psi and a 360 Undercover sprayer with Turbo TeeJet 015 nozzles (three per drop) at 40 psi, both applied at 15 and 20 (gal/ac). Drone treatments included the DJI AGRAS T20P and Hylio AG130, each flown 8 feet above the canopy at 2.5 and 5 gal/ac. Ground sprayer plots measured 100 feet by 10 feet, while drone plots measured 100 feet by 20 feet. Deposition was assessed using water-sensitive cards placed at 30 and 60 feet within each plot, with cards positioned above, below, and on the ear leaf, as well as outside the ear leaf. Cards were scanned with a DropeScope analyzer to quantify coverage, droplet size (VMD), droplet count, and applied volume (gal/ac).

206 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Figure 2. Example of card placement on curled, erect leaves due to drought and heat stress at the time of fungicide application.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Application equipment and spray rate significantly influenced fungicide deposition in corn. Deposition patterns differed by equipment type: drones tended to deposit more above the ear leaf, while ground sprayers deposited more below the ear leaf. This difference is likely explained by operating height, as ground sprayers applied just above the canopy whereas drones sprayed from approximately 8 feet above the canopy. Wind speed during the study was considered negligible. Additional factors such as spray height and time of day may have affected results along with hot, droughty conditions at the time of application.

•

Statistically, the boom ground sprayer applied more on the top side of the ear lead whereas the ground sprayer using Y-Drops uniformly applied to the top and bottom of the ear leaf.

•

The ground machine had statistically larger diameter droplets and higher quantity of droplets compared to the drones. This result is most likely due to the different in spray volume between the two types of applicators.

•

Increasing application rate generally increased deposition on the ear leaf.

RESULTS

Treatments (gal/ac) Ground w/ Boom 15 Ground w/ Boom 20 Ground w/ Drops 15 Ground w/ Drops 20 DJI 2.5 DJI 5 Hylio 2.5 Hylio 5

Ear Leaf Location

Coverage (%)

Quantity of Drops

VMD (μm)

Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom

0.6 3.0 6.1 0.2 5.0 8.9 4.2 4.8 0.4 0.2 1.7 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.9

1100 bcd 274 ef 1603 ab 65 f 1541 ab 1735 a 1310 abc 1315 ab 120 f 112 f 721 de 81 f 413 ef 208 ef 328 ef 758 cde

230 ab 171 f 254 abc 105 cde 251 ab 281 a 268 a 231 ab 165 de 85 f 234 ab 132 ef 196 bcd 118 ef 125 ef 126 ef

LSD: 557 CV: 131%

LSD: 59 CV: 54%

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE The Hylio AG130 is a high-capacity agricultural spray drone with dual 4‑gallon tanks, GPS navigation, and radar systems for precision application. It can autonomously cover up to 50 acres per hour, delivering efficient fungicide, herbicide, or fertilizer deposition.

2025 eFields Report | 207

Estimating Cover Crop Biomass OBJECTIVE Enhance cereal rye biomass estimation by integrating high-resolution drone data with environmental variables.

eFields Collaborating Farm OSU Extension Statewide

STUDY INFORMATION Study Years 2021, 2022, 2024 Total Fields 20 Cover Crop Cereal Rye Data Collection Spring (March - May) Sensors Multispectral (DJI Phantom 4 Multispectral and Micasense Altum) Drone DJI Phantom4 and WingtraOne

Visual of data collected throughout the study.

Flight Altitude ~ 90 to 100 m Range

STUDY DESIGN The study was conducted on 28 fields planted with cereal rye over three cover crop seasons. There were 15 fields during 2020-2021, 5 fields during 20212022 and 8 fields during 2023-2024. Field-based sampling of cereal rye biomass was completed during springtime (March to May) in all years and at multiple locations within each field. Multispectral imagery was acquired using sensors onboard the drone prior to field sampling.

Illustration of data compilation.

The following were accessed for use in the study: • National Commodity Crop Productivity Index (NCCPI) data from the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database. • Weather data from Daymet. • Elevation data from the Ohio Geographically Referenced Information Program (OGRIP). • Crop height and vegetation indices derived from multispectral images. Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) machine learning regression was used to predict cereal rye biomass using two distinct feature configurations: (1) Drone-derived features only and (2) Drone-derived + environmental features. Models were trained using only data from two seasons: 2020-2021 and 20212022, and evaluated on 2023-2024.

208 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

SHAP-based Feature Importance

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS •

• •

Drone-derived features (Figure 1) were able to explain approximately 55% of the variance in the fieldmeasured biomass. The model underperformed at higher biomass levels (>200 g m-2). Including environmental features increased the model’s predictability (Figure 2). Weather related features collectively accounted for 54% to the model prediction highlighting the dominant role of thermal and moisture availability driving biomass accumulation.

Figure 1.

• • •

Drone-derived features contributed to 42% highlighting secondary yet important role as proxy for crop growth. Soil productivity and topography had minor influence likely reflecting indirect effects through interaction with other factors. Model applied independently to 2024 fields show a strong correlation with the field-measured biomass values showing temporal transferability and generalizability.

Figure 2.

SUMMARY •

Drone-derived features alone were insufficient to capture biomass variability; integrating complementary environmental data sources improved accuracy and reliability.

•

The model demonstrated strong generalization across fields from multiple years.

•

Multi-year, multi-field cover crop biomass estimation can be strengthened by combining multiple data types into a unified modeling framework.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE

PROJECT CONTACT

WingtraOne is a fully autonomous, professional-grade fixed-wing vertical takeoff & landing (VTOL) drone. It is designed for large-area mapping.

For inquiries about this project, contact Sami Khanal (khanal.3@osu.edu) or Kushal KC (kc.7@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 209

Land Suitability Assessment OBJECTIVE Evaluate land suitability for cultivating alternative natural rubber producing crops and assess their potential natural rubber production.

eFields Collaborating Farm OSU Extension Statewide

STUDY INFORMATION Crops Assessed Rubber Dandelion, Guayule Study Location Continental United States Input Data Historical Climate Data, Soil Data, Topographic Data

STUDY DESIGN The motivation for this study comes from the need to strengthen domestic natural rubber production, since the United States depends almost entirely on imported Hevea rubber. Research has indicated that guayule and rubber dandelion are promising alternatives that can thrive in regions where Hevea cannot be cultivated. Their known climate and soil requirements, gathered from agronomic studies and expert input, were used to guide this suitability assessment. The analysis reclassified each environmental factor according to optimal growth conditions and assigned weights using the Analytical Hierarchy Process. These weighted layers were then combined to generate a continuous suitability index for each crop. Soil texture Table 1. Optimal growth parameters for alternative rubber crops. and soil pH served Guayule Rubber Dandelion Suitability as the starting soil Parameters High Moderate High Moderate characteristics, and historical climate Temperature (°C) 26 - 35 (21 - 26) and (35 - 40) 15 - 25 (10 - 15) and (25 - 30) data from the past 20 years, including Precipitation (mm) 250 - 380 (150 - 250) and (380 - 500) 500 - 800 800 - 1200 precipitation and temperature, Snow Cover (%) <10 <30 provided additional Soil Texture Loamy soil Loamy soil insight into environmental Soil pH 7 - 8.5 (6.7 - 7) and (8.5 - 8.8) 6 - 7.5 (5.7 - 6) and (7.5 - 7.8) conditions that influence crop Elevation (m) 500 - 1500 1500 - 2000 <1500 establishment.

210 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

At planting, guayule is best suited to dry and warm regions with well drained soils, while rubber dandelion performs better in cool and moist environments with fertile soils. Soil characteristics in many southern and southwestern states align with the environmental needs of guayule, whereas soils in the Midwest and northern regions are more favorable for rubber dandelion because of their moderate pH and higher organic matter content. Season long observations from the environmental layers show that areas with high snow covers and poorly drained soil are consistently less suitable. Temperature extremes in the Southwest and prolonged spring moisture in the Midwest may affect establishment if these crops are tested under field conditions.

•

This study identified regional patterns in the suitability of alternative natural rubber crops across the United States.

•

Guayule showed high suitability in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

•

Rubber dandelion showed high suitability in Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Kansas, Minnesota, Illinois, and Ohio.

•

Both crops possess strong potential to support domestic natural rubber production when cultivated in regions that match their environmental requirements.

•

Future research will focus on improving factor weights, refining crop growth thresholds, and validating predictions through field trials.

Guayule Table 2. Natural rubber yields in million metric tons (MT) per year.

Guayule

Rubber Dandelion

Minimum

18.6

27.7

Average

40.3

60.0

Maximum

62.0

92.3

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Google Earth Engine is a cloud-based computing platform that allows users to process, analyze, and visualize large geospatial datasets at scale. This was used to process national climate, soil, and topographic data to perform multicriteria evaluations and produce the suitability maps.

Rubber Dandelion

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Sami Khanal (khanal.3@osu.edu) or Sandeep Dhakal (dhakal.33@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 211

Soybean Replant Decision Tool OBJECTIVE Develop a web-based dashboard to support soybean replanting decisions using drone imagery and artificial intelligence models.

eFields Collaborating Farm OSU Extension Statewide

STUDY INFORMATION Planting Date Mid-April to June of 2023 Harvest Date October to November 2023 Counties Clark, Wayne, Wood Previous Crop Corn Row Spacing 15 in.

STUDY DESIGN In the early season, plant population losses often arise from abiotic (saturated soil, soil surface crusting, frost, hail damage) and/or biotic stressors (insects, slugs, disease). These losses raise a critical management question: Should the field be replanted to maximize yield potential? Upon working with soybean researchers, it was found that soybeans can still yield well at lower populations if plant emergence is uniform. Therefore, a tool that evaluates both population and spatial emergence patterns is needed before undertaking replanting decisions.

Screenshot of the developed web-based replanting decisionsupport tool, illustrating steps 1 (upload drone or smartphone captured soybean field images) and 2 (visualizes soybean stands detected by the YOLO model).

Recent advancements in drone and artificial technology (AI) now make it possible to capture detailed emergence patterns and spatial variability across entire fields, enabling centimeter-level mapping of early soybean growth. An object detection model, YOLOv8 (You Only Look Once, version 8), was trained on 1,159 manually annotated images of soybean fields from the Ohio State Western (Clark County), Wooster (Wayne County), and Northwest (Wood County) Agricultural Research Stations to detect soybean stands. The model achieved an accuracy of 81%, MAP@0.5 (predicted bounding boxes overlap correctly (≥ 50%) with the ground truth boxes). Spatial uniformity is derived using the Actual vs Theoretical Evenness Index (ATEI) formula: ATEI = (Observed spacing (cm)) (Theoretical spacing (cm))

212 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Screenshot of the developed web-based replanting decisionsupport tool, illustrating step 3 (displaying the derived stand and its uniformity statistics).

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

TOOL DEVELOPMENT The tool development was divided into three significant steps: 1. Develop an AI model to evaluate plant population and spatial uniformity (plant-to-plant spacing). 2. Deliver these insights through an interactive web-based platform. 3. Disseminate the tool to growers and collect feedback to refine its usability and performance.

Screenshot of the developed webbased replanting decision-support tool, illustrating step 4 (check the location of the image and access any previously uploaded images).

SUMMARY •

To enable easy access and use of AI model insights, an interactive open-access web-based tool was created using the Python platform.

•

Integrating an AI model into the replanting decision support tool helped communicate soybean emergence details accurately in near real-time.

•

The tool can reduce reliance on subjective, labor-intensive manual field assessments that can cause unnecessary stress, costs, and resources.

•

The developed spatial uniformity statistics enable farmers to examine within-field plant emergence variability.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Sami Khanal (khanal.3@osu.edu) or Sushma Katari (katari.5@osu.edu).

A stakeholder-driven tool was developed to empower farmers in guiding optimal replanting decisions by integrating high-resolution plant population data, spatial uniformity metrics, management information, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) models. The tool was showcased at the 2025 Farm Science Review (FSR), where growers and visitors were introduced to its features and its potential to improve replanting decisions. Valuable feedback was gathered to guide further refinement. Access the tool using the QR code the right, or this direct link: fieldvision-app-d3b82e6fec5d.herokuapp.com/

2025 eFields Report | 213

Sprayer Calibration CALIBRATING SPRAYERS WITH RATE CONTROLLERS When there is a rate controller in the cab it adjusts the flow rate of the sprayer regardless of changes in ground speed. The gallons per acre application rate is entered and the controller handles the rest. So, should the sprayer still be calibrated? The answer: yes, a calibration of the sprayer is still necessary. Although rate controllers do an excellent job of maintaining a consistent application rate regardless of travel speed, manual calibration at least once a year is essential for two reasons: 1. To confirm the rate controller is working correctly 2. To prevent the rate controller from operating outside the recommended pressure range for the nozzles on the sprayer boom.

MANUAL CALIBRATION IS A GOOD PRACTICE 1. If you are stopped by a police officer for speeding, telling the officer that “the car was in cruise control set to the speed limit” will not prevent you from getting a ticket. Cruise controls can fail, and the same goes for rate controllers. That’s why it’s best to manually check the flow rate of nozzles to ensure the gallons per acre application rate you enter on the controller matches the gallons per acre rate provided by the nozzles. 2. Your controller might be in good condition, but if the ground speed sensor provides incorrect data to the controller, it won't operate accurately. For instance, if the speed sensor relies on revolutions of the tractor wheels, the calculated ground speed may be inaccurate due to slippage that can occur under certain ground conditions. Even a slight variation in tire pressure by a few psi can alter the tire revolutions per minute, resulting in incorrect travel speed readings. 3. Unfortunately, most standard electronic controllers cannot detect changes in flow rate at each nozzle on the boom. So, if a nozzle is plugged or extremely worn, the rate controller cannot alert us to these issues, which happen frequently. It will still attempt to keep the application rate steady by adjusting system pressure and forcing other nozzles on the boom to spray more or less to compensate for problems with one or several nozzles on the spray boom. 4. Finally, controllers don’t detect changes in spray patterns that can occur when a nozzle is defective, plugged, or worn out. If several nozzles fail to maintain the proper spray angle, the correct overlap between adjacent spray patterns cannot be established. This can lead to untreated areas and streaks under the boom, or some areas may receive too much pesticide deposition. Therefore, we will need to continue manually checking the flow rate of the nozzles and visually monitoring spray pattern changes until the technology is developed to do these observations remotely and on the go. 5. For effective pesticide application, spray rate and droplet size should remain consistent. When sprayer speed increases, the controller raises pressure to maintain the application rate, which can create smaller, drift-prone droplets, especially with nozzles designed for low rates. When speed decreases, pressure drops, producing larger droplets that may reduce coverage. Large ground speed changes can force the controller outside the legal pressure range for some herbicides, potentially putting you out of label compliance. Choose a nozzle size that allows the controller to make necessary rate adjustments, while staying within a safe and legal pressure limits.

214 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Small Grains

Soybean

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

HOW TO CALIBRATE A SPRAYER It can take about 30 minutes to calibrate a sprayer, and only a few things are needed: •

Watch or smartphone, to record the time when measuring the nozzle flow rate or the travel speed.

•

Measuring tape

•

Jar, cup, or pitcher container that measures in ounces.

•

Some protective equipment, like goggle and gloves.

Refer to the Ohio State University Extension publication FABE-520 for an easy method to calibrate a boom-type sprayer. See the calibration distance table from the fact sheet below. ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/fabe-520 Calibration distance for each nozzle to spray 1/128 acre Nozzle/row spacing (in.)

Travel distance (ft.)

Nozzle/row spacing (in.)

Travel distance (ft.)

227

136

204

127

185

120

170

113

157

107

146

102

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Erdal Ozkan (ozkan.2@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 215

Target Spray - Pre Applications OBJECTIVE

Molly Caren Agricultural Center

Evaluating potential cost savings with a target spray application system compared to broadcast applications on soybeans.

OARDC Madison County

STUDY DESIGN

This project is evaluating potential cost savings with a target spray application system compared to broadcast applications on soybeans. We evaluated six pre-planting spray applications across multiple fields. These fields had a combination of no-till and tillage. Historically, weed control across this farm has been excellent. Field details are included in Table 1. The technology used in this study was John Deere See and SprayTM. In 2024 it had a technology fee of $1 per acre for pre-planting applications. Costs of broadcast applications were calculated to determine cost savings with a target spray application. No broadcast application was actually made. Table 1. Fields receiving pre-planting target spray herbicide applications.

Field

Acres

Acres Not Applied

Application Date

Plant Date

Previous Crop

Tillage1

33%

4/22

4/19

Corn

79%

4/22

4/18

Corn

80%

4/22

4/19

Corn

3MISD

21%

4/16

4/23

Wheat

4/16

4/23

Wheat

114

89%

4/15

5/1

Corn

Avg: 51%

FT- Full Tillage, NT- No Till, VT- Vertical Tillage

Table 2. Economic analysis of pre-planting target spray.

1 2

Field

Percent Acres Applied

Target Spray Cost1

Broadcast Spray Cost2

Cost Savings

Percent Savings

Products Used

67%

$178

$224

$46

21%

Roundup PowerMax 3

21%

$41

$164

$123

75%

Roundup PowerMax 3

20%

$44

$186

$142

76%

Roundup PowerMax 3

3MISD

79%

$241

$276

$35

13%

Roundup PowerMax 3, 2,4-D LV6

97%

$477

$455

-$22

-5%

Roundup PowerMax 3, 2,4-D LV6, Metribuzin

11%

$123

$1,049

$926

88%

Roundup PowerMax 3, 2,4-D LV6

Cost includes $4/ac tech fee. Total cost per field. Broadcast spray cost minus target spray cost. Total savings per field.

216 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS The broadcast spray application cost for pre-planting ranged from $5.47 to $12.29/ac with the target spray ranging $6.47 to $13.29/ac. Since only target spray was used in 2024, visual observations were used to evaluate weed control effectiveness.

2024 Application: Soybean Burndown Target Spray Field: 4A OSU | FSR Start: Apr 22, 2024 12:30 PM End: Apr 22, 2024 12:49 PM

Operator Name: Michael Schmid Operator License: 150426

Weed pressure map depicting areas of increased weed presence (left). Target spray application map (right), Work Totals and the application summary (below). Area Type

RESULTS

Area

% of Area

Applied Rate

Applied Total

Target Rate

Target Total

Area Covered

30.3 ac

100 %

3.19 gal/ac

96.8 gal

15 gal/ac

455 gal

Area Applied

6.4 ac

21.1 %

15.09 gal/ac

96.8 gal

14.99 gal/ac

96 gal

Area Covered, Not Applied*

23.9 ac

78.9 %

---

15 gal/ac

359 gal

Area Not Applied 78.9 %

*This is the area the machine covered but did not spray. The "Target Rate" and "Target Total" represent the product saved by using See & Spray technology. Map: Target Rate

For all target spray applications, it was determined that weed control was as good as the broadcast applications. Cost 21 %producer 15 cost the savings were seen in all but one application. Field 6 received target spray to 97% of its acres which 0% 0 8A where $22 more for that field than a regular broadcast application. The largest savings was observed in field only 79 % $1,250 by Area… 11% of the acres were sprayed. This led to an 88% savings over broadcast. Across all fields, this farm saved using target spray technology on the pre-planting application in soybeans.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE

PROJECT CONTACT

3D Target Spray Nozzle has an inclined fan design that can maximize coverage. Improved pattern quality that reduces drift potential. PWM Equipment compatible for ExactApply up to 30Hz pulsing. 1N0412RXTPU244410: 1N0412RXTPU244410 Installed backwards on the boom for target spray applications.

For inquiries about this project, contact Amanda Douridas (douridas.9@osu.edu) or Nathan Douridas (douridas.2@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 217

Target Spray - Post Applications OBJECTIVE

Molly Caren Agricultural Center

Evaluating potential cost savings with a target spray application system compared to broadcast applications on soybeans.

OARDC Madison County

STUDY DESIGN

This project is evaluating potential cost savings with a target spray application system compared to broadcast applications on soybeans. We evaluated three fields for post-planting spray applications. These fields all received spring vertical tillage. Historically, weed control across this farm has been excellent. Field details are included in Table 1. The industry reporting method for target spray coverage is in acres NOT applied as a percent so that is why we reported coverage as such in Table 1. The technology used in this study was John Deere See and SprayTM. In 2025 it had a technology fee of $5/ac on acres NOT applied for POST applications. Costs of broadcast applications were calculated to determine cost savings with a target spray application. No broadcast application was actually made. Target spray display. Table 1. Fields receiving post-planting target spray herbicide applications.

Field

Field Size

Acres Not Applied

Application Date

Plant Date

Previous Crop

Tillage1

56%

7/16

4/22

Soybeans

199

58%

7/4

6/4

Corn

118

71%

7/4

5/16

Wheat

Avg: 62%

VT- Vertical Tillage

Vertical Tillage Field 7 as applied target spray map.

218 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS The herbicide product cost for all post-planting applications was $12/ac. A $5 technology fee is added to the acres NOT applied by the target spray technology. In years past, broadcast applications with the same chemistry have resulted in zero weed escapes. Visual observations were used to evaluate weed control effectiveness. It should be noted that spring applied residual herbicides were used in all fields. Table 2. Economic analysis of post-planting target spray.

1 2

Field

Acres Applied

Target Spray Cost1

Broadcast Spray Cost2

Cost Savings

Net Savings/Ac

Products Used

$791

$1,176

$385

Roundup PowerMax 3, Liberty

$1,576

$2,388

$812

Liberty, Section 3

$828

$1,416

$588

Roundup PowerMax 3, Liberty

Cost includes $5/ac tech fee on not-applied acres. Total cost per field. Broadcast spray cost minus target spray cost. Total savings per field.

RESULTS For all target spray applications, it was determined that weed control was as good as broadcast expectations. Cost savings were seen in all field applications using target spray. Total savings across all three fields was $1,785. The per acre savings ranged from $4-5 across the three fields.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE See and SprayTM Camera With up to 36 cameras mounted on the boom, it covers 2,100 sq. ft., scanning for weeds. It works with a boom mounted processor to see, selectively target, and kill weeds while operating. Weed detection can be done on fallow and incrop including corn and soybeans.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Amanda Douridas (douridas.9@osu.edu) or Nathan Douridas (douridas.2@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 219

Other Research

ePLUS represents an Ohio State University program dedicated to advancing production agriculture and wise use of natural resources through on-location research. Current research is focused on crop pest and cultural management, conservation, technology, mechanization, economic analysis, and community engagement. Are you interested in contributing to the 2026 ePLUS Report? If so, visit go.osu.edu/ePLUS to review study implementation plus tips and tricks. See below for details on how to get involved and who to contact. We look forward to working with you!

64 counties participated in ePLUS in 2025.

Growers

Industry Representatives

Growers interested in hosting on-farm or on-location research trials for publication in the annual ePLUS report should reach out to their county Agriculture and Natural Resources Extension Educator (go.osu.edu/anrmap). To view a list of those educators who are already involved, see page 14. Standard protocols for pest monitoring, variety trials, market outlet surveys, and local food price reports have been developed for statewide implementation. Contact us today to find out how to get involved. Additional protocols and topics are being developed and can be customized to fit your questions and needs!

We are always looking for new partners to conduct onfarm trials! If you are interested in determining how you can support Ohio State University On-Location Research, reach out to your county Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR) Extension Educator, or email Dr. Logan Minter (minter.21@osu.edu). We would love to discuss your involvement with the ePLUS program!

COLLEGE of FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES EXTENSION

Ohio State University Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources empowers Ohio’s agriculture and natural resources communities, provides outreach and education based on unbiased research, and cultivates relationships to strengthen the economic viability and quality of life for Ohioans. Follow us @OhioStateANR

agnr.osu.edu

Biologicals - Flint Corn OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Understand the impact of using a seed treatment on harvest yield and moisture in flint corn.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Union County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 5/26/2025 Harvest Date 11/23/2025 Variety Cateto Orange Flint Corn Population 21,000 sds/ac Acres 1 Treatments 2 Reps 4 Treatment Width 10 ft. Tillage Conventional Management Fertilizer Previous Crop Spelt, then Clover Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Westland Silty Clay Loam, 51% St Clair Silt Loam, 46% Nappanee Silt Loam, 3%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

7.32

5.67

2.13

2.68

1.40

0.87

20.07

Cumulative GDDs

230

542

1219

1999

2579

3059

STUDY DESIGN This study was a randomized block trial consisting of BioCoat-Gold seed treatment and a control. BioCoat-Gold contains seaweed, calcium, humic substances and microbial inoculants. Seaweed contains potassium that can help seedling vigor while helping the seedling build a robust root system. The rate of seed treatment was 4oz/100lbs of seed. All control plots were planted first to avoid contamination in seed boxes. Harvest moisture and yield data were then collected in the fall. The plots were harvested with a 4-row combine and then offloaded into large seed totes. The tote was then weighed on a platform scale and moisture samples were taken.

222 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Scale set up next to seed and seed treatment used.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

No visual differences between the plots was observed. Extremely heavy weed pressure was present throughout the field.

•

Ag Tech

Other

There was no statistical difference in yield or harvest moisture between treated and untreaded seed plots.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (bu/ac)

Control

20.4

13 a

Seed Treatment

20.2

14 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 3 CV: 11.5%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Wayne Dellinger (dellinger.6@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 223

Biologicals - Sunflowers OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Measure sunflower yield response of a Beauveria bassiana (Bb) seed treatment at planting.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Henry County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 6/14/2025 Harvest Date 10/29/2025 Variety Hornet Population 27,000 sds/ac Acres 9 Treatments 2 Reps 4 Treatment Width 20 ft. Tillage Conventional Management Fertilizer Previous Crop Fallow Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Hoytville Clay Loam, 95% Haskins Loam, 5%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

3.76

4.10

3.53

2.62

0.62

1.56

16.19

Cumulative GDDs

205

532

1203

1964

2567

3047

STUDY DESIGN This was strip trial design consisting of one treatment (Beauveria bassiana on seed) and an untreated check (control). The treatments were replicated four times in alternating strips (not randomized). Treatments were planted with a 12-row planter. Six-row plot centers were harvested for data. All tillage and weed control passes were uniform across all treatments. Yield and moisture data were collected with a weigh wagon and John Deere moisture tester. Statistics were analyzed with a simple analysis of variation (ANOVA). A view of the sunflower field prior to harvest.

224 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

A view of the sunflower field during harvest.

Corn

Small Grains

Soybean

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Final stand over all subplots was lower than anticipated based on seeding rate and germination. This was likely due to excess moisture around planting. The overall planting conditions were slightly wetter than preferred. However, there were no visual growth differences between the treatments during the growing season. Dry conditions late in the growing season affected overall crop yield. No observed difference in foliar leaf diseases between the two treatments.

•

The control pass had a significantly higher yield than the SPE 120 / Beauveria bassiana treatment.

•

There was no difference in moisture at the time of harvest.

•

Stand count between the control and treated area was 2,000 plants/ac higher.

RESULTS Treatments

Avg. Emergence (plants/ac)

Moisture (%)

Yield (lbs/ac)

Control

15,875

8.0

2,383 a

SPE 120 / Beauveria bassiana

17,875

8.0

2,127 b

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 164 CV: 4.2%

TOOLS OF THE TRADE

PROJECT CONTACT

Sunflowers were harvested using a Case IH 1010 grain table retrofitted with Lucke sunflower pans. This head is designed to decrease header loss of sunflower heads during the harvest.

For inquiries about this project, contact Alan Leininger (leininger.17@osu.edu) or Eric Richer (richer.5@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 225

Biologicals - Sunflowers OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Understand the impact of using a seed treatment on harvest yield and moisture in sunflowers.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Union County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 6/7/2025 & 6/20/2025 Harvest Date 10/25/2025 & 11/14/2025 Hybrid Peredovik and Hornet Population 22,000 sds/ac Acres 4 Treatments 2 Reps 8 Treatment Width 10 ft. Tillage Conventional Management Fertilizer Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Blount Silt Loam, 93% Glynwood Clay Loam, 5% Wetzel Silty Clay Loam, 1%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

7.32

5.67

2.13

2.68

1.40

0.87

20.07

Cumulative GDDs

230

542

1219

1999

2579

3059

226 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Planting in June 2025.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

No visual differences between the plots was observed. Weed pressure was minimal in this field due to it being organic for a shorter number of years.

•

Ag Tech

Other

There was no statistical difference in yield or harvest moisture between treated and untreated seed plots.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (lbs/ac)

Control

7.5

1,027 a

Seed Treatment

7.6

1,073 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 55 CV: 5.5%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Wayne Dellinger (dellinger.6@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 227

Cover Crop Population, Planting Date OBJECTIVE

Northwest Ag Research Station

Evaluate effect of cereal rye seeding rate and planting date on cereal rye biomass and ground cover.

STUDY INFORMATION

OARDC Wood County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 10/16/2024, 10/30/2024 & 11/13 2024 Harvest Date 4/30/2025 Variety VNS Population 25, 50, 75 lbs/a Acres 1 Treatments 6 Reps 4 Treatment Width 10 ft. Tillage None Management Herbicide Previous Crop Corn Row Spacing 7.5in. Soil Type Hoytville Clay Loam, 100%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

1.05

7.89

2.77

4.87

4.74

5.17

26.49

Cumulative GDDs

312

433

559

767

1081

1758

STUDY DESIGN The study design was a randomized complete block replicated four times. There were a total of nine treatments consisting of three different seeding rates (25, 50, and 75 lbs/ac) and three different planting dates (October 16, October 30, November 13). Cereal rye was established with drill and chemically terminated on April 30. Biomass and ground cover were measured on April 30 prior to termination.

Cereal rye, Northwest Agricutural Research Station.

228 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Dry fall conditions slightly delayed cereal rye emergence in the fall, but differences in biomass and ground cover were still observed between planting date treatments in the spring. Differences in ground cover and cereal rye biomass were measured were compared with a mixedeffects model and ANOVA. There was no significant interaction between planting date and seeding rate at this location, so main or overall effects of planting date and seeding rate are listed in results.

•

Significant differences in ground cover and biomass were observed between planting date treatments, with earlier planting dates increasing biomass and ground cover.

•

In 2025, seeding rate did not have a significant effect on ground cover or biomass at this location.

RESULTS Treatments

Cereal Rye Biomass (lb/ac)

Cereal Rye Ground Cover (%FGCC)

Early Planting

1,164 a

45 a

Mid Planting

689 b

35 b

Late Planting

291 c

24 c

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 236 CV: 24.1%

LSD: 5 CV: 22.5%

Low Seeding Rate

608 b

32 a

Mid Seeding Rate

721 ab

37 a

High Seeding Rate

815 a

36 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 178 CV: 18.1%

LSD: 5 CV: 11.0%

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Canopeo is a mobile application was used to calculate fractional green canopy cover in a 0.25 sq meters area and estimate ground cover provided byvcereal rye cover crop.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Stephanie Karhoff (karhoff.41@osu.edu) or Elizabeth Hawkins (hawkins.301@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 229

Cover Crop Seeding Rate OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Evaluate the effect of cereal rye seeding rate and planting date on cereal rye biomass, ground cover, and soybean final stand and yield.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Madison County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 9/24/2024 Cover Crop 4/24/2025 Termination Date Cover Crop Cereal Rye Population 15 lbs/ac, 41 lbs/ac, and 65 lbs/ac Acres 20 Treatments 3 Reps 4 Previous Crop Corn Soil Type Crosby-Lewisburg Silt Loams, 65% Kokomo Silty Clay Loam, 33% Sloan Silty Clay Loam, 2%

Growing Season Weather Summary OCT NOV-FEB MAR APR

MAY

JUN

Total

Precip (in.)

0.55

13.49

3.40

5.27

6.16

7.88

36.75

Cumulative GDDs

321

482

643

888

1222 1906

1906

STUDY DESIGN The study design was a randomized complete block replicated four times. There were a total of three treatments consisting of three different cereal rye seeding rates (Low = 15 lbs/ac, Medium = 41 lbs/ac, and High = 65 lbs/ac). All treatments were seeded on 9/24/2024. Cereal rye was established with a drill and chemically terminated on 4/24/2025, two weeks before soybeans were planted. Biomass and ground cover were measured on April 16. Biomass samples were taken using a 0.25 m² quadrat. All material above the ground was sampled and dried before weighing.

230 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

View of the cereal rye prior to termination.

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS No visible difference could be seen in seeding rates at time of sampling (mid-April). There was a visible height difference in strips planted where nitrogen had been injected the previous season. Due to the drought in 2024, the corn did not utilize as much nitrogen and the cereal rye was clearly utilizing what remained.

SUMMARY •

No statistical difference in biomass weight was seen between the three cereal rye seeding rates when sampled on April 16.

•

All Canopeo canopy coverage measurements ranged from 70 - 85%, indicating high coverage even at the lowest seeding rate of 15 lbs/ac. Canopeo image comparison.

RESULTS Treatments

Biomass Dry Weight (T/ac )

Low

0.9 a

Medium

1.1 a

High

0.9 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 0.4 CV: 25.5%

TOOLS OF THE TRADE

PROJECT CONTACT

Canopeo is a mobile application used to calculate fractional green canopy cover in a 0.25 meters² area and estimate ground cover provided by cereal rye cover crop.

For inquiries about this project, contact Amanda Douridas (douridas.9@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 231

Hybrid Trial - Sunflowers OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Understand the impact of using hybrid seed versus open pollinated seed on harvest yield and moisture in sunflowers.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Union County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 6/7/2025 & 6/20/2025 Harvest Date 10/25/2025 & 11/14/2025 Hybrid Hornet Open Pollinated Peredovik Seed Population 22,000 sds/ac Acres 4 Treatments 2 Reps 8 Treatment Width 10 ft. Tillage Conventional Management Fertilizer Previous Crop Soybean Row Spacing 30 in. Soil Type Blount Silt Loam, 93% Glynwood Clay Loam, 5% Wetzel Silty Clay Loam, 1%

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

7.32

5.67

2.13

2.68

1.40

0.87

20.07

Cumulative GDDs

230

542

1219

1999

2579

3059

STUDY DESIGN This study was a randomized block trial consisting of open pollinated seed (Peredovik) and hybrid seed (Hornet). Planting dates were separated by approximately two weeks to prevent cross-pollination. Harvest dates were separated accordingly for target moisture of less than eight percent. Harvest moisture and yield data were then collected in the fall. The plots were harvested with a 4-row combine and then offloaded into large seed totes. The tote was then weighed on a platform scale and moisture samples were taken. Planting sunflowers with a 4-row planter.

232 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Visual observations noted much more uniformity in plant size and height in the hybrid seed plots. Seed head uniformity was noticeably more consistent in hybrid seed plots.

•

The hybrid seed plots had a significantly higher yield when compared to the open pollinated variety.

•

This increase in yield and related revenue will more than offset the increase in seed costs using hybrid seed.

RESULTS Treatments

Moisture (%)

Yield (lbs/ac)

Open Pollinated

7.7

771 b

Hybrid

7.4

1,329 a

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.1.

LSD: 112 CV: 11.3%

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Wayne Dellinger (dellinger.6@osu.edu).

2025 eFields Report | 233

Water Quality Soil Health Summary OBJECTIVE

eFields Collaborating Farm

Evaluating how past field management practices in the Ohio Western Lake Erie Basin influence laboratory soil health values and soil properties.

OSU Extension Statewide

STUDY INFORMATION Study Dates 2020 - 2024 Location Ohio Western Lake Erie Basin

STUDY DESIGN The OSU Water Quality Team participated in the eFields Soil Health Survey, conducted from 2020 - 2024. This survey aimed to understand how past field management practices may influence laboratory soil health values and soil properties. The statewide report can be found online in the 2024 eFields Report (digitalag.osu.edu/efields) on pages 210 - 211. This report will focus only on the field samples taken in the Western Lake Erie Basin by the Water Quality Team. Each field had 15 - 20 soil cores taken at a depth of 8 inches. Samples were analyzed at Spectrum Labs in 2020 and 2021, while in 2022, 2023, and 2024, samples were analyzed at Brookside Laboratories. Routine soil nutrient analyses were performed along with the soil health properties of Permanganate Oxidizable Carbon (POxC), respiration, and wet aggregate stability. Farmers were surveyed to collect the field management history, including number of years in no-till, years in cover crops, manure application history, and crop yield averages. POxC is a test that measures readily available carbon in the soil, also known as active carbon, which serves as a food source for soil microbiology. Quantifying respiration in soil is a method of measuring the CO2 output, or burst, which is how fast the soil food web can ‘wake back up’ and become active again after being in a resting state, simulated by drying the soil before performing the test.

Organic matter in the soil mostly consists of carbon and feeds the soil food web, allowing microbes in the soil to cycle nutrients and energy. Organic matter is a vital component of the soil and understanding how it works and what levels are in a field can illustrate many expected soil properties and responses. Higher organic matter levels in a soil can improve that soil’s resilience to environmental stressors such as drought or excess moisture, allow soil biology to flourish and combat pathogens, and provide nutrients to a cash crop, saving producers money.

RESOURCES Baseline Assessment of Soil Health in Ohio

CFAES, School of Environment and Natural Resources go.osu.edu/SoilHealthBaseline

Soil Aggregate Stability – a soil health physical indicator

Agronomic Crops C.O.R.N. Newsletter

234 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

go.osu.edu/SoilAggregateStability

Soil Quality Indicators: Reactive Carbon

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service go.osu.edu/USDAReactiveCarbon

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

SUMMARY •

Over the five-year period, the sampled fields represented a wide range of management histories, as illustrated in Figure 1. These fields included those with no prior use of no-till or cover crop practices, others with more than 20 years of consistent practice, and various stages in between. The majority of sampled fields had 5 years or less in both no-till and cover crops.

•

Figure 1. Years in Cover Crops (left) and Years in No-Till (right). Years Figure 2 shows an almost perfect in Practice key, from top to bottom: 0-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 20+ correlation between estimated nitrogen (N) release and organic matter. Farmers should consider and be aware of the N constantly cycling in their soil when determining the necessary nutrients for the next crop. Understanding this relationship between organic matter and N release could save farmers on their future fertilizer costs. When organic N is released, contrary to commercial N application, it is done slowly over the course of the growing season. Overapplying N to a field can result in nutrient losses and negative water quality impacts, especially in the Western Lake Erie Basin where Harmful Algal Blooms are an annual occurrence.

•

More information and a more detailed analysis of this data set will be performed and reported in an On-Farm Research Report this winter. On-Farm Research Reports are published annually and are hosted on the OSU Agronomic Crops Network website, agcrops.osu.edu. For questions about this study or work the OSU Water Quality Team has done, visit waterqualityextension.osu.edu.

Figure 2. The red regression line represents the best-fit linear model. There is a strong positive linear relationship between soil organic matter and estimated N release (lb N/acre). As organic matter increases estimated N release for a field increases as well.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact the Water Quality Extension Team: Amber Emmons (emmons.118@osu.edu)

Rachel Henry (henry.1394@osu.edu)

Jocelyn Ruble (ruble.74@osu.edu)

Heather Torlina (torlina.1@osu.edu)

The Water Quality Extension Associates are supported through partnerships with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and Cargill.

2025 eFields Report | 235

Ohio Crop Performance Trials OHIO SOYBEAN, CORN, AND WHEAT PERFORMANCE TRIALS

The purpose of the Ohio Crop Performance Trials is to evaluate corn hybrids and soybean and wheat varieties for grain yield and other important agronomic characteristics. Results of the trials can assist farmers in selecting hybrids and varieties best suited to their farming operations and production environments and can complement recommendations made by seed companies and breeding programs. Going into the 2026 growing season, hybrid and variety selection should be prioritized to maximize crop yield, especially when input costs are high and crop prices are low.

SUMMARY OF THE SOYBEAN PERFORMANCE TRIAL

In 2025, soybean varieties were tested in six counties Henry, Sandusky, Mercer, Licking, Preble, and Clinton (Figure 1). At each location, there was an early maturity trial and a late maturity trial. In 2025, soybean yield varied greatly among the six trial locations, with yields as low as 55 bu/ac in Sandusky County and as high as 104 bu/acre in Preble County. A summary of soybean yield by location and maturity group is given in Table 1.

Variability in soybean yield among the trial locations is likely related to planting date, soil type, and rainfall. Planting dates were as early as April 28 in Preble County and as late as May 30 in Sandusky County. Season-long rainfall was 11 inches in Henry County, 16 inches in Sandusky County, 12 inches in Mercer County, 22 inches in Licking County, and 24 inches in Clinton County. Rainfall data was unavailable for Preble County due to a weather station malfunction.

Generally, trial locations had adequate rainfall in May, June, and July, with drier conditions in August and September. August and September rainfall totaled 2.6 inches in Henry County, 1.6 inches in Sandusky County, 1.1 inches in Mercer County, 4.1 inches in Licking County, and 5.2 inches in Clinton County. Lower-yielding conditions in Sandusky County may have been due to the later planting date, lower rainfall in August and September, and sandy clay loam soil Figure 1. Locations of texture. the 2025 Ohio Soybean Performance Trials.

Table 1. Soybean yield range and average yield at each trial location for the early and late maturity trials, 2025 season.

Regions North Region Central Region South Region

County

Early Maturity Trial

Late Maturity Trial

Henry

62 to 81 (avg = 74)

70 to 82 (avg = 76)

Sandusky

55 to 70 (avg = 64)

56 to 69 (avg = 64)

Mercer

60 to 75 (avg = 67)

58 to 75 (avg = 68)

Licking

71 to 102 (avg = 90)

72 to 97 (avg = 87)

Preble

78 to 104 (avg = 92)

66 to 99 (avg = 87)

Clinton

70 to 93 (avg = 83)

62 to 88 (avg = 79)

PROJECT CONTACT To access the archive of performance trial results, scan the QR code to the right, or use this direct link: u.osu.edu/perf/archive/.

236 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

For inquiries about this project, contact Osler Ortez (ortez.5@osu.edu), Laura Lindsey (lindsey.233@osu.edu), or Rich Minyo (minyo.1@osu.edu). Additional Acknowledgments: M.A. Lowe, A. Geyer, M.W. Hankinson, J. McCormick

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

SUMMARY OF THE OHIO CORN PERFORMANCE TRIAL

In 2025, corn hybrids were tested in ten counties (with nine published in Table 2), grouped in three Ohio regions: Northwestern (Van Wert, Wood, and Wyandot), North Central/Northeastern (Crawford, Columbiana, and Wayne), and Southwest/West Central (Licking, Fayette, Clark, and Miami) (Figure 2). Each region had 3 - 4 locations. At each location, there was an early maturity and a full season trial. IIn 2025, overall corn yields were higher Figure 2. Locations of compared to 2024, and they the 2025 Ohio Corn varied depending on location. Performance Trials. Corn yields ranged from as low

as 106 bu/ac in Wood County and as high as 338 bu/ac in Wyandot County. A summary of corn yield by location and maturity trial is presented in Table 2. Yield variability among the trial locations is likely due to planting dates and limited precipitation later in the season. Planting dates were as early as May 18 in Licking County and as late as June 4 in Wayne County. Rainfall during the growing season was variable across our test sites, ranging from 20.0 inches (9.0 inches below average) at Van Wert in the Northwest region to 35.5 inches (8.9 inches above average) at Hebron in the Southwestern / Central Region. Statewide the Growing Degree Day (GDD) heat-unit accumulation ranged from 3,023 to 3,459 and averaged 188 GDD’s lower in 2025 when compared to 2024. The yield impact of the dry conditions in August and September was largely dependent on location, planting date and timely scattered rain events.

Table 2. Corn yield range and average yield at each trial location for the early and late maturity trials, 2025 season.

Regions Northwest Region

North Central and Northeast Region

Southwest and West Central Region

County

Early Maturity Trial

Late Maturity Trial

Van Wert

208 to 266 (avg = 242)

216 to 274 (avg = 244)

Wood

125 to 168 (avg = 152)

106 to 174 (avg = 153)

Wyandot

241 to 319 (avg = 293)

251 to 338 (avg = 310)

Crawford

229 to 300 (avg = 263)

227 to 279 (avg = 253)

Wayne

156 to 215 (avg = 192)

149 to 220 (avg = 188)

Licking

263 to 316 (avg = 294)

271 to 319 (avg = 297)

Fayette

200 to 280 (avg = 260)

232 to 296 (avg = 269)

Clark

223 to 293 (avg = 268)

235 to 288 (avg = 265)

Miami

234 to 287 (avg = 255)

212 to 275 (avg = 246)

SUMMARY OF THE OHIO WHEAT PERFORMANCE TRIAL

In 2025, winter wheat varieties were tested in five counties to previous years. Harvest was later compared to previous (Wood, Wayne, Clark, Pickaway, and Union) (Figure 3). In years. Across the five locations, grain yield averaged 91 bu/ Fall 2024, wheat was planted ac. Table 3 gives a summary of wheat yield by location. at three out of five locations within 17 days of the Hessian Table 3. Wheat yield range and average yield at each trial fly-free date. Wet fall weather location, 2025 season. prevented earlier planting. Fall County Yield (bu/acre) growth was adequate given the later planting dates, and wheat Wood 90 to 110 (avg = 101) entered dormancy in good condition. Cool temperatures Wayne 92 to 117 (avg = 104) and adequate soil moisture led Union 43 to 91 (avg = 69) to a long grain fill period. Wet Figure 3. Locations of conditions in May and June Clark 66 to 103 (avg = 82) the 2025 Ohio Wheat resulted in higher disease and Pickaway 80 to 108 (avg = 97) Performance Test. lower test weights compared

2025 eFields Report | 237

Ohio Crop Performance Trials

2025 Ohio Corn Performance Test R.J. Minyo, M.A. Lowe, and O. Ortez, The Ohio State University College of Food, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences (CFAES) Department of Horticulture and Crop Science Ohio State University Extension/Ohio Agricultural Research & Development Center.

The purpose of the Ohio Corn Performance Test (OCPT) is to evaluate corn hybrids for grain yield and other important agronomic characteristics. Results of the test can assist farmers in selecting hybrids best suited to their farming operations and production environments as well as complement recommendations made by seed companies and breeding programs. Corn hybrids differ considerably in yield potential, standability, maturity, and other agronomic characteristics that affect profitable crop production. Hybrid selection should be based on proven performance from multiple test locations and years. The presentation of results in this report does not imply endorsement of any hybrid by The Ohio State University.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES Annually, seed companies marketing corn hybrids in Ohio are invited to enter hybrids in the test. An entry fee per hybrid is charged to cover operational expenses of the program. In 2025, companies were permitted to enter an unlimited number of hybrids. Ten sites were available for hybrid evaluation covering three regions of Ohio (Southwestern/West Central/Central; Northwestern; North Central/ Northeastern). Seed companies were required to enter each hybrid at all the sites within a testing region. Each hybrid entry was evaluated using three replications per site in a randomized complete block design (RCBD). Hybrids were planted either in an early or full season maturity trial based on relative maturity information provided by companies. In the Southwestern/West Central/Central region, the relative maturity of hybrid entries in the early maturity trial was 111 days or earlier; the relative maturity of hybrid entries in the full season trial was 112 days or later. In the Northwestern and North Central/Northeastern regions, the relative maturity of hybrid entries in the early maturity trial was 108 days or earlier; the relative maturity of hybrid entries in the full season trial was 109 days or later. Hybrids were planted with an Almaco Seed Pro 360 plot planter with SkyTrip GPS. Each plot consisted of four, 30-inch rows approximately 25 feet long. Force 6.5 soil insecticide was applied in a T-band to all plots at planting. Seed companies selected a final stand and percent overplant for each hybrid entered in the test. Fertilizer, herbicides, insecticides, and foliar fungicides were applied according to recommended cultural practices for obtaining optimum grain yields as needed at each location. Details concerning the establishment and management of each 2025 test are listed in footnotes below the tables for each location.

MEASUREMENTS AND RECORDS YIELD. The center two rows of each plot were harvested with an Almaco R1 Rotary research combine equipped with the HarvestMaster H2 Classic GrainGage and Mirus software package. Yields were reported as bushels of grain per acre (Bu/A) at 15.5 percent moisture.

MOISTURE (Harv Mst). A grain moisture determination was made from each plot with an electrical conductance moisture meter. Grain moisture was reported as percent grain moisture. LODGING (Stk Ldg). The number of broken stalks in each plot was determined prior to harvest. Only those plants with a stalk broken below the ear were considered stalk lodged. Stalk lodging was reported as a percentage of final plant stand. FINAL STAND (Final Std). Seed companies selected a desired planting rate for each hybrid entered. Differences between the planting rate and the final stand may be attributed to seed quality and/or environmental conditions present. Plant populations are reported in hundreds per acre (100/A). EMERGENCE (Emg). A plant count was made on each plot after plant emergence. The emergence percentage was computed based on the number of plants and the number of seeds planted, and reported as the percentage of the seeds planted. TEST WEIGHT (TW). Test weights were recorded in pounds (lbs.) per bushel on grain samples at field moisture. The results are averaged and summarized for each region. LEAST SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES (LSD) 0.10 - at probability level 0.10 (LSD 0.10) are reported for yield and other agronomic characteristics. Differences between hybrids are significant only if they are equal to or greater than the LSD value. If a given hybrid outyields another hybrid by as much or more than the LSD value, then we are 90% confident (i.e., the odds are 10:1) that the yield difference is real, with only a 10% probability that the difference is due to chance variation (such as soil variation, etc.). For example, if Hybrid X is 19 Bu/A higher in yield than Hybrid Y, then this difference is statistically significant if the LSD is 19 Bu/A or less. If the LSD is 20 Bu/A or greater, then we are less confident that Hybrid X is higher yielding than Hybrid Y under conditions of the test. If ‘NS’ is indicated for a characteristic, then the differences among hybrid entries are not significant at the 10% probability level.

ohiocroptest.cfaes.osu.edu

238 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

2025 GROWING CONDITIONS The 2025 Ohio growing season will be remembered for another year of extreme variability. The growing season started with above average temperatures in early April (+1.7 degrees) followed by below average temperatures (-3.6 degrees) in May. Persistent rain events with above average precipitation in April and May limited suitable days for field work, especially in the Northern region of the state. By May 5, 22% of corn was planted in Ohio according to USDA reports. By May 26, 54% of Ohio’s corn acres were planted and reported planted acres reached 89% by June 9 (5% behind the 5-year average). Temperatures and precipitation were above average in June and July at all test sites with Hoytville and Wooster being the exception, which received below average precipitation in July. According to the US Drought Monitor, in Mid-August, 25% of the state was under abnormally dry conditions primarily in the northwest and east central part of the state. By September 16, 95% of the state was under moderate drought with 16% rated as severe drought. Scattered showers brought some relief for the southern areas of the state in September, but most of the main grain crop region remained dry through mid-October. The yield impact of the dry conditions was largely dependent on location, planting date and timely rain events.

Forages

Ag Tech

Ohio Corn Performance 2025 Test Sites

Rainfall during the growing season was variable across our test sites, ranging from 20.0 inches (9.0” below average) at Van Wert in the Northwest region to 35.5 inches (8.9” above average) at Hebron in the Southwestern / Central Region. Averaged across the 9 Ohio Corn Performance Test (OCPT) test sites published, total precipitation was normal when compared to the tenyear average. Heat-unit accumulation was generally greater at OCPT sites in the Southwestern/West Central/Central and Northwestern regions (with heatunit accumulation ranging from 3,150 to 3,459 GDDs) than sites in the North Central/Northeastern region (3,023 and 3,189 GDDs). Overall, the heat-unit accumulation was 188 GDD’s lower in 2025 when compared to 2024. Foliar diseases and insect pests were not a major yield limiting factor in 2025. Gray Leaf Spot (GLS) and Northern Corn Leaf Blight (NCLB) were present at nearly all sites in mid-July. Eight of the 10 test sites had fungicide applied between tasseling/silking (VT/R1) and brown silk (R2). Additionally, Tar Spot was observed late in the season (R4 and R5 stages) at all test locations, except Hebron and Van Wert. When Tar Spot appears late in the season, less yield impact is expected. Normal temperatures returned in late September. However, with limited soil moisture, the corn crop was unable to add the late season starch that increases test weight and helps to achieve top end yields observed in past years. The extended dry periods also delayed crop maturation and dry down in the full season hybrids until late October. Field conditions were suitable for harvest in most of October and early November.

RESULTS Results of the 2025 testing program are presented in Tables 1 to 10. Yields and other agronomic performance characteristics are averaged across the individual test sites and shown under the “SUMMARY” heading for each region in Tables 1 through 8. A combined regional summary of hybrid performance is presented in Table 9. The brand, seed source, hybrid number, and table location for hybrids tested in 2025 are summarized in Table 10. Hybrids are listed in alphabetical order by brand. Additionally, the technology traits (e.g., herbicide and insect resistant events) and seed treatments (e.g., insecticide and fungicide) associated with each hybrid entry are indicated in Table 11 (information provided by seed companies). Yields varied across the state depending on location, planting dates, rainfall distribution (timing, total precipitation received), and disease pressure. Despite fluctuating temperatures and variable precipitation during grain fill, OCPT yields exceeded expectations and 2024 averages. Averaged across hybrid entries in the early and full season tests, yields were 269 Bu/A in the Southwestern/West Central/Central region, 232 Bu/A in the Northwestern region, and 224 Bu/A in the North Central/Northeastern region. Yields at individual test sites, averaged across hybrid entries in the early and full season tests, ranged from 153 Bu/A at Hoytville to 301 Bu/A at Upper Sandusky.

Other

Southwest/West Central Region Northwest Region North Central/Northeast Region Wayne - Organic and Conventional Wayne - Corn Grain Silage

Saturated soil conditions delayed planting until late-May in the Northwest region and early June in the Northeast region. The precipitation timing and totals were variable across the state throughout the growing season. Precipitation was below normal statewide in August, which limited top end yield potential in the Northwest and Northeast regions. Gibberella Ear Rot (GER) and other ear molds were observed in some hybrids at most locations. Stalk lodging was largely absent across locations except at the Covington and Van Wert locations where strong in line winds caused moderate-tosevere lodging in many, but not all hybrids. Overall, confidence in test results increases with the number of years and the number of locations in which each hybrid is tested. Table 9 presents combined performance data for hybrids tested at seven and nine locations in 2025. Tables 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 provide multiple year performance data as well. We recommend looking for consistency in a hybrid’s performance across a range of environmental conditions. Yield, standability, grain moisture, and other comparisons should be considered between hybrids of similar maturity to determine those best adapted to each location or region. Results of the corn performance trials for 2024 and previous years (archive tab, 2000 to 2024) are available online at: ohiocroptest.cfaes.osu.edu/corntrials. Results and hybrids can be sorted by yield, brand, and other variables online.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank our farmer cooperators for their contributions to the 2025 Ohio Corn Performance Test program. We are grateful for the assistance provided by Matt Lowe, Ohio State Farm Operations-Wooster, establishing the test plots, Joe Davlin, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC) Western Agricultural Research Station, Matt Davis, OARDC Northwest Agricultural Research Station and Ken Scaife and Mike Sword, OARDC Wooster. Thanks to Gabe Preston and Juliette Portisch, CFAES Marketing and Communications, for their assistance in preparing the 2025 test results for publication.

CFAES provides research and related educational programs to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis. For more information, visit cfaesdiversity.osu.edu. For an accessible format of this publication, visit cfaes.osu.edu/accessibility.

ohiocroptest.cfaes.osu.edu

2025 eFields Report | 239

Ohio Crop Performance Trials Table 1E. Performance of hybrids in the early maturity trial. SOUTHWESTERN/WEST CENTRAL/CENTRAL Ohio, 2025. Hebron Brand

Hybrid

Washington Court House

Summary

Covington

South Charleston

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Emg.

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Lbs.

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std.

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std.

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std.

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std.

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std.

AGRIGOLD HYBRIDS AUGUSTA SEED AUGUSTA SEED AUGUSTA SEED AXIS SEED

A641-62D A2360PWE A4861 Conv A4961V 59D20

304.2 289.6 303.3 283.6 287.9

22.1 20.9 20.5 20.5 17.8

0 0 0 0 0

352 285 297 319 352

97 97 98 97 98

259.3 270.7 268.5 248.3 266.1

21.0 21.5 21.1 21.5 19.8

0 0 0 0 0

355 293 294 321 356

98 99 97 99 98

241.2 274.8 291.3 246.8 272.6

20.0 20.4 20.2 19.9 19.1

1 0 0 0 0

345 285 305 327 354

96 97 100 98 98

255.5 271.1 263.3 252.5 236.4

20.7 22.0 21.8 22.0 18.5

27 3 30 19 4

352 289 299 324 356

98 98 99 99 98

265.0 276.5 281.6 257.8 265.8

21.0 21.2 20.9 21.0 18.8

7 1 8 5 1

351 288 299 323 355

97 97 98 98 98

54.9 54.9 56.8 56.6 56.3

AXIS SEED AXIS SEED BA GENETICS BA GENETICS BA GENETICS

60C61 AEXPT108 BA 25-07 PCE BA 25-11 VT2P BA 26-06 PCE

288.2 287.4 283.0 289.2 282.8

20.9 18.9 19.0 18.8 18.9

0 0 0 0 0

320 352 336 351 327

88 96 93 96 93

255.5 264.1 233.9 258.3 265.1

21.5 21.1 18.6 19.9 19.5

0 0 0 0 0

333 341 348 341 321

92 94 96 95 89

275.1 267.3 245.5 271.0 273.8

21.2 18.4 17.7 20.2 19.2

0 0 0 0 0

325 345 355 350 334

91 96 98 98 92

257.4 241.5 237.5 250.8 262.9

21.7 18.9 19.0 19.4 20.1

2 34 3 18 3

321 352 342 347 321

88 97 95 96 89

269.1 265.1 249.9 267.3 271.2

21.3 19.3 18.6 19.6 19.4

0 8 1 5 1

325 348 345 347 326

90 96 96 96 91

55.2 56.6 57.6 56.5 56.5

BA GENETICS CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL

BA 26-10 PCE 205-08TRERIB 209-70TRERIB 210-08VT2PRIB 211-11VT2PRIB

292.4 274.5 311.9 290.0 307.2

21.0 17.0 21.9 20.0 19.3

0 0 0 0 0

318 354 310 321 363

87 97 91 97 98

275.0 237.3 265.6 277.3 261.5

21.0 16.2 22.4 20.5 19.5

0 0 0 0 0

330 361 314 324 363

92 98 93 98 98

276.1 255.1 266.4 278.1 257.5

20.8 17.5 20.6 20.7 19.1

0 0 0 0 0

328 365 312 328 365

91 100 92 99 100

268.0 244.1 257.4 247.6 244.3

21.5 18.7 20.8 19.3 18.9

2 27 19 0 37

320 364 325 329 360

88 99 95 99 99

277.9 252.7 275.3 273.2 267.6

21.1 17.4 21.4 20.1 19.2

0 7 5 0 9

324 361 315 326 363

89 98 93 98 99

55.4 57.1 54.6 55.2 57.9

EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS

1335C 1660C 7188PC 7209TR 7557PC

294.2 302.8 283.4 287.8 294.4

19.3 20.5 19.4 19.6 18.9

0 0 0 0 0

338 333 355 336 339

99 97 97 96 98

275.5 265.6 259.4 248.6 257.4

18.5 21.4 20.4 20.1 19.2

0 0 0 0 0

338 341 337 341 338

98 98 97 98 96

271.0 280.4 264.1 278.7 270.8

18.5 20.0 19.8 19.6 18.4

0 0 0 0 0

338 336 342 336 343

99 97 99 96 98

264.1 243.2 243.8 255.5 259.0

18.9 21.7 20.9 18.7 19.6

37 6 27 19 17

341 341 359 343 342

98 98 98 100 98

276.2 273.0 262.7 267.6 270.4

18.8 20.9 20.1 19.5 19.0

9 1 7 5 4

339 338 348 339 341

98 97 97 98 98

57.1 55.6 57.2 56.0 56.7

EBBERTS EBBERTS FS INVISION FS INVISION FS INVISION

7770PC 9779SSX FS 5947T RIB FS 6042F RIB FS 6133VDG RIB

289.5 299.0 312.1 303.6 310.6

20.6 20.5 19.5 20.1 20.9

0 0 0 0 0

334 363 356 360 358

97 99 99 99 97

258.4 268.0 276.0 266.6 266.7

21.5 20.8 19.1 20.7 21.4

0 0 0 0 0

338 360 360 363 358

98 98 98 99 99

275.6 269.3 281.7 269.4 266.9

19.6 18.8 19.4 19.3 20.2

0 0 0 0 0

342 363 363 361 361

98 99 100 99 99

252.8 249.3 248.8 265.3 256.2

20.5 19.5 19.9 20.9 20.7

42 7 60 22 60

341 368 363 356 361

99 100 100 99 99

269.1 271.4 279.7 276.2 275.1

20.5 19.9 19.5 20.3 20.8

10 2 15 6 15

339 363 360 360 359

98 99 99 99 98

56.0 56.7 57.7 56.6 55.8

FS INVISION GOLDEN HARVEST GOLDEN HARVEST GOLDEN HARVEST GREAT HEART SEED

FS 6157T RIB G10M87-AA G10U97-V G11V76-AA 7151PCE

306.3 297.1 290.9 282.6 299.6

19.9 20.7 20.3 20.0 19.0

0 0 0 0 0

350 347 363 368 360

96 96 99 99 99

267.9 248.6 244.3 256.3 267.1

20.6 21.2 21.6 23.7 19.7

0 0 0 0 0

350 363 358 359 332

97 99 98 98 98

279.5 222.7 248.3 260.6 274.7

20.5 17.3 20.1 20.7 19.7

0 0 0 0 0

355 360 363 359 355

97 98 99 99 99

251.5 247.0 243.9 243.9 252.1

19.8 19.7 20.4 21.9 19.5

41 1 3 35 1

348 367 368 363 329

96 98 100 99 97

276.3 253.9 256.9 260.9 273.4

20.2 19.7 20.6 21.6 19.5

10 0 1 9 0

351 359 363 362 344

97 98 99 99 98

56.6 56.8 56.4 56.2 55.4

GREAT HEART SEED LG SEEDS LG SEEDS LG SEEDS NK

7195TRE LG 55C40TRC LG 58C48VT2RIB LG 60C05-3110 NK0880-V

315.7 262.8 289.4 310.6 288.3

22.2 17.4 20.0 20.7 19.7

0 0 0 0 0

337 330 332 339 329

96 98 98 99 96

264.2 254.4 247.3 277.1 248.9

22.3 16.5 20.2 19.6 19.0

0 0 0 0 0

333 358 360 355 337

97 97 99 96 94

275.4 248.6 274.4 275.4 232.0

21.2 16.2 19.0 20.4 18.1

0 1 0 0 0

339 352 361 336 352

97 98 98 93 98

265.1 240.1 269.0 256.3 244.3

20.3 18.3 20.3 19.3 20.0

41 41 4 17 4

336 342 339 332 336

98 99 99 97 97

280.1 251.5 270.0 279.9 253.4

21.5 17.1 19.8 20.0 19.2

10 10 1 4 1

336 346 348 340 338

97 98 99 96 96

55.8 56.7 56.1 56.9 56.1

NK PC SEED PC SEED PC SEED PC SEED

NK1056-V PC 3305 PC 5510 PC 5511 PC 6610

286.3 284.2 295.7 275.6 298.4

20.0 17.3 19.3 20.2 19.6

0 0 0 0 0

350 368 361 367 358

97 97 96 99 95

240.4 271.2 271.8 200.4 276.3

20.8 18.5 21.0 21.7 19.8

0 0 0 0 0

359 364 352 347 358

99 98 97 96 97

252.8 265.3 287.7 244.2 293.3

20.1 17.0 20.1 19.0 19.9

0 2 0 0 0

358 367 358 358 352

98 98 97 98 95

250.7 252.1 247.0 235.2 279.5

21.3 18.6 20.5 20.6 20.3

10 6 1 32 31

365 364 360 359 358

99 98 98 98 97

257.6 268.2 275.5 238.8 286.9

20.6 17.8 20.2 20.4 19.9

3 2 0 8 8

358 366 358 358 356

98 98 97 98 96

56.4 57.6 56.3 56.2 57.1

PC SEED PC SEED SEED CONSULTANTS SEED CONSULTANTS SEED CONSULTANTS

PC 8407 PC 8408 SC 1055PCE SC 1086PCE SC 1094PCE

295.9 291.1 294.5 298.6 291.3

18.6 19.2 18.6 20.7 20.1

0 0 0 0 0

356 367 339 316 336

94 96 99 94 98

267.0 267.1 265.5 277.3 265.2

18.5 20.0 18.8 22.0 21.8

0 0 0 0 0

351 368 334 325 337

94 98 98 95 97

262.7 257.5 279.5 280.2 283.6

18.0 19.7 18.8 19.4 20.6

0 0 0 0 0

361 370 334 327 339

96 99 98 95 100

255.3 262.2 266.3 270.3 286.5

19.3 20.9 20.3 19.2 20.6

6 8 2 2 6

354 367 342 327 341

95 99 99 97 99

270.2 269.5 276.5 281.6 281.6

18.6 19.9 19.1 20.3 20.8

1 2 0 0 1

356 368 338 324 338

95 98 99 95 99

57.6 58.4 56.4 57.0 55.8

SEED CONSULTANTS SEED CONSULTANTS SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT

SC 1105PCE SC 1116PCE AGI-C-4111 PWE AGI-C-5105 PWE AGI-C-6104 PWE

305.3 315.9 282.4 307.9 310.1

19.5 20.8 20.1 18.9 19.2

0 0 0 0 0

338 334 356 330 358

100 99 96 89 97

266.2 270.2 230.3 272.6 270.4

21.5 20.7 20.7 19.1 18.6

0 0 0 0 0

334 337 363 343 364

99 98 99 94 98

280.7 268.5 271.4 271.4 273.1

19.6 19.5 19.1 19.3 18.1

0 1 0 0 0

336 342 364 334 364

99 99 99 90 99

263.7 258.8 252.8 255.1 257.6

19.4 19.2 20.2 19.8 19.0

4 6 1 1 7

333 339 372 334 360

99 99 99 92 98

278.9 278.4 259.2 276.8 277.8

20.0 20.0 20.0 19.3 18.7

1 2 0 0 2

335 338 364 336 361

99 99 98 91 98

56.8 57.4 55.7 56.6 57.4

SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT

AGI-C-6108 PWE Direct 2111-AA Direct 3109 Direct 3111-3110 Direct 9107 GT

308.1 272.5 288.9 282.7 276.3

19.4 20.3 19.4 20.2 18.5

0 0 0 0 0

361 337 350 334 358

98 93 97 97 97

265.8 263.1 249.2 250.1 242.2

20.1 21.9 19.5 21.5 21.4

0 0 0 0 0

367 354 355 338 358

99 95 97 98 96

270.8 249.8 286.6 265.3 246.2

19.9 20.3 20.3 23.0 19.4

0 0 0 0 0

360 352 360 339 352

97 95 99 99 95

260.3 233.5 265.8 236.8 243.4

20.8 21.5 21.5 20.4 20.3

17 27 30 3 44

365 364 352 339 363

98 98 96 99 97

276.3 254.7 272.6 258.7 252.0

20.0 21.0 20.2 21.3 19.9

4 7 8 1 11

363 352 354 338 358

98 95 97 98 96

57.5 56.6 58.8 55.6 55.7

SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW

SG-6491PCE SG-6550PCE SG-6707V SG-6807DV SG-6884PCE

301.9 301.9 275.5 307.1 295.0

19.5 18.3 19.1 20.6 19.1

0 0 0 0 0

329 338 346 347 336

95 98 99 100 97

262.9 270.9 255.8 253.8 253.2

18.7 19.1 18.6 21.3 20.0

0 0 0 0 0

342 336 342 345 345

98 98 98 99 98

253.9 274.9 259.1 275.0 271.1

17.6 18.5 19.1 21.0 19.6

0 0 0 0 0

345 341 348 342 343

100 98 98 100 97

259.6 263.2 236.2 266.8 256.2

18.9 19.9 19.0 20.5 20.8

1 2 38 1 3

343 345 341 348 341

99 99 98 100 98

269.6 277.7 256.7 275.7 268.9

18.7 19.0 19.0 20.9 19.9

0 0 9 0 1

340 340 344 346 341

98 98 98 100 98

57.1 56.7 56.3 55.4 57.5

SHUR GROW SHUR GROW

SG-6911PCE SG-7009PCE

297.3 308.1

20.6 20.5

0 0

314 337

91 97

255.5 279.5

21.5 21.6

0 0

328 338

95 98

276.2 283.7

19.5 20.3

0 0

334 343

97 98

271.4 262.6

20.3 21.6

19 7

333 339

96 99

275.1 283.5

20.5 21.0

5 2

327 339

94 98

57.7 55.5

High Average Low LSD .10

315.9 294.3 262.8 14.9

22.2 19.8 17.0 1.0

0 0 0 0

368 342 285 10

100 96 87 3

279.5 260.3 200.4 16.6

23.7 20.3 16.2 1.0

0 0 0 0

368 344 293 10

99 97 89 3

293.3 267.7 222.7 15.0

23.0 19.5 16.2 1.2

2 0 0 1

370 346 285 9

100 97 90 2

286.5 254.7 233.5 17.9

22.0 20.1 18.3 1.0

60 17 0 36

372 346 289 10

100 98 88 2

286.9 269.2 238.8 9.7

21.6 19.9 17.1 0.8

15 4 0 9

368 345 288 7

100 97 89 1

58.8 56.5 54.6 0.7

Soil Type Soil Test (pH,P,K) Previous Crop Planting /Harvest Dates Tillage Fertilizer (N,P,K) Fungicide Cooperator County

Luray Silty Clay Loam 6.2, 44, 142 Corn May 18 / Oct. 21, 2025 Minimum Till 255, 26, 90, 30S Yes (2 applications) Parrish Farms Licking

Brookston Silty Loam 5.9, 79, 167 Soybeans May 26 / Nov. 14, 2025 Minimum Till 270, 156, 195, 22S Yes Sollars Farm Fayette

240 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Kokomo Silt Loam 6.4, 72, 164 Corn June 3 / Oct. 26, 2025 Minimum Till 240, 26, 96, 6S Yes Joe Davlin, OARDC Clark

Brookston Silt Loam 6.4, 104, 233 Soybeans May 31 / Oct. 23, 2025 Minimum Till 247, 26, 90, 20S Yes Brett Kenworthy Miami

Corn

Small Grains

Soybean

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Table 1L. Performance of hybrids in the full-season trial. SOUTHWESTERN/WEST CENTRAL/CENTRAL Ohio, 2025. Hebron Brand

Hybrid

Washington Court House

South Charleston

Summary

Covington

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Emg.

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Lbs.

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std.

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std.

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std.

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std.

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std.

1st CHOICE SEEDS 1st CHOICE SEEDS 1st CHOICE SEEDS AGRIGOLD HYBRIDS AGRIGOLD HYBRIDS

FC 8257 PC FC 8345 TRE RIB FC 8455 VT2P RIB A642-18SSPRIB A642-32VT2PRORIB

299.2 300.8 314.2 288.3 318.8

20.5 19.0 21.7 21.3 22.4

0 0 0 0 0

321 358 360 329 339

97 98 98 97 99

282.7 285.9 249.1 264.4 292.8

22.7 23.6 21.2 20.4 22.0

0 0 1 0 0

320 361 356 336 338

97 100 99 97 99

277.2 279.1 274.0 285.8 281.9

19.6 22.3 20.8 22.5 21.0

1 0 0 0 0

321 355 358 332 337

98 98 99 98 99

230.5 239.0 245.2 237.9 269.6

20.7 19.4 21.1 22.1 19.8

29 53 60 45 21

319 360 364 338 336

96 99 100 99 99

272.4 276.2 270.6 269.1 290.8

20.9 21.1 21.2 21.6 21.3

7 13 15 11 5

320 358 360 334 338

97 99 99 98 99

55.0 55.7 55.3 55.9 57.8

AUGUSTA SEED AUGUSTA SEED AUGUSTA SEED AXIS SEED AXIS SEED

A2162AA A4862 Conv A6362V 62C60 63H27

279.7 311.2 282.1 307.7 297.7

22.5 21.1 21.0 20.1 20.8

0 0 0 0 0

277 289 310 359 350

92 97 94 98 97

254.9 295.9 231.8 275.5 265.2

23.5 22.5 23.1 21.6 20.5

0 0 0 0 0

272 294 308 358 358

92 97 94 99 99

238.2 276.9 271.0 259.4 260.7

19.6 21.2 22.8 18.9 22.8

0 0 0 0 0

294 289 316 358 355

98 97 96 98 98

247.7 263.0 241.9 233.9 234.7

21.6 20.8 20.2 20.7 21.3

6 38 2 54 77

294 296 312 356 363

98 99 97 98 99

255.1 286.8 256.7 269.2 264.6

21.8 21.4 21.8 20.3 21.4

2 10 1 14 19

284 292 312 358 356

95 98 96 98 98

56.4 55.6 54.9 55.2 56.5

AXIS SEED AXIS SEED BA GENETICS BA GENETICS BA GENETICS

64H70 65W75 BA 25-12 VT2P BA 26-12 PCE BA 26-14 PCE

286.5 308.4 305.8 306.1 272.7

19.5 21.8 19.5 19.7 21.2

0 0 0 0 0

355 346 341 354 355

97 96 94 98 97

250.8 278.2 270.0 266.1 256.6

19.8 20.2 20.0 21.7 23.3

2 0 0 0 0

361 358 356 349 351

99 99 98 98 96

270.0 280.6 266.6 269.8 245.6

19.8 21.7 19.6 19.7 21.3

0 0 0 0 0

363 351 355 358 358

99 97 98 99 98

227.4 235.5 264.3 260.1 223.8

20.7 21.9 19.5 20.7 23.2

70 87 37 4 70

361 356 360 355 358

99 99 98 99 98

258.7 275.7 276.7 275.5 249.7

19.9 21.4 19.6 20.5 22.2

18 22 9 1 18

360 353 353 354 355

98 98 97 98 97

57.3 57.2 58.2 55.3 55.0

CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL DYNA-GRO DYNA-GRO

214-70TRERIB 215-70TRERIB 218-66VT2PRIB D52PN76RA D52TC66RIB

305.0 292.6 309.7 307.3 316.7

20.2 19.5 23.5 20.2 19.0

0 0 0 0 0

354 338 307 330 333

98 98 97 99 100

255.0 284.1 270.9 262.9 265.9

19.3 21.6 25.2 21.7 19.8

0 0 0 0 0

363 339 305 327 327

99 97 97 98 100

274.8 272.2 250.4 287.5 266.4

20.2 20.0 24.6 19.9 18.6

0 0 0 0 0

354 343 306 327 333

97 99 98 99 100

240.0 257.2 256.5 252.0 246.6

20.4 21.2 24.5 20.7 19.8

83 44 5 24 80

361 346 312 336 341

99 99 98 99 99

268.7 276.5 271.9 277.4 273.9

20.0 20.6 24.4 20.6 19.3

21 11 1 6 20

358 341 308 330 333

98 98 97 99 100

59.2 57.4 54.5 55.3 57.6

DYNA-GRO EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS

D55TC86RIB 6883DGVT2P RIB 7114PC 7442PC 7993PC

293.5 296.1 314.2 289.7 272.5

21.0 19.5 22.0 20.5 22.5

0 0 0 0 0

332 369 338 333 334

100 96 98 98 95

284.5 279.7 279.9 279.5 259.1

21.1 22.2 23.0 22.0 23.3

2 0 0 0 0

330 351 342 336 337

98 96 98 98 97

269.4 272.4 249.3 259.8 259.0

20.8 21.3 20.1 19.8 22.2

0 0 0 0 0

333 358 337 333 338

98 96 98 99 97

229.2 249.7 253.3 259.2 250.9

21.4 21.4 21.2 20.7 23.0

70 30 10 8 8

337 358 347 338 336

98 98 99 99 97

269.2 274.5 274.2 272.0 260.4

21.1 21.1 21.6 20.7 22.8

18 8 2 2 2

333 359 341 335 336

99 96 98 99 97

57.5 56.7 55.9 55.4 54.4

FS INVISION FS INVISION FS INVISION GOLDEN HARVEST GOLDEN HARVEST

FS 6245V RIB FS 6349PC RA FS 6447T RIB G12S75-D G12U11-AA

293.5 300.3 277.3 310.7 289.9

19.3 19.9 20.3 21.3 21.5

0 0 0 0 0

358 355 351 336 330

99 98 97 98 100

291.0 258.9 255.7 260.3 288.4

19.8 21.3 21.3 24.0 23.0

0 0 0 0 0

360 356 356 329 335

98 98 97 99 98

257.0 267.1 274.0 270.2 259.4

18.2 19.0 20.6 22.9 20.5

0 0 0 0 0

355 356 356 337 342

98 99 99 99 100

260.9 245.9 247.1 245.6 236.1

18.7 20.0 20.6 20.9 20.1

41 10 77 11 43

358 354 360 333 339

99 99 99 98 99

275.6 268.1 263.5 271.7 268.4

19.0 20.1 20.7 22.3 21.3

10 2 19 3 11

358 355 356 334 337

98 98 98 99 99

58.5 55.7 57.9 55.0 56.7

GOLDEN HARVEST GOLDEN HARVEST GREAT HEART SEED LG SEEDS LG SEEDS

G13M31-AA G14B32-DV 7272PCE LG 62C20D LG 62C73VT2RIB

286.8 288.6 307.2 317.2 316.1

20.8 22.9 20.4 22.4 21.2

0 0 0 0 0

346 339 320 359 334

91 94 96 98 98

261.8 265.6 264.1 278.8 285.8

23.9 24.2 22.9 20.1 19.6

0 0 0 0 0

346 345 327 355 358

92 95 97 98 99

236.1 275.7 262.4 253.4 285.4

20.4 22.5 20.7 20.1 20.5

0 0 0 1 0

348 348 332 351 356

92 97 97 96 99

212.2 247.1 254.5 236.0 265.7

21.0 23.2 20.8 21.8 20.7

47 16 20 37 39

360 333 329 364 333

95 91 97 100 98

249.2 269.2 272.1 271.4 288.3

21.5 23.2 21.2 21.1 20.5

12 4 5 9 10

350 341 327 357 345

93 94 97 98 99

55.2 54.2 54.9 54.6 58.2

LG SEEDS NK NK NK PC SEED

LG 64C43VT2RIB NK1228-AA NK1386-VZ NK1523-V PC 6313

292.3 313.9 282.2 280.0 284.0

20.9 21.5 20.1 21.9 21.9

0 0 0 0 0

329 343 341 345 367

97 99 99 99 97

281.3 274.5 250.3 257.7 271.3

22.8 22.6 21.8 25.7 22.3

0 0 0 0 0

360 365 360 358 363

99 100 99 98 97

271.9 249.3 248.6 234.5 246.6

21.1 19.9 19.8 22.4 21.5

0 0 0 0 0

359 360 363 360 363

99 98 98 99 98

251.6 252.8 238.7 245.4 247.5

21.5 21.0 22.2 22.3 22.7

24 7 35 34 41

336 345 341 345 367

99 99 98 99 98

274.3 272.6 254.9 254.4 262.3

21.6 21.2 21.0 23.1 22.1

6 2 9 8 10

346 353 351 352 365

99 99 99 99 97

55.7 56.8 56.6 53.7 55.6

SEED CONSULTANTS SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT

SC 1135PCE AGI-C-3113 PWE AGI-C-3114 PWE AGI-C-4115 PWE AGI-C-6112 PWE

317.6 285.1 305.6 305.3 296.1

20.5 20.5 20.7 21.0 20.6

0 0 0 0 0

329 358 363 359 335

97 95 98 97 92

270.3 255.4 277.3 279.3 267.3

20.5 23.3 22.5 22.0 22.2

0 0 0 0 0

329 350 368 363 346

96 94 100 98 95

281.4 254.9 267.3 287.2 274.9

21.4 21.0 20.7 22.2 20.3

0 0 0 0 0

329 352 372 374 354

98 95 99 100 95

275.2 266.9 251.1 247.4 245.6

20.9 20.8 21.5 21.3 20.1

9 10 43 9 31

338 355 377 364 356

99 93 100 99 97

286.1 265.6 275.3 279.8 271.0

20.8 21.4 21.3 21.6 20.8

2 3 11 2 8

331 354 370 365 348

97 94 99 98 95

56.5 56.7 57.7 55.6 55.2

SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW

SG-7244PCE SG-7275V SG-7347PCE

283.8 270.5 301.4

22.0 19.7 20.6

0 0 0

338 324 332

97 94 95

260.6 251.1 276.2

22.5 23.5 22.0

0 0 0

341 336 343

98 97 97

258.8 248.3 260.8

23.3 23.2 19.5

0 0 0

334 348 341

98 99 97

234.1 244.6 236.5

23.5 20.8 20.6

47 5 37

345 343 341

99 98 98

259.3 253.6 268.7

22.8 21.8 20.7

12 1 9

339 338 339

98 97 97

54.5 55.3 55.2

High Average Low LSD .10

318.8 297.5 270.5 18.8

23.5 20.9 19.0 1.2

0 0 0 0

369 340 277 12

100 97 91 3

295.9 269.3 231.8 16.0

25.7 22.1 19.3 1.4

2 0 0 1

368 343 272 10

100 97 92 2

287.5 265.1 234.5 20.4

24.6 20.9 18.2 1.4

1 0 0 0

374 345 289 9

100 98 92 2

275.2 246.6 212.2 20.1

24.5 21.1 18.7 0.9

87 35 2 31

377 345 294 9

100 98 91 2

290.8 269.6 249.2 12.8

24.4 21.2 19.0 1.1

22 9 1 14

370 343 284 7

100 98 93 1

59.2 56.1 53.7 0.7

Soil Type Soil Test (pH,P,K) Previous Crop Planting /Harvest Dates Tillage Fertilizer (N,P,K) Fungicide Cooperator County

Luray Silty Clay Loam 6.2, 44, 142 Corn May 18 / Oct. 21, 2025 Minimum Till 255, 26, 90, 30S Yes (2 applications) Parrish Farms Licking

Brookston Silty Loam 5.9, 79, 167 Soybeans May 26 / Nov. 14, 2025 Minimum Till 270, 156, 195, 22S Yes Sollars Farm Fayette

Kokomo Silt Loam 6.4, 72, 164 Corn June 3 / Oct. 26, 2025 Minimum Till 240, 26, 96, 6S Yes Joe Davlin, OARDC Clark

Brookston Silt Loam 6.4, 104, 233 Soybeans May 31 / Oct. 23, 2025 Minimum Till 247, 26, 90, 20S Yes Brett Kenworthy Miami

2025 eFields Report | 241

Ohio Crop Performance Trials TABLE 2. Two year hybrid performance in SOUTHWESTERN/WEST CENTRAL/CENTRAL Ohio, 2024-2025. Hebron Brand

Hybrid

Stk. Ldg.

South Charleston Final Std.

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std.

Covington Stk. Ldg.

Summary

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Final Std.

Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Stk. Ldg.

Emg.

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Final Std.

Lbs.

1st CHOICE SEEDS 1st CHOICE SEEDS AGRIGOLD HYBRIDS AUGUSTA SEED AXIS SEED

FC 8345 TRE RIB FC 8455 VT2P RIB A642-32VT2PRORIB A2360PWE 59D20

305.8 313.1 308.7 281.2 279.7

19.7 21.3 21.0 18.8 16.5

0 0 0 0 0

338 339 325 305 353

95 94 95 96 96

272.8 256.0 272.4 270.9 259.7

23.0 21.8 21.6 21.8 21.1

13 30 12 32 33

343 343 337 310 358

97 98 99 98 99

231.4 231.6 246.5 263.0 233.0

21.0 23.0 21.2 22.9 19.7

27 30 10 2 7

347 344 325 312 359

98 97 95 97 97

270.0 266.9 275.8 271.7 257.5

21.2 22.0 21.3 21.2 19.1

13 20 7 11 13

343 342 329 309 356

97 96 96 97 97

55.1 54.3 57.4 54.8 55.7

AXIS SEED AXIS SEED AXIS SEED AXIS SEED BA GENETICS

60C61 62C60 64H70 65W75 BA 25-07 PCE

288.3 295.6 293.9 302.2 280.9

19.3 19.4 19.4 20.4 17.0

0 0 0 0 0

330 350 356 348 345

90 95 96 96 94

287.6 256.8 279.1 280.6 248.3

22.9 20.6 22.1 22.8 20.0

33 45 16 50 14

336 359 363 356 355

93 98 99 98 98

256.1 231.9 226.5 227.3 236.8

22.5 21.6 22.3 22.3 20.5

3 27 35 44 2

332 357 363 357 340

91 97 97 98 95

277.3 261.4 266.5 270.0 255.3

21.5 20.5 21.3 21.9 19.2

12 24 17 31 5

333 355 361 354 347

91 97 97 97 96

54.8 54.8 56.0 56.6 56.7

BA GENETICS BA GENETICS BA GENETICS BA GENETICS BA GENETICS

BA 25-11 VT2P BA 25-12 VT2P BA 26-06 PCE BA 26-10 PCE BA 26-12 PCE

290.3 299.2 287.5 289.4 294.5

17.8 18.4 17.8 19.2 19.0

0 0 0 0 0

343 330 332 328 345

95 93 94 91 96

267.7 267.9 282.5 274.7 269.3

21.1 21.3 21.6 22.7 22.3

1 44 38 16 47

348 341 338 336 356

98 95 95 95 99

238.6 248.1 259.3 263.7 236.6

20.4 20.5 22.5 23.0 21.8

9 19 1 1 2

341 343 328 323 345

97 96 93 92 97

265.5 271.7 276.4 275.9 266.8

19.8 20.1 20.6 21.6 21.0

4 21 13 6 16

344 338 333 329 348

97 95 94 92 97

55.8 57.5 55.6 54.8 54.6

BA GENETICS CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL EBBERTS

BA 26-14 PCE 210-08VT2PRIB 211-11VT2PRIB 215-70TRERIB 1335C

284.9 302.3 304.6 294.2 282.0

20.8 18.9 17.7 19.7 17.1

0 0 0 0 0

350 328 365 332 338

95 97 99 95 97

247.4 271.1 264.6 276.2 255.5

23.1 21.7 21.7 21.6 19.4

47 7 28 4 27

354 336 364 343 338

97 99 99 98 98

222.6 248.8 243.1 237.3 255.3

24.6 20.8 20.3 23.0 19.3

35 0 18 23 21

345 333 361 338 344

96 97 98 98 98

251.6 274.1 270.7 269.2 264.3

22.8 20.5 19.9 21.4 18.6

27 2 16 9 16

350 333 363 338 340

96 98 99 97 98

54.5 55.0 57.5 56.4 56.9

EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS

1660C 6883DGVT2P RIB 7188PC 7209TR 7442PC

295.4 292.9 285.1 284.8 286.0

19.0 18.8 18.7 17.6 19.7

0 0 0 0 0

347 366 356 335 332

97 94 97 95 95

281.4 262.2 266.1 268.7 250.9

21.6 21.6 21.5 20.9 21.5

13 6 5 3 48

340 361 350 338 332

98 97 99 97 97

257.8 237.1 247.9 248.2 239.1

22.8 21.9 23.1 20.0 22.3

3 15 13 9 4

338 357 357 342 341

97 97 97 98 97

278.2 264.1 266.4 267.3 258.7

21.1 20.8 21.1 19.5 21.2

5 7 6 4 17

342 361 354 338 335

98 96 97 97 96

55.4 56.5 56.4 55.7 54.6

EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS FS INVISION FS INVISION

7557PC 7993PC 9779SSX FS 5947T RIB FS 6133VDG RIB

290.7 282.3 296.5 312.3 299.7

18.0 21.4 18.3 18.3 18.9

0 0 0 0 0

330 345 373 361 355

92 96 97 98 96

273.7 249.4 262.2 282.2 263.9

21.5 23.6 19.8 21.8 23.2

15 46 27 30 5

340 339 375 364 360

95 98 98 99 99

256.9 239.0 247.3 245.0 252.6

22.1 24.9 20.3 21.2 22.0

8 4 4 33 30

337 338 368 367 361

94 97 97 99 98

273.8 256.9 268.7 279.8 272.1

20.5 23.3 19.4 20.4 21.4

8 17 10 21 12

336 341 372 364 359

94 97 97 99 98

55.6 53.9 57.0 56.7 55.6

FS INVISION FS INVISION FS INVISION GOLDEN HARVEST GOLDEN HARVEST

FS 6245V RIB FS 6349PC RA FS 6447T RIB G11V76-AA G12U11-AA

295.2 292.2 299.2 285.9 283.0

18.7 19.5 20.3 19.0 20.2

0 0 0 0 0

352 340 355 364 335

97 93 97 98 99

262.0 255.1 264.7 262.4 259.1

20.2 21.1 22.8 22.3 22.8

7 19 33 5 30

356 352 361 361 343

98 97 99 99 100

247.0 232.3 240.5 239.2 233.7

20.2 21.6 21.8 22.7 21.5

21 5 39 18 22

354 349 361 365 341

98 96 98 99 99

268.1 259.8 268.1 262.5 258.6

19.7 20.7 21.6 21.3 21.5

9 8 24 7 17

354 347 359 363 340

97 95 98 98 99

58.2 54.7 56.8 56.0 56.5

GOLDEN HARVEST NK NK PC SEED PC SEED

G14B32-DV NK1056-V NK1228-AA PC 3305 PC 5510

280.8 284.0 302.0 284.9 291.3

20.9 19.0 20.4 16.3 18.0

0 0 0 0 0

322 347 340 357 358

90 97 98 94 94

264.5 258.1 246.0 259.7 284.4

24.2 22.3 21.6 19.0 21.4

33 5 25 31 9

336 350 355 357 361

95 98 98 96 97

240.6 240.7 234.1 256.9 260.8

24.2 23.6 21.8 19.3 21.8

9 5 4 4 1

334 350 347 363 359

93 97 99 97 97

262.0 260.9 260.7 267.2 278.8

23.1 21.6 21.2 18.2 20.4

14 3 10 12 3

331 349 347 359 359

93 98 99 96 96

53.6 55.7 56.3 57.1 56.1

PC SEED PC SEED PC SEED PC SEED SEED CONSULTANTS

PC 6313 PC 6610 PC 8407 PC 8408 SC 1094PCE

286.9 300.1 291.8 290.1 291.2

21.1 18.3 17.4 18.2 18.4

0 0 0 0 0

362 364 356 373 342

94 94 94 96 97

241.6 289.7 274.6 267.1 274.8

22.8 21.9 20.4 21.2 22.0

38 4 23 4 43

359 359 359 368 350

97 97 96 98 100

243.0 269.1 258.7 260.8 273.7

24.4 21.9 21.5 22.8 22.2

21 15 3 4 3

363 356 355 363 339

97 95 95 97 97

257.2 286.3 275.0 272.7 279.9

22.7 20.7 19.8 20.7 20.9

20 6 9 3 15

361 360 357 368 344

96 96 95 97 98

55.0 56.7 56.7 57.6 55.4

SEED CONSULTANTS SEED CONSULTANTS SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT

SC 1105PCE SC 1135PCE AGI-C-3113 PWE AGI-C-3114 PWE AGI-C-4111 PWE

301.0 311.3 288.0 289.0 287.3

18.0 19.6 20.2 19.8 18.7

0 0 0 0 0

342 338 354 363 359

97 96 94 97 96

271.8 275.5 261.9 261.5 262.1

21.3 22.3 22.6 23.4 21.2

37 27 20 48 28

343 344 356 372 363

99 99 96 100 98

252.1 252.9 243.2 233.6 241.0

21.4 23.4 22.5 22.8 21.4

2 4 5 22 0

339 350 359 372 368

98 99 95 99 98

274.9 279.9 264.4 261.3 263.4

20.2 21.8 21.8 22.0 20.4

13 11 8 23 9

341 344 356 369 363

98 98 95 98 98

56.3 55.6 56.0 56.5 55.2

SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT

AGI-C-4115 PWE AGI-C-5105 PWE Direct 2111-AA Direct 3109 Direct 3111-3110

293.8 298.0 284.5 288.3 275.9

19.8 17.6 19.2 18.4 18.5

0 0 0 0 0

359 330 353 356 347

96 88 95 96 96

260.4 281.9 254.0 285.7 270.2

23.2 22.5 21.4 21.8 25.5

32 27 5 6 9

370 337 361 356 350

99 92 97 98 98

238.4 261.1 246.3 265.7 241.4

23.0 22.2 23.0 23.0 21.9

5 0 13 15 2

367 333 363 352 354

98 91 97 95 98

264.2 280.3 261.6 279.9 262.5

22.0 20.7 21.2 21.1 22.0

12 9 6 7 4

365 333 359 355 350

98 90 96 96 98

55.0 55.5 56.1 57.7 55.0

SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW

SG-6550PCE SG-6707V SG-6884PCE SG-7009PCE SG-7244PCE

291.9 272.8 282.4 296.3 277.2

17.5 17.5 18.2 18.9 21.3

0 0 0 0 0

319 334 328 340 332

93 97 96 97 96

281.8 251.2 274.8 283.4 261.2

21.9 22.9 21.3 22.5 24.6

19 15 1 15 39

342 343 336 343 328

97 98 98 98 97

259.0 242.0 254.1 266.8 219.4

22.6 20.5 22.7 22.7 25.2

1 20 2 4 24

331 338 332 336 338

94 99 98 97 99

277.5 255.3 270.4 282.2 252.6

20.7 20.3 20.7 21.4 23.7

7 12 1 6 21

330 338 332 340 333

95 98 97 97 97

55.5 55.4 56.6 55.0 53.9

SHUR GROW SHUR GROW

SG-7275V SG-7347PCE

264.9 292.2

19.0 19.9

0 0

330 324

95 95

250.1 265.2

25.0 22.0

3 47

344 336

98 98

238.0 227.1

23.4 22.1

2 19

339 330

97 95

251.0 261.5

22.4 21.3

2 22

338 330

97 96

54.7 54.4

313.1 291.2 264.9

21.4 19.0 16.3

0 0 0

373 344 305

99 95 88

289.7 266.7 241.6

25.5 22.0 19.0

50 23 1

375 349 310

100 98 92

273.7 245.5 219.4

25.2 22.1 19.3

44 12 0

372 347 312

99 97 91

286.3 267.8 251.0

23.7 21.0 18.2

31 12 1

372 347 309

99 97 90

58.2 55.8 53.6

Stk. Ldg.

High Average Low

TABLE 3. Three year hybrid performance in SOUTHWESTERN/WEST CENTRAL/CENTRAL Ohio, 2023-2025. Hebron Brand

Hybrid

Stk. Ldg.

South Charleston Final Std.

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std.

Covington Stk. Ldg.

Summary

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Final Std.

Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Emg.

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Final Std.

Lbs.

AXIS SEED AXIS SEED BA GENETICS CHANNEL EBBERTS

59D20 65W75 BA 25-12 VT2P 211-11VT2PRIB 1660C

295.1 310.3 305.4 306.5 307.5

17.4 20.6 18.9 18.2 19.1

0 0 0 0 0

352 352 333 357 345

96 96 93 99 97

285.6 273.9 271.2 286.9

20.4 21.8 20.3 20.6 20.7

22 33 29 19 9

351 353 334 355 338

97 97 93 98 97

266.7 255.4 275.1 270.9 280.2

21.2 23.4 21.6 21.1 22.5

4 29 13 12 2

355 356 336 352 338

55 56 56 57 55

277.2 283.7 284.8 282.9 291.6

19.6 21.9 20.3 20.0 20.8

9 21 14 10 3

353 354 334 354 340

97 97 94 98 97

55.5 56.4 57.4 57.2 55.6

EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS

6883DGVT2P RIB 7188PC 7209TR 7993PC 9779SSX

301.4 298.7 299.9 298.5 307.1

19.3 19.1 18.1 21.7 18.5

0 0 0 0 0

368 351 333 346 379

95 96 95 97 97

273.0 272.3 277.0 256.5 261.6

20.6 20.6 20.0 22.9 19.6

4 4 2 31 18

363 347 336 338 364

97 98 96 97 96

263.4 273.2 269.4 265.2 271.7

22.7 23.2 20.9 25.1 21.3

10 9 6 3 3

358 352 338 340 368

55 55 55 53 56

279.3 281.4 282.1 273.4 280.2

20.9 21.0 19.7 23.2 19.8

5 4 3 11 7

363 350 336 341 370

97 97 96 97 97

56.0 56.1 55.5 53.8 56.8

FS INVISION GOLDEN HARVEST GOLDEN HARVEST PC SEED PC SEED

FS 6133VDG RIB G11V76-AA G14B32-DV PC 6313 PC 8408

307.1 299.0 287.7 302.4 304.5

20.0 19.6 20.7 21.4 18.9

0 0 0 0 0

358 365 324 362 367

96 98 92 96 96

265.3 266.6 271.6 254.3 275.8

22.7 21.5 22.6 21.9 20.8

4 3 22 26 2

360 359 333 361 361

98 98 96 98 96

271.0 262.4 267.6 272.1 278.2

23.2 23.3 24.4 24.3 22.8

20 12 6 14 3

360 365 331 364 360

54 55 53 54 56

281.1 276.0 275.6 276.3 286.2

22.0 21.5 22.6 22.5 20.8

8 5 9 13 2

359 363 329 363 363

97 98 94 97 96

54.6 55.7 54.1 54.9 56.9

SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT

AGI-C-3113 PWE AGI-C-3114 PWE AGI-C-4111 PWE AGI-C-4115 PWE Direct 2111-AA

302.4 298.2 300.4 302.3 287.7

20.9 20.4 19.1 20.5 19.4

0 0 0 0 0

357 365 357 359 343

96 98 96 96 93

262.2 261.8 269.5 265.8 253.2

21.8 22.3 20.5 22.2 20.7

13 32 18 21 3

352 364 359 365 352

95 97 97 98 95

265.3 254.6 262.5 258.7 269.0

23.2 23.9 21.8 23.2 23.6

3 14 0 3 9

358 371 362 365 360

55 55 55 54 54

276.6 271.5 277.5 275.6 270.0

22.0 22.2 20.5 22.0 21.2

6 16 6 8 4

356 367 360 363 352

96 98 97 97 95

55.5 56.1 55.1 54.9 55.8

SEED GENETICS DIRECT SHUR GROW

Direct 3109 SG-7244PCE

296.9 289.5

18.6 21.6

0 0

349 331

95 96

283.2 276.9

20.9 23.1

4 26

354 334

97 97

278.4 254.0

22.8 25.1

10 16

351 335

56 53

286.2 273.5

20.8 23.3

5 14

351 333

95 97

57.8 53.7

310.3 300.4 287.7

21.7 19.6 17.4

0 0 0

379 352 324

99 96 92

286.9 269.7 253.2

23.1 21.3 19.6

33 16 2

365 352 333

98 97 93

280.2 267.5 254.0

25.1 22.9 20.9

29 9 0

371 353 331

57 55 53

291.6 279.2 270.0

23.3 21.3 19.6

21 8 2

370 352 329

98 97 94

57.8 55.7 53.7

High Average Low

242 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Small Grains

Soybean

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Table 4E. Performance of hybrids in the early maturity trial. NORTHWESTERN Ohio, 2025.

Brand

Hybrid

Stk. Ldg.

Yield Bu/A

-----%-----

Upper Sandusky

Hoytville

Van Wert Harv. Mst.

Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

Final Std.

Stk. Ldg.

Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

Final Std.

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std.

Summary Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Stk. Ldg.

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

Final Std.

Emg.

100/A --%--

Lbs.

AUGUSTA SEED AUGUSTA SEED AUGUSTA SEED AUGUSTA SEED AUGUSTA SEED

A2058 Conv A2355 Conv A2355 PWE A2357V A4057 Conv

232.9 242.2 250.4 236.9 253.0

18.2 15.8 16.6 17.8 17.0

2 7 0 2 0

297 297 297 296 294

100 100 99 99 97

157.5 157.1 157.0 165.3 159.2

18.3 15.6 16.2 16.9 16.5

0 0 2 3 1

292 298 284 299 297

98 100 96 99 100

286.7 307.5 289.8 294.3 314.4

21.6 19.8 20.1 23.5 22.2

0 0 0 0 0

287 292 285 296 301

97 99 94 99 97

225.7 235.6 232.4 232.2 242.2

19.4 17.1 17.6 19.4 18.6

1 3 1 2 0

292 296 289 297 297

98 99 96 99 98

57.7 57.8 57.7 55.5 57.1

AXIS SEED AXIS SEED AXIS SEED AXIS SEED BA GENETICS

53M77 55D61 57K72 AEXPT108 BA 25-07 PCE

249.6 245.9 238.8 259.5 226.1

17.7 17.6 16.8 17.1 16.4

21 1 38 7 4

372 343 347 350 348

99 96 96 96 96

138.8 151.1 156.5 142.9 154.8

16.4 16.7 16.7 16.2 16.4

51 0 2 3 0

376 341 345 356 342

97 95 95 97 95

283.4 292.0 292.8 304.2 290.6

20.5 20.2 20.1 21.7 21.6

0 0 6 0 0

365 327 345 329 332

98 89 95 90 91

223.9 229.7 229.3 235.5 223.8

18.2 18.2 17.9 18.3 18.1

24 0 15 3 1

371 337 345 345 341

98 93 95 94 94

55.9 56.5 57.6 56.8 57.3

BA GENETICS CHANNEL DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB

BA 26-06 PCE 205-08TRERIB DKC099-11RIB DKC101-35RIB DKC102-13RIB

246.4 234.7 226.3 229.1 229.7

18.2 17.2 15.4 15.7 15.9

5 21 4 0 0

318 363 343 339 337

89 99 98 97 96

148.4 134.8 152.9 158.6 152.2

16.9 16.1 15.7 16.0 15.8

0 9 1 5 4

333 356 343 341 336

93 97 99 97 96

284.9 298.3 278.5 272.5 287.0

21.3 21.3 19.6 20.0 20.4

0 0 0 0 0

323 359 332 321 319

90 99 96 92 91

226.6 222.6 219.2 220.1 223.0

18.8 18.2 16.9 17.2 17.4

2 10 2 2 1

324 359 339 334 330

91 98 97 95 94

56.2 56.0 57.3 55.6 57.2

DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB DYNA-GRO

DKC103-07RIB DKC104-08RIB DKC108-64RIB DKC56-26RIB D44PN56RA

224.7 264.7 244.0 251.6 252.4

15.7 17.4 16.4 16.8 17.2

9 4 6 5 2

348 342 346 345 329

98 98 99 100 100

148.3 156.5 156.6 146.5 148.3

15.7 16.5 17.0 16.3 16.6

9 0 1 2 0

342 336 348 347 327

97 97 99 99 99

295.0 292.0 307.5 285.8 296.4

20.1 21.2 21.9 20.5 20.2

0 0 0 1 0

351 330 338 339 316

98 96 96 97 97

222.6 237.8 236.0 228.0 232.4

17.2 18.4 18.4 17.9 18.0

6 1 2 3 1

347 336 344 344 324

98 97 98 99 99

58.8 56.3 56.3 56.7 56.4

EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS FS INVISION FS INVISION

1335C 7188PC 7557PC FS 5552F RIB FS 5559PC RA

239.3 247.7 254.9 245.4 266.4

15.6 17.7 17.7 17.3 17.6

2 4 4 27 0

345 346 341 367 347

99 98 98 99 96

155.5 149.9 153.7 155.2 154.1

15.8 17.8 16.7 16.3 17.2

4 1 0 4 0

342 345 342 355 360

99 99 97 98 99

317.5 298.6 298.8 300.8 319.3

20.6 22.5 21.2 21.2 21.3

0 0 0 0 0

337 339 332 354 350

96 96 96 95 96

237.5 232.1 235.8 233.8 246.6

17.3 19.4 18.5 18.3 18.7

2 2 1 10 0

341 343 338 358 352

98 98 97 98 97

57.6 56.7 56.2 55.6 56.1

GOLDEN HARVEST GOLDEN HARVEST GRO-MOR GRO-MOR GRO-MOR

G03U08-D G08U00-V GM 54PC55 GM 56PC65 GM 57V75EZ

227.9 237.1 251.3 255.1 224.5

17.6 16.4 17.3 18.1 16.9

5 4 5 2 2

348 351 314 325 319

98 97 99 100 99

137.7 162.3 153.7 151.4 163.0

17.0 17.6 17.1 17.2 16.9

0 1 0 1 1

342 356 312 314 323

98 97 98 98 100

268.0 293.2 289.1 300.3 301.7

20.0 22.9 20.0 21.1 22.9

0 0 0 2 0

324 327 318 312 315

94 91 98 97 97

211.2 230.8 231.4 235.6 229.7

18.2 19.0 18.1 18.8 18.9

2 1 2 1 1

338 345 314 317 319

97 95 98 98 99

57.8 55.7 56.4 56.1 55.6

LG SEEDS LG SEEDS LG SEEDS NK NK

LG 52C90VT2RIB LG 55C40TRC LG 58C48VT2RIB NK0451-AA NK0604-DV

232.7 238.9 262.9 238.8 241.6

16.4 16.1 20.5 15.0 17.4

7 40 18 1 0

355 365 364 360 343

99 100 99 100 99

167.7 125.8 141.1 144.0 152.2

15.9 15.9 17.2 15.4 17.1

1 51 27 2 0

342 351 342 332 336

99 99 97 98 98

286.6 296.9 308.5 295.1 277.9

19.2 19.7 24.0 18.3 20.6

0 2 0 0 0

334 342 342 339 343

96 97 97 98 98

229.0 220.6 237.5 226.0 223.9

17.2 17.2 20.6 16.2 18.4

3 31 15 1 0

344 353 349 344 341

98 98 98 98 98

57.5 56.9 55.2 59.0 57.2

NK PC SEED PC SEED PC SEED SEED CONSULTANTS

NK0880-V PC 3305 PC 8407 PC 8408 SC 1006PCE

226.0 239.2 256.4 239.0 240.2

16.3 15.3 17.6 17.9 16.2

1 5 1 17 2

352 359 358 365 327

97 98 96 99 97

159.7 152.7 153.4 157.2 134.6

17.1 15.4 17.2 18.6 15.4

1 0 0 0 2

332 364 343 367 334

98 99 93 99 98

293.7 312.2 303.5 295.9 285.1

21.8 19.4 20.4 21.2 19.5

0 2 0 0 0

321 354 350 359 321

93 95 94 96 95

226.5 234.7 237.8 230.7 220.0

18.4 16.7 18.4 19.2 17.0

1 2 0 6 1

335 359 350 364 327

96 97 94 98 97

56.3 57.8 57.1 57.7 56.2

SEED CONSULTANTS SEED CONSULTANTS SEED CONSULTANTS SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT

SC 1055PCE SC 1066PCE SC 1086PCE AGI-C-5105 PWE AGI-C-6104 PWE

257.6 258.8 254.7 250.6 258.2

17.9 18.5 18.4 17.5 16.0

14 0 0 1 27

332 328 325 339 363

99 97 95 92 99

155.1 146.7 163.1 159.1 155.4

16.2 16.4 15.7 16.7 15.6

2 4 0 0 0

345 332 316 328 361

99 98 93 89 97

315.1 304.2 296.3 299.5 310.0

20.9 21.9 22.8 21.4 19.9

0 0 0 0 0

327 321 310 336 359

96 95 91 90 97

242.6 236.6 238.0 236.4 241.2

18.3 18.9 19.0 18.5 17.2

5 1 0 0 9

334 327 317 334 361

98 96 93 91 98

56.6 56.0 57.1 56.3 57.9

SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SHUR GROW

AGI-C-6108 PWE Direct 4102-AA Direct 5107-V Direct 9107 GT SG-5440DV

237.4 208.0 231.9 250.3 228.1

17.7 17.1 16.4 17.7 15.4

0 11 3 0 1

368 376 374 360 341

100 98 100 98 99

159.4 124.7 160.8 147.9 151.3

18.7 17.3 16.8 17.1 15.6

2 8 1 1 1

364 370 359 365 332

98 98 96 99 95

296.4 240.8 313.1 294.0 262.1

22.2 19.6 22.8 21.0 18.3

0 0 0 1 0

360 354 358 358 333

98 93 95 96 97

231.1 191.2 235.2 230.7 213.8

19.5 18.0 18.7 18.6 16.5

1 6 2 1 1

364 367 364 361 335

99 96 97 97 97

56.8 57.1 55.8 56.3 57.4

SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW

SG-5788DV SG-5885PCE SG-6106DV SG-6122V SG-6310PCE

220.2 221.5 247.7 214.2 255.7

16.0 16.5 16.3 15.8 16.8

1 2 8 6 1

342 341 330 341 343

97 99 95 99 99

154.5 159.8 142.3 140.4 136.1

16.4 16.1 15.5 16.0 16.1

1 0 0 1 0

346 342 324 341 342

97 99 94 98 98

253.9 271.7 282.8 269.2 301.0

19.2 18.7 20.6 19.6 20.4

1 0 0 0 0

330 332 315 339 330

93 96 92 97 95

209.5 217.7 224.3 207.9 231.0

17.2 17.1 17.5 17.1 17.8

1 1 3 2 0

339 338 323 340 339

96 98 94 98 98

57.4 57.0 57.5 57.5 56.8

SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW

SG-6314DV SG-6491PCE SG-6550PCE SG-6707V SG-6807DV

221.7 244.1 252.0 243.3 250.6

16.6 16.1 17.5 17.2 20.2

0 17 4 6 0

318 343 338 341 343

92 99 97 97 100

134.6 161.2 159.7 164.8 153.1

16.0 15.9 16.9 17.0 18.2

0 0 1 4 1

327 337 342 338 343

94 98 100 97 99

273.7 307.0 311.4 291.0 291.1

20.4 19.8 21.6 22.5 22.4

0 0 0 0 0

310 334 336 334 343

89 96 97 96 98

210.0 237.5 241.0 233.1 231.6

17.7 17.3 18.7 18.9 20.3

0 6 2 3 1

318 338 339 338 343

92 98 98 97 99

59.4 57.8 56.2 55.7 55.2

SHUR GROW VIKING / BLUE RIVER VIKING / BLUE RIVER

SG-6884PCE 49-05 75-07

247.1 244.2 250.3

18.9 16.7 17.4

0 0 4

338 342 334

98 99 97

160.5 150.3 159.1

19.0 16.5 17.0

0 0 0

337 334 333

97 98 97

292.9 299.5 305.5

21.8 19.8 20.6

0 0 0

329 333 327

96 96 96

233.5 231.3 238.3

19.9 17.7 18.3

0 0 1

335 336 331

97 98 97

56.6 57.3 57.0

High Average Low LSD .10

266.4 242.1 208.0 17.7

20.5 17.0 15.0 0.8

40 6 0 17

376 341 294 9

100 98 89 2

167.7 151.9 124.7 15.6

19.0 16.6 15.4 0.6

51 3 0 10

376 339 284 10

100 97 89 3

319.3 293.3 240.8 13.2

24.0 20.9 18.3 0.7

6 0 0 2

365 332 285 12

99 95 89 3

246.6 229.1 191.2 13.8

20.6 18.2 16.2 0.9

31 3 0 8

371 337 289 8

99 97 91 2

59.4 56.8 55.2 0.9

Soil Type Soil Test (pH,P,K) Previous Crop Planting /Harvest Dates Tillage Fertilizer (N,P,K) Fungicide Cooperator County

Pewamo Silty Clay Loam 5.0, 71, 162 Soybeans May 29 / Oct. 29, 2025 Strip Till 250, 78, 150, 6S Yes Nick Williams Farms Van Wert

Hoytville Clay 5.9, 70, 181 Soybeans May 30 / Nov. 3, 2025 Stale Seedbed 210, 26, 0, 6S No Matt Davis, OARDC Wood

Elliott Silt Loam 5.5, 72, 151 Soybeans May 19 / Nov. 8, 2025 Minimum Till 224, 104, 90, 6S Yes Larry Ross Wyandot

2025 eFields Report | 243

Ohio Crop Performance Trials Table 4L. Performance of hybrids in the full season trial. NORTHWESTERN Ohio, 2025. Van Wert Brand

Hybrid

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Stk. Ldg.

Bu/A

-----%-----

Hoytville Final Std.

Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Stk. Ldg.

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

Upper Sandusky Final Std.

Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Stk. Ldg.

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

Final Std.

Summary Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Stk. Ldg.

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

Final Std.

Emg.

100/A --%--

Lbs.

AUGUSTA SEED AUGUSTA SEED AUGUSTA SEED AUGUSTA SEED AXIS SEED

A2360PWE A4861 Conv A4862 Conv A4961V 59D20

235.3 258.3 236.2 242.5 230.9

20.1 18.3 18.5 18.2 16.2

0 0 1 1 4

299 294 293 319 358

100 99 98 98 98

162.4 165.5 165.1 161.4 122.4

17.1 16.8 17.5 18.0 16.3

0 0 4 0 70

293 297 294 318 352

98 98 99 98 96

274.3 318.6 338.4 305.6 314.8

23.5 23.2 25.1 22.6 23.2

0 0 0 0 3

284 289 288 312 346

95 96 96 97 95

224.0 247.5 246.6 236.5 222.7

20.3 19.4 20.4 19.6 18.6

0 0 2 0 25

292 293 292 316 352

98 98 97 97 97

55.8 57.6 55.8 56.3 55.7

AXIS SEED AXIS SEED AXIS SEED AXIS SEED AXIS SEED

60C61 62C60 63H27 64H70 65W75

248.7 243.3 250.8 244.0 240.7

18.5 17.6 19.9 17.3 17.5

1 3 0 3 14

339 358 355 358 355

94 98 98 98 97

149.4 157.4 168.4 151.9 168.9

16.7 17.1 17.7 19.1 17.4

0 1 0 2 0

337 359 356 352 342

92 99 98 96 95

255.2 333.7 305.4 319.2 312.6

23.0 25.7 25.6 23.6 24.2

1 0 0 11 0

314 354 339 352 337

86 97 94 98 93

217.8 244.8 241.5 238.4 240.8

19.4 20.2 21.1 20.0 19.7

1 1 0 5 5

330 357 350 354 345

91 98 97 97 95

56.1 55.2 55.9 56.9 57.7

BA GENETICS BA GENETICS BA GENETICS BA GENETICS BA GENETICS

BA 25-11 VT2P BA 25-12 VT2P BA 26-10 PCE BA 26-12 PCE BA 26-14 PCE

230.7 228.2 239.3 234.6 247.8

16.7 16.4 18.0 17.3 20.1

35 57 3 8 8

355 358 325 361 359

98 98 90 99 99

161.2 166.5 167.5 140.9 161.7

16.7 16.7 17.0 17.3 19.3

13 1 1 0 0

339 346 305 352 356

95 94 84 97 97

310.1 304.3 273.0 320.8 297.5

22.0 23.2 23.3 25.0 23.7

2 0 0 2 0

346 316 303 342 354

95 87 84 94 97

234.0 233.0 226.6 232.1 235.6

18.5 18.8 19.4 19.9 21.0

17 19 2 3 3

347 340 311 352 356

96 93 86 97 98

56.4 58.0 55.9 55.1 55.6

CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL DEKALB DEKALB

209-70TRERIB 210-08VT2PRIB 211-11VT2PRIB DKC110-10RIB DKC110-41RIB

243.0 260.4 235.7 262.4 236.2

18.0 17.4 16.4 17.7 16.1

1 1 45 2 4

330 324 365 347 348

97 98 99 99 98

123.5 105.7 157.8 135.7 149.9

19.3 16.5 16.4 17.2 16.8

35 7 3 0 8

310 321 359 342 347

92 98 98 97 97

324.0 315.3 308.8 323.3 309.9

25.2 24.5 22.5 23.3 22.8

0 0 2 1 2

308 324 351 345 337

92 98 96 98 95

230.2 227.1 234.1 240.5 232.0

20.9 19.5 18.5 19.4 18.6

12 2 17 1 5

316 323 358 345 344

94 98 98 98 97

54.7 55.1 58.4 57.5 56.4

DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB

DKC111-35RIB DKC112-12RIB DKC114-99RIB DKC64-22RIB DKC66-06RIB

233.5 258.1 250.3 233.9 250.9

16.0 18.5 18.0 16.0 18.8

5 5 1 20 0

342 347 343 352 348

99 100 99 100 99

146.9 146.9 163.7 163.0 139.3

16.2 16.9 18.8 16.7 19.5

3 0 1 1 23

333 341 346 345 352

95 98 100 99 99

291.2 304.2 310.6 298.4 309.1

22.1 24.3 24.0 21.5 24.7

6 0 4 3 2

339 337 336 341 337

98 97 97 97 95

223.9 236.4 241.5 231.8 233.1

18.1 19.9 20.3 18.1 21.0

4 2 2 8 9

338 342 342 346 346

97 98 98 99 98

58.9 57.0 57.8 60.5 56.8

DEKALB DYNA-GRO DYNA-GRO EBBERTS EBBERTS

DKC68-35RIB D52PN76RA D52TC66RIB 1660C 6883DGVT2P RIB

248.9 244.1 250.3 220.6 252.0

18.6 18.7 17.1 19.0 18.3

10 0 1 7 3

336 328 327 343 359

97 99 98 99 98

149.8 152.4 140.9 150.3 168.7

18.6 17.6 17.9 17.9 17.0

0 0 8 2 0

323 328 327 332 356

94 98 98 96 98

302.9 323.8 318.3 250.7 306.3

24.4 25.6 22.8 23.1 24.5

1 0 0 0 0

302 316 329 333 342

87 97 98 97 93

233.9 240.1 236.5 207.2 242.4

20.5 20.6 19.3 20.0 19.9

4 0 3 3 1

320 324 327 336 352

93 98 98 97 96

58.1 55.0 57.6 56.0 56.7

EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS

7114PC 7209TR 7442PC 7770PC 7993PC

252.4 255.3 240.9 238.9 238.1

18.7 17.2 17.4 17.1 19.9

17 29 4 2 3

347 343 337 343 337

100 99 98 99 98

137.4 171.1 157.8 159.3 164.5

18.5 16.5 17.8 16.2 19.2

0 5 1 2 1

339 339 337 338 329

99 99 99 98 97

308.2 310.8 325.7 331.3 310.9

24.7 22.5 24.5 23.3 24.3

1 0 2 0 0

337 333 329 332 333

97 97 96 96 96

232.7 245.7 241.5 243.2 237.8

20.6 18.7 19.9 18.9 21.1

6 11 2 1 1

341 339 334 338 333

99 98 98 97 97

56.3 56.5 55.3 56.5 55.1

EBBERTS FS INVISION FS INVISION FS INVISION FS INVISION

9779SSX FS 5947T RIB FS 6042F RIB FS 6133VDG RIB FS 6157T RIB

246.5 244.9 259.4 244.3 271.2

17.2 17.6 19.1 18.1 18.3

1 28 0 6 17

362 360 364 361 356

100 99 100 99 98

151.3 137.0 143.4 161.3 148.1

16.3 17.1 18.1 17.0 17.6

5 27 7 34 7

355 358 358 356 351

97 98 98 98 97

322.7 325.2 333.2 309.6 312.7

22.6 23.3 24.4 24.8 24.3

0 4 0 0 0

364 351 354 348 336

99 96 98 96 93

240.2 235.7 245.3 238.4 244.0

18.7 19.3 20.6 19.9 20.1

2 19 2 13 8

360 356 358 355 348

99 98 98 98 96

57.6 57.3 56.3 55.9 56.6

FS INVISION FS INVISION FS INVISION GOLDEN HARVEST GOLDEN HARVEST

FS 6245V RIB FS 6349PC RA FS 6447T RIB G10M87-AA G10U97-V

244.5 253.4 250.1 237.2 240.0

17.3 18.2 17.4 17.2 19.0

7 3 3 18 0

356 358 358 363 356

99 99 99 99 98

158.5 144.7 157.9 123.5 157.4

17.0 17.5 18.9 16.9 18.0

4 1 2 1 1

356 348 351 372 359

98 96 97 99 99

307.8 330.2 329.3 302.8 291.7

22.9 25.1 23.8 22.4 23.6

0 0 4 0 0

346 347 346 358 343

95 96 95 97 94

236.9 242.8 245.8 221.2 229.7

19.1 20.3 20.0 18.8 20.2

4 1 3 7 0

353 351 351 364 353

97 97 97 98 97

58.6 55.1 57.5 57.8 57.1

GOLDEN HARVEST GOLDEN HARVEST GOLDEN HARVEST GREAT HEART SEED GREAT HEART SEED

G11V76-AA G12S75-D G12U11-AA 7151PCE 7195TRE

253.2 249.0 238.9 248.0 248.8

17.5 19.0 18.4 17.5 18.0

2 0 4 1 17

360 337 341 336 333

98 100 99 99 98

162.7 140.2 136.2 139.4 158.8

18.2 17.0 17.8 16.3 18.2

3 0 1 0 3

361 334 334 343 342

97 97 97 95 98

321.0 313.7 313.4 292.6 305.1

23.8 27.3 24.5 21.0 24.4

0 0 0 0 1

345 327 332 327 325

95 96 96 95 95

245.6 234.3 229.5 226.7 237.6

19.8 21.1 20.2 18.3 20.2

2 0 2 0 7

355 333 336 335 333

96 98 97 96 97

56.2 55.6 57.6 55.9 56.6

GREAT HEART SEED LG SEEDS LG SEEDS LG SEEDS NK

7272PCE LG 60C05-3110 LG 62C20D LG 62C73VT2RIB NK1056-V

250.1 234.4 237.6 273.5 229.8

17.8 16.5 18.4 17.9 18.4

0 33 21 34 4

333 358 361 360 363

98 98 99 99 99

158.6 164.7 157.6 156.1 162.7

18.6 16.2 18.4 16.6 18.1

0 35 3 0 0

328 343 360 348 328

96 98 98 99 99

334.3 322.9 309.2 330.0 287.9

25.6 22.5 23.4 24.2 23.7

0 0 0 0 0

314 339 334 334 328

93 97 97 97 94

247.7 240.7 234.8 253.2 226.8

20.7 18.4 20.1 19.6 20.1

0 23 8 12 2

325 347 352 348 339

96 98 98 99 97

54.7 57.8 55.8 58.8 57.1

NK PC SEED PC SEED PC SEED PC SEED

NK1188-AA PC 5510 PC 5511 PC 6313 PC 6610

249.1 220.7 231.2 244.4 246.3

18.6 18.0 17.8 20.4 17.1

10 1 4 28 2

364 350 361 365 355

99 95 98 98 96

161.4 173.9 137.9 165.4 161.8

18.2 17.5 17.0 18.9 16.8

1 0 7 1 2

334 355 347 360 358

95 96 95 98 96

305.5 294.7 307.7 305.6 317.6

23.8 22.0 23.3 23.6 22.8

0 0 0 3 0

351 341 350 356 345

98 94 95 96 93

238.7 229.8 225.6 238.5 241.9

20.2 19.2 19.4 21.0 18.9

4 0 4 11 1

350 348 353 361 352

97 95 96 97 95

56.4 57.3 55.9 56.4 57.5

SEED CONSULTANTS SEED CONSULTANTS SEED CONSULTANTS SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT

SC 1094PCE SC 1105PCE SC 1116PCE AGI-C-3113 PWE AGI-C-3114 PWE

242.7 248.6 252.0 253.8 236.9

16.8 18.0 17.8 18.3 19.0

27 23 3 0 1

342 334 339 363 376

99 99 98 96 100

148.8 163.6 158.2 151.1 144.6

16.2 16.0 16.2 17.7 16.6

2 2 1 1 1

341 336 332 358 367

100 99 98 95 98

322.1 316.4 320.8 281.8 312.8

22.8 23.1 24.3 22.6 24.1

0 0 2 0 0

332 323 338 328 354

98 95 98 89 95

237.9 242.8 243.7 228.9 231.4

18.6 19.1 19.4 19.6 19.9

10 9 2 0 1

338 331 336 349 365

99 98 98 93 98

56.6 56.9 57.7 56.4 57.8

SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT

AGI-C-4111 PWE AGI-C-6112 PWE Direct 2111-AA Direct 3109 Direct 3111-3110

237.7 228.1 245.4 239.5 216.1

17.3 17.7 18.4 18.5 17.8

4 2 1 1 0

369 348 354 358 333

99 96 96 97 97

159.8 159.4 158.8 150.5 145.4

16.9 17.3 18.3 17.7 16.2

1 0 1 0 0

364 348 341 361 338

99 95 92 98 98

313.2 322.6 287.4 310.0 314.7

22.7 24.9 23.7 21.5 25.4

0 2 0 0 0

354 336 339 347 337

95 92 92 95 97

236.9 236.7 230.5 233.4 225.4

19.0 20.0 20.1 19.2 19.8

2 1 1 0 0

362 344 345 355 336

98 94 93 97 97

56.1 55.1 56.1 58.6 55.7

SHUR GROW SHUR GROW VIKING / BLUE RIVER VIKING / BLUE RIVER VIKING / BLUE RIVER

SG-6911PCE SG-7009PCE 76-11 78-13 85-09

249.5 228.4 236.8 238.0 260.0

17.8 18.5 17.1 19.9 18.6

4 0 3 1 0

324 338 330 343 325

94 98 96 98 97

155.3 155.6 159.3 157.7 151.8

16.4 17.1 16.6 19.1 18.0

1 0 0 2 1

327 338 325 337 320

95 98 96 98 94

312.6 285.4 304.5 308.2 290.3

21.9 23.6 21.7 23.8 21.9

0 0 0 1 0

328 324 323 320 318

93 93 95 92 94

239.1 223.1 233.5 234.7 234.0

18.7 19.7 18.5 21.0 19.5

2 0 1 1 0

326 333 326 333 321

94 96 96 96 95

59.0 56.0 57.0 56.0 58.3

High Average Low LSD .10

273.5 243.7 216.1 17.2

20.4 18.0 16.0 0.8

57 8 0 24

376 346 293 9

100 98 90 2

173.9 153.3 105.7 16.7

19.5 17.4 16.0 0.7

70 5 0 13

372 342 293 10

100 97 84 2

338.4 309.3 250.7 15.6

27.3 23.6 21.0 0.9

11 1 0 3

364 334 284 14

99 95 84 4

253.2 235.4 207.2 18.2

21.1 19.7 18.1 1.1

25 5 0 12

365 341 292 8

99 97 86 2

60.5 56.7 54.7 0.8

Soil Type Soil Test (pH,P,K) Previous Crop Planting /Harvest Dates Tillage Fertilizer (N,P,K) Fungicide Cooperator County

Pewamo Silty Clay Loam 5.0, 71, 162 Soybeans May 29 / Oct. 29, 2025 Strip Till 250, 78, 150, 6S Yes Nick Williams Farms Van Wert

244 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Hoytville Clay 5.9, 70, 181 Soybeans May 30 / Nov. 3, 2025 Stale Seedbed 210, 26, 0, 6S No Matt Davis, OARDC Wood

Elliott Silt Loam 5.5, 72, 151 Soybeans May 19 / Nov. 8, 2025 Minimum Till 224, 104, 90, 6S Yes Larry Ross Wyandot

Corn

Small Grains

Soybean

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

TABLE 5. Two year hybrid performance in NORTHWESTERN Ohio, 2024-2025. Van Wert Brand

Hybrid

Stk. Ldg.

Upper Sandusky

Hoytville

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Final Std.

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Emg.

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std. Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Bu/A

Harv. Yield Mst.

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std.

Summary Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std.

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%-- Lbs.

Emg.

AUGUSTA SEED AXIS SEED AXIS SEED AXIS SEED AXIS SEED

A2360PWE 53M77 55D61 57K72 59D20

221.6 247.7 241.3 232.4 205.8

17.5 16.4 16.5 15.8 15.3

0 11 1 19 2

313 365 355 350 356

97 97 97 96 97

197.9 164.2 179.8 177.6 160.8

18.0 17.1 17.6 18.0 16.5

0 26 0 1 35

311 342 343 327 342

97 91 95 90 93

256.8 259.3 256.3 262.9 255.3

21.1 18.6 19.1 18.5 19.7

0 1 0 3 2

310 362 340 353 356

96 98 93 96 97

225.5 223.7 225.8 224.3 207.3

18.8 17.4 17.8 17.4 17.1

0 12 0 8 13

311 356 346 343 351

97 95 95 94 95

57.1 57.6 56.9 58.3 56.4

AXIS SEED AXIS SEED BA GENETICS BA GENETICS BA GENETICS

60C61 62C60 BA 25-07 PCE BA 25-11 VT2P BA 25-12 VT2P

234.6 232.0 224.8 209.4 224.8

17.0 17.1 15.9 15.7 15.6

1 1 2 17 28

340 357 343 345 344

93 97 96 98 97

187.9 189.5 184.2 187.7 192.7

17.9 18.7 17.0 17.2 17.8

0 1 0 7 1

339 358 351 328 328

92 97 96 92 91

243.8 270.6 250.3 273.7 256.5

21.1 22.4 19.5 20.0 20.7

1 0 0 1 0

333 359 347 347 326

90 97 95 96 92

222.1 230.7 219.8 223.6 224.7

18.7 19.4 17.4 17.6 18.0

1 1 1 8 10

338 358 347 340 333

92 97 96 95 93

57.0 56.2 57.9 56.9 58.8

BA GENETICS BA GENETICS BA GENETICS BA GENETICS CHANNEL

BA 26-06 PCE BA 26-10 PCE BA 26-12 PCE BA 26-14 PCE 210-08VT2PRIB

250.2 238.1 224.6 239.8 231.8

17.2 17.4 16.7 19.1 17.2

2 2 4 4 0

326 330 345 348 327

93 93 96 98 96

182.4 190.1 181.1 191.2 153.3

17.9 18.2 18.6 19.7 17.8

0 1 0 0 3

335 319 346 349 318

94 90 97 96 95

260.5 243.2 267.7 256.9 272.9

19.5 21.1 22.7 22.5 21.7

0 0 1 0 0

332 327 345 350 334

93 91 95 96 98

231.0 223.8 224.5 229.3 219.3

18.2 18.9 19.4 20.4 18.9

1 1 2 1 1

331 325 345 349 326

94 91 96 96 96

57.1 56.8 56.0 56.4 56.3

CHANNEL DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB

211-11VT2PRIB DKC099-11RIB DKC101-35RIB DKC102-13RIB DKC103-07RIB

221.3 218.8 230.4 217.8 228.0

15.8 15.0 15.3 15.5 15.2

23 2 0 0 4

367 338 339 327 348

99 96 97 93 97

183.3 170.1 181.2 176.4 174.9

17.0 15.6 16.2 16.7 16.2

2 1 2 2 4

357 332 329 332 332

97 95 93 94 94

269.3 246.1 245.1 253.9 256.5

19.7 17.8 17.8 18.2 18.5

1 0 0 0 0

361 342 339 327 344

97 97 95 93 96

224.7 211.7 218.9 216.1 219.8

17.5 16.1 16.4 16.8 16.6

8 1 1 1 3

361 337 336 328 341

97 96 95 93 96

59.3 58.4 56.9 58.2 59.6

DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB

DKC110-10RIB DKC110-41RIB DKC114-99RIB DKC56-26RIB DKC64-22RIB

238.4 219.7 223.0 243.0 213.1

16.4 15.4 17.3 16.0 15.4

1 2 1 2 10

346 342 348 341 351

97 96 99 97 99

175.0 182.1 168.9 175.3 187.2

17.3 17.3 20.8 17.3 17.3

0 4 0 1 1

342 344 347 332 349

96 97 99 94 99

273.7 261.9 267.2 260.2 257.3

20.8 19.9 22.3 18.8 19.9

1 1 2 1 1

352 341 344 341 346

98 96 98 97 98

229.0 221.2 219.7 226.2 219.2

18.2 17.5 20.1 17.4 17.5

1 2 1 1 4

347 342 346 338 349

97 97 99 96 98

58.7 57.5 58.4 57.4 61.1

DEKALB DEKALB EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS

DKC66-06RIB DKC68-35RIB 1335C 1660C 6883DGVT2P RIB

225.8 244.2 247.1 219.7 238.6

18.3 18.4 15.6 17.2 17.4

0 5 1 4 2

344 342 345 343 358

97 98 99 99 97

170.0 183.0 189.6 189.8 193.0

20.3 19.9 16.2 18.6 17.7

12 0 2 1 0

344 335 338 332 352

97 96 96 95 96

271.2 254.4 274.8 234.7 267.3

23.2 22.4 18.2 21.1 21.8

1 1 0 0 0

338 325 339 345 351

96 93 97 97 95

222.3 227.2 237.2 214.7 233.0

20.6 20.2 16.7 19.0 19.0

4 2 1 2 1

342 334 341 340 353

97 96 97 97 96

57.5 58.8 58.4 57.2 57.6

EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS

7188PC 7209TR 7442PC 7557PC 7993PC

244.7 222.8 212.4 248.5 213.5

17.0 16.0 16.5 16.9 18.0

2 14 4 2 1

351 346 337 339 339

97 99 96 96 98

177.5 186.9 180.6 187.5 189.0

18.7 16.8 19.4 17.6 19.9

1 2 0 0 0

351 332 336 339 324

98 95 97 95 95

253.9 266.4 266.2 260.1 265.5

20.9 19.4 22.1 19.6 23.1

0 0 1 0 0

350 341 342 330 337

97 97 96 93 97

225.4 225.4 219.8 232.0 222.6

18.9 17.4 19.3 18.0 20.3

1 6 2 1 1

351 339 338 336 333

97 97 97 94 97

57.6 57.2 56.1 57.2 56.0

EBBERTS FS INVISION FS INVISION FS INVISION FS INVISION

9779SSX FS 5947T RIB FS 6133VDG RIB FS 6245V RIB FS 6349PC RA

221.7 224.7 227.3 242.4 240.4

15.9 16.6 16.7 16.7 17.5

1 14 3 3 1

357 363 359 359 352

98 98 98 99 96

184.0 168.8 186.4 184.5 177.6

17.4 18.0 18.8 18.3 18.5

3 13 17 2 1

354 361 348 351 351

96 97 95 96 96

274.0 272.0 267.9 273.3 274.7

19.7 21.2 21.9 20.9 22.0

0 2 0 0 0

372 359 359 354 350

98 97 98 96 96

226.6 221.8 227.2 233.4 230.9

17.7 18.6 19.1 18.6 19.3

1 10 7 2 1

361 361 355 354 351

98 97 97 97 96

58.6 57.8 57.1 59.4 56.2

FS INVISION GOLDEN HARVEST GOLDEN HARVEST GOLDEN HARVEST GOLDEN HARVEST

FS 6447T RIB G03U08-D G08U00-V G11V76-AA G12U11-AA

230.7 227.9 237.3 238.3 225.6

17.6 17.0 15.9 16.6 17.0

2 3 2 1 2

360 356 347 358 341

98 98 97 97 99

183.5 162.3 181.6 191.0 159.0

19.9 17.7 18.6 19.0 18.2

1 0 0 1 1

349 343 328 356 332

96 96 91 95 97

282.6 243.5 268.1 264.8 261.6

21.7 19.2 20.4 22.4 21.5

2 0 0 0 0

356 341 337 359 339

97 96 95 97 98

232.3 211.3 229.0 231.3 215.4

19.8 18.0 18.3 19.3 18.9

2 1 1 1 1

355 346 337 358 337

97 96 94 96 98

58.1 58.6 56.6 56.9 58.4

LG SEEDS LG SEEDS NK NK NK

LG 58C48VT2RIB LG 62C73VT2RIB NK0880-V NK1056-V NK1188-AA

250.7 249.4 235.8 223.7 222.7

18.4 17.1 16.0 18.1 17.2

9 17 0 2 5

352 341 343 350 367

99 96 96 98 98

180.3 178.4 189.1 190.7 185.6

18.1 19.1 18.0 19.0 19.1

13 1 1 0 0

336 328 321 322 334

96 94 93 95 94

265.5 282.0 259.0 251.3 269.8

21.3 21.9 20.5 21.5 22.1

0 0 0 0 0

339 334 329 333 361

98 97 96 95 98

232.1 236.6 228.0 221.9 226.0

19.3 19.3 18.2 19.5 19.5

8 6 0 1 2

342 335 331 335 354

98 96 95 96 97

56.4 59.3 56.8 57.6 57.1

PC SEED PC SEED PC SEED PC SEED PC SEED

PC 3305 PC 5510 PC 6313 PC 6610 PC 8407

241.6 227.9 236.6 226.8 253.9

15.6 16.6 18.8 16.0 16.8

2 0 14 1 1

359 351 360 359 354

96 94 96 96 95

190.5 198.5 188.0 186.9 188.8

15.9 18.1 19.1 17.0 17.6

0 0 1 1 0

354 353 358 348 352

95 95 96 93 95

271.8 270.3 265.4 268.3 269.4

17.8 20.2 22.4 20.2 19.1

1 0 2 0 0

349 351 358 357 352

94 95 96 95 94

234.6 232.2 230.0 227.3 237.4

16.4 18.3 20.1 17.7 17.8

1 0 5 1 0

354 352 359 355 353

95 95 96 94 95

58.5 58.2 57.3 58.5 58.0

PC SEED SEED CONSULTANTS SEED CONSULTANTS SEED CONSULTANTS SEED GENETICS DIRECT

PC 8408 SC 1055PCE SC 1094PCE SC 1105PCE AGI-C-3113 PWE

243.6 246.8 216.5 219.1 240.3

17.1 16.9 15.9 16.4 17.5

8 7 13 12 0

364 339 347 338 361

97 98 99 98 96

188.1 188.9 182.6 181.0 176.9

19.0 16.9 16.7 16.7 19.7

0 1 1 1 0

362 350 347 341 358

97 99 98 97 95

263.1 272.0 269.9 262.1 243.1

19.8 19.3 20.3 20.3 21.7

0 0 0 0 0

359 337 341 336 348

96 97 98 97 93

231.6 235.9 223.0 220.7 220.1

18.7 17.7 17.6 17.8 19.6

3 3 5 4 0

362 342 345 338 356

97 98 98 97 95

58.7 57.7 57.5 57.9 57.0

SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT

AGI-C-3114 PWE AGI-C-4111 PWE AGI-C-5105 PWE Direct 2111-AA Direct 3109

222.2 228.1 249.7 230.3 216.3

18.1 16.4 16.8 16.9 16.8

1 2 0 0 0

368 372 333 364 354

98 99 91 97 96

176.9 190.7 184.0 187.3 185.1

18.4 17.3 17.6 18.9 17.8

0 0 0 1 0

370 368 336 344 355

98 99 91 91 95

263.6 267.3 270.2 255.6 270.2

22.2 20.5 19.6 22.1 19.9

0 0 0 0 0

359 361 337 357 350

96 97 91 95 95

220.9 228.7 234.6 224.4 223.8

19.6 18.0 18.0 19.3 18.2

0 1 0 0 0

366 367 335 355 353

97 98 91 94 95

58.3 57.0 57.2 57.1 59.6

SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SHUR GROW SHUR GROW

Direct 3111-3110 Direct 4102-AA Direct 5107-V SG-5885PCE SG-6122V

201.9 208.3 233.6 220.7 214.6

16.9 16.2 15.8 16.1 15.3

0 6 2 1 3

354 373 369 350 334

98 97 98 98 98

164.8 17.4 0 Animal Damage 183.0 18.1 1 183.4 16.2 0 160.3 16.2 0

332

21.3 18.7 20.4 17.5 17.9

0 0 0 0 0

352 364 365 346 343

97 94 97 97 98

206.9 18.5 Animal Damage 230.7 18.1 213.9 16.6 205.6 16.5

346

56.3

91 98 97

254.0 217.8 275.6 237.7 241.8

343 350 339

1 0 1

359 348 339

95 98 98

56.6 57.5 58.6

SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW

SG-6310PCE SG-6550PCE SG-6707V SG-6884PCE SG-7009PCE

240.0 252.0 239.7 240.1 225.1

16.1 17.1 16.5 17.7 17.3

0 2 3 0 0

334 328 332 334 333

97 95 96 98 97

169.2 183.7 175.2 186.5 192.4

16.8 18.0 18.6 19.4 18.3

0 0 2 0 0

328 323 304 326 333

96 96 88 97 98

262.2 267.7 257.8 265.5 265.7

18.5 19.7 20.9 20.5 21.2

0 0 0 0 0

332 320 336 328 326

96 94 97 97 95

223.8 234.5 224.2 230.7 227.7

17.1 18.2 18.7 19.2 18.9

0 1 2 0 0

331 324 324 330 331

97 95 94 97 97

57.7 57.1 56.3 57.7 57.1

VIKING / BLUE RIVER VIKING / BLUE RIVER VIKING / BLUE RIVER VIKING / BLUE RIVER

85-09 75-07 76-11 78-13

238.2 249.8 221.0 225.8

16.9 16.6 15.7 18.1

0 2 2 1

327 335 332 339

96 98 97 97

182.4 183.6 179.0 187.9

18.2 17.8 17.5 19.5

0 0 0 1

323 328 311 330

94 95 91 96

253.7 275.2 264.9 268.0

20.4 19.0 19.5 22.5

0 0 0 0

327 334 327 326

96 96 96 95

224.8 236.2 221.6 227.2

18.5 17.8 17.6 20.0

0 1 1 1

326 332 323 332

95 96 94 96

59.3 57.9 57.4 57.1

253.9 230.9 201.9

19.1 16.7 15.0

28 4 0

373 347 313

99 97 91

198.5 181.7 153.3

20.8 18.0 15.6

35 2 0

370 340 304

99 95 88

282.6 261.9 217.8

23.2 20.4 17.5

3 0 0

372 344 310

98 96 90

237.4 225.1 205.6

20.6 18.4 16.1

13 2 0

367 343 311

99 96 91

61.1 57.6 56.0

Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Stk. Ldg.

High Average Low

TABLE 6. Three year hybrid performance in NORTHWESTERN Ohio, 2023-2025 continued on next page. Van Wert Brand

Hybrid

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Bu/A

Stk. Ldg.

Hoytville Final Std.

Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Bu/A

Stk. Ldg.

Upper Sandusky Final Std.

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std.

Summary

Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Final Std.

Emg.

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Lbs.

AXIS SEED AXIS SEED BA GENETICS CHANNEL DEKALB

57K72 59D20 BA 25-12 VT2P 211-11VT2PRIB DKC101-35RIB

245.4 234.6 246.3 240.8 241.8

17.3 17.7 17.9 17.8 17.1

13 1 19 15 0

352 358 339 358 344

96 97 97 99 98

192.9 184.8 201.0 201.7 196.4

17.1 16.9 18.1 17.5 15.8

1 24 0 1 2

334 344 329 351 334

92 94 91 97 94

278.1 272.8 272.2 274.6 263.8

18.3 19.7 20.6 19.9 18.1

2 1 0 1 0

354 356 333 351 338

96 98 93 97 96

238.8 230.7 239.8 239.0 234.0

17.6 18.1 18.8 18.4 17.0

5 9 6 6 1

347 353 334 353 338

95 96 94 98 96

57.6 55.9 58.0 58.1 55.8

DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB EBBERTS

DKC56-26RIB DKC64-22RIB DKC66-06RIB DKC68-35RIB 1335C

255.4 237.0 251.3 260.5 254.4

17.7 17.8 20.4 20.2 16.8

2 7 0 3 1

341 355 344 343 341

97 98 97 98 98

198.3 193.7 186.5 194.8 201.7

17.2 17.6 20.5 20.3 16.0

1 0 8 0 2

338 349 339 333 334

96 97 96 95 96

275.0 273.5 286.3 270.3 285.3

18.8 19.7 22.9 22.2 18.1

0 1 1 0 0

343 350 339 330 340

97 97 96 95 97

242.9 234.7 241.4 241.9 247.1

17.9 18.3 21.2 20.9 17.0

1 3 3 1 1

341 351 340 336 338

97 97 96 96 97

56.5 60.3 56.7 57.9 57.6

2025 eFields Report | 245

Ohio Crop Performance Trials TABLE 6. Three year hybrid performance in NORTHWESTERN Ohio, 2023-2025 continued. Van Wert Brand

Hybrid

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Stk. Ldg.

Bu/A

-----%-----

Hoytville Final Std.

Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

100/A --%--

Bu/A

Stk. Ldg.

Upper Sandusky Final Std.

Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Bu/A

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std.

Summary Emg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std.

Emg.

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A --%--

Lbs.

EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS

1660C 6883DGVT2P RIB 7188PC 7209TR 7993PC

237.4 252.3 249.3 243.2 235.6

18.5 19.3 18.6 17.7 20.0

2 1 1 10 1

339 358 344 341 338

98 97 97 98 98

207.7 200.4 191.5 202.0 200.2

18.8 18.0 19.5 17.4 20.9

1 0 0 2 0

335 360 344 333 324

94 96 97 94 95

262.7 278.0 271.8 276.3 278.7

20.7 21.2 20.6 19.7 22.9

0 0 0 0 0

345 360 348 335 337

98 96 97 96 97

235.9 243.5 237.5 240.5 238.2

19.3 19.5 19.6 18.3 21.2

1 0 1 4 0

340 360 345 336 333

97 97 97 96 97

56.4 56.6 56.8 56.3 55.0

EBBERTS FS INVISION GOLDEN HARVEST NK PC SEED

9779SSX FS 6133VDG RIB G11V76-AA NK1188-AA PC 3305

243.0 244.0 249.0 239.9 249.9

18.1 19.6 19.2 19.5 16.9

0 2 1 3 2

350 359 360 358 358

98 98 98 98 96

197.8 206.4 205.5 207.5 202.5

18.0 19.4 19.5 19.6 15.8

2 11 1 0 0

364 351 359 337 352

97 95 96 95 94

283.5 280.9 274.6 278.2 283.1

19.9 21.8 21.9 21.7 17.9

0 0 0 0 1

375 359 360 358 355

98 98 97 98 95

241.4 243.8 243.0 241.9 245.2

18.7 20.3 20.2 20.3 16.9

1 4 1 1 1

363 357 360 351 355

97 97 97 97 95

57.5 55.5 55.9 56.1 57.7

PC SEED SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT VIKING / BLUE RIVER

PC 8408 AGI-C-4111 PWE Direct 2111-AA Direct 3109 85-09

250.6 240.4 245.4 230.6 247.4

19.0 18.2 19.3 18.5 18.5

6 1 0 0 0

357 368 358 353 329

96 98 97 96 97

205.5 195.2 206.6 195.9 193.1

19.7 18.2 19.5 18.8 19.1

0 0 0 0 0

353 363 343 347 322

94 98 92 93 94

278.3 281.3 265.0 277.6 265.3

20.0 20.4 21.8 19.8 20.2

0 0 0 0 0

354 361 354 348 331

95 97 95 95 97

244.8 239.0 239.0 234.7 235.3

19.6 18.9 20.2 19.0 19.3

2 1 0 0 0

355 364 352 350 327

95 98 95 95 96

57.4 55.9 56.0 58.7 58.4

260.5 245.0 230.6

20.4 18.5 16.8

19 4 0

368 350 329

99 98 96

207.7 198.8 184.8

20.9 18.4 15.8

24 2 0

364 343 322

98 95 91

286.3 275.5 262.7

22.9 20.3 17.9

2 0 0

375 349 330

98 96 93

247.1 239.8 230.7

21.2 19.1 16.9

9 2 0

364 347 327

98 96 94

60.3 57.0 55.0

High Average Low

Table 7E. Performance of hybrids in the early maturity trial. NORTH CENTRAL and NORTHEASTERN Ohio, 2025. Wooster

Bucyrus Brand

Hybrid

Final Std.

Emg.

Yield

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A

--%--

Final Std.

Emg.

Yield

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A

--%--

Harv. Mst.

Summary

Stk. Ldg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std.

Emg.

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A

--%--

Lbs.

AUGUSTA SEED AUGUSTA SEED AUGUSTA SEED AUGUSTA SEED AXIS SEED

A2058 Conv A2355 Conv A2357V A4057 Conv 53M77

280.0 277.4 264.5 257.2 256.9

20.7 18.8 19.9 19.6 18.7

0 2 1 0 6

289 288 288 301 356

96 96 97 99 96

178.2 210.4 192.5 189.7 196.3

18.5 16.5 18.6 17.0 17.3

0 0 0 0 1

289 292 294 299 370

97 98 97 99 97

229.1 243.9 228.5 223.4 226.6

19.6 17.6 19.3 18.3 18.0

0 1 0 0 4

289 290 291 300 363

97 97 97 99 97

57.9 58.0 55.6 57.7 55.8

AXIS SEED AXIS SEED AXIS SEED BA GENETICS BA GENETICS

55D61 57K72 AEXPT108 BA 25-07 PCE BA 26-06 PCE

271.2 270.2 281.7 253.6 274.7

19.9 18.3 19.6 19.6 20.6

1 8 0 1 1

339 355 350 321 296

94 98 96 91 83

195.3 212.9 193.2 188.1 199.3

16.8 17.3 18.2 18.1 18.9

1 0 0 0 0

347 346 352 343 311

96 95 98 95 87

233.2 241.5 237.5 220.9 237.0

18.4 17.8 18.9 18.8 19.8

1 4 0 1 1

343 350 351 332 303

95 97 97 93 85

56.6 57.2 57.3 57.5 56.0

DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB

DKC092-14RIB DKC099-11RIB DKC101-35RIB DKC102-13RIB DKC103-07RIB

245.6 257.6 249.5 256.1 265.8

16.9 18.5 18.1 18.3 18.7

0 0 0 0 0

341 323 323 308 333

96 94 93 89 95

183.9 195.0 181.8 183.8 201.0

15.6 17.1 16.3 16.5 16.7

0 0 0 0 0

345 341 345 330 341

97 98 99 95 95

214.7 226.3 215.7 219.9 233.4

16.3 17.8 17.2 17.4 17.7

0 0 0 0 0

343 332 334 319 337

97 96 96 92 95

57.4 57.2 55.7 56.6 58.5

DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB DYNA-GRO EBBERTS

DKC104-08RIB DKC108-64RIB DKC56-26RIB D44PN56RA 1335C

279.4 277.1 273.4 258.8 262.1

19.9 19.5 18.9 20.0 18.4

0 0 2 0 1

334 334 332 303 333

97 96 97 94 97

202.8 205.0 208.2 205.1 183.9

17.4 19.2 17.7 16.8 18.1

0 2 0 0 0

342 343 342 312 333

97 97 98 96 97

241.1 241.1 240.8 232.0 223.0

18.7 19.4 18.3 18.4 18.3

0 1 1 0 0

338 339 337 308 333

97 96 97 95 97

56.3 56.9 56.4 56.7 57.7

EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS FS INVISION FS INVISION

7000TR 7188PC 7557PC FS 5552F RIB FS 5559PC RA

241.4 257.1 300.2 280.4 277.4

16.9 20.8 20.0 19.5 20.6

0 0 0 2 0

346 337 333 354 328

94 95 96 96 92

207.6 181.6 208.6 180.6 206.8

16.0 18.7 18.2 18.0 17.6

0 0 0 1 0

355 338 341 363 345

97 96 96 99 95

224.5 219.3 254.4 230.5 242.1

16.4 19.7 19.1 18.7 19.1

0 0 0 2 0

350 338 337 358 336

95 95 96 98 94

57.5 57.0 56.2 55.5 56.2

GOLDEN HARVEST GOLDEN HARVEST GOLDEN HARVEST LG SEEDS LG SEEDS

G01U74-AA G03U08-D G08U00-V LG 51C62D LG 52C90VT2RIB

260.6 250.6 255.6 270.2 241.1

18.2 18.7 19.0 18.1 18.1

3 0 0 0 0

333 330 339 325 334

97 95 94 95 98

182.4 180.7 180.9 207.4 178.1

16.5 17.7 16.7 17.0 17.3

0 0 0 0 2

343 345 348 336 336

99 98 97 99 97

221.5 215.6 218.2 238.8 209.6

17.4 18.2 17.9 17.6 17.7

1 0 0 0 1

338 338 344 330 335

98 96 95 97 98

59.1 58.4 56.1 58.7 57.5

LG SEEDS LG SEEDS LG SEEDS NK NK

LG 53C44VT2RIB LG 55C40TRC LG 58C48VT2RIB NK0451-AA NK0604-DV

238.4 261.6 262.3 268.1 253.5

16.9 18.4 21.7 17.8 19.3

7 10 7 1 2

336 338 321 342 345

97 96 94 94 94

186.8 187.0 184.3 196.2 191.4

15.9 16.6 17.3 16.5 19.7

0 1 1 0 0

342 346 343 330 346

98 97 99 97 99

212.6 224.3 223.3 232.1 222.5

16.4 17.5 19.5 17.2 19.5

4 6 4 1 1

339 342 332 336 345

98 97 96 96 96

59.5 56.3 55.8 58.6 57.2

NK SEED CONSULTANTS SEED CONSULTANTS SEED CONSULTANTS SEED CONSULTANTS

NK0880-V SC 1006PCE SC 1055PCE SC 1066PCE SC 1086PCE

266.7 263.3 278.9 285.5 267.8

19.1 19.0 19.8 21.0 21.1

0 0 2 1 0

348 308 329 329 311

96 92 97 97 92

179.6 193.5 193.1 193.5 193.0

17.4 17.0 17.4 16.7 17.8

0 0 0 1 0

325 327 332 325 319

94 97 97 97 95

223.1 228.4 236.0 239.5 230.4

18.3 18.0 18.6 18.9 19.5

0 0 1 1 0

337 318 330 327 315

95 95 97 97 93

56.4 56.4 57.1 55.8 57.1

SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT

AGI-C-5105 PWE AGI-C-6104 PWE AGI-C-6108 PWE Direct 4102-AA Direct 5107-V

294.5 263.7 278.8 242.9 250.5

20.4 18.1 20.8 18.9 18.3

0 7 0 14 0

329 355 360 352 343

88 96 97 93 92

190.9 189.7 178.6 177.1 184.9

18.1 17.5 19.1 17.4 16.5

0 0 0 0 0

333 364 358 355 359

91 99 96 93 97

242.7 226.7 228.7 210.0 217.7

19.3 17.8 19.9 18.2 17.4

0 4 0 7 0

331 359 359 354 351

89 98 96 93 94

56.1 58.1 57.1 56.9 56.0

SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEEDWAY SEEDWAY SEEDWAY SEEDWAY

Direct 9107 GT SW 0123PE RA SW 9522TR RIB SW 9655PE RA SW 9822VT RIB

240.2 247.5 242.1 248.5 236.7

19.1 17.9 17.3 18.2 17.4

7 50 1 1 0

339 332 318 306 308

91 98 96 94 93

192.6 193.1 185.3 186.8 178.8

17.3 17.7 16.0 16.8 16.2

0 0 0 0 0

343 330 324 305 310

92 98 98 96 95

216.4 220.3 213.7 217.6 207.7

18.2 17.8 16.7 17.5 16.8

4 25 0 0 0

341 331 321 305 309

92 98 97 95 94

57.3 57.3 56.2 57.1 56.5

SEEDWAY SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW

SW 9990V4 RIB SG-5440DV SG-5788DV SG-5885PCE SG-6106DV

255.0 238.8 228.6 259.1 272.9

18.3 17.1 17.9 17.8 19.0

1 2 5 5 2

303 333 334 330 311

92 96 97 97 91

156.9 201.4 156.1 215.0 191.0

16.2 15.9 16.4 17.1 17.0

0 0 0 1 0

321 337 339 339 320

96 97 96 99 93

205.9 220.1 192.3 237.1 231.9

17.2 16.5 17.2 17.4 18.0

0 1 2 3 1

312 335 337 335 316

94 97 97 98 92

56.9 57.5 57.7 57.2 58.1

SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW

SG-6122V SG-6310PCE SG-6314DV SG-6491PCE SG-6550PCE

251.1 290.7 233.2 252.8 280.9

18.2 19.3 18.4 18.2 20.3

3 0 2 4 1

333 336 316 316 327

95 96 90 90 94

184.7 197.8 185.3 188.4 209.1

16.1 16.6 17.2 17.2 18.1

0 0 0 0 0

346 346 334 343 337

99 99 96 99 98

217.9 244.3 209.2 220.6 245.0

17.2 18.0 17.8 17.7 19.2

1 0 1 2 0

339 341 325 330 332

97 98 93 94 96

57.9 56.6 59.4 58.2 56.2

SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW VIKING / BLUE RIVER VIKING / BLUE RIVER

SG-6707V SG-6807DV SG-6884PCE 49-05 75-07

256.0 282.1 266.3 283.4 277.8

19.0 23.0 21.0 19.1 20.5

0 0 0 0 2

314 339 323 318 308

91 98 93 91 90

174.7 213.3 200.7 193.1 199.9

17.4 19.7 19.4 16.2 17.4

0 0 1 0 0

336 346 333 339 333

97 97 95 99 97

215.4 247.7 233.5 238.3 238.9

18.2 21.4 20.2 17.7 19.0

0 0 0 0 1

325 343 328 328 321

94 98 94 95 93

56.3 55.4 57.0 57.1 56.8

High Average Low LSD .10

300.2 262.6 228.6 18.9

23.0 19.1 16.9 0.7

50 3 0 5

360 328 288 16

99 94 83 4

215.0 191.5 156.1 19.1

19.7 17.3 15.6 7.0

2 0 0 1

370 336 289 11

99 97 87 3

254.4 227.0 192.3 17.5

21.4 18.2 16.3 1.1

25 1 0 8

363 332 289 11

99 96 85 3

59.5 57.0 55.4 1.2

Soil Type Soil Test (pH,P,K) Previous Crop Planting /Harvest Dates Tillage Fertilizer (N,P,K) Fungicide Cooperator County

Pewamo Silty Clay Loam 6.3, 104, 160 Soybean May 19 / Nov. 4, 2025 Min Till 262-70-90-17S Yes Crawford County Extension Crawford

246 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Canfield Silt Loam 5.9, 48, 157 Corn June 4 / Nov. 7, 2025 Min Till 237, 53, 115, 18S Yes Mike Sword / Ken Scaife, OARDC Wayne

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Table 7L. Performance of hybrids in the full-season trial. NORTH CENTRAL and NORTHEASTERN Ohio, 2025. Columbiana

Bucyrus Brand

Hybrid

Final Std.

Emg.

Yield

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A

--%--

Final Std.

Emg.

Yield

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A

--%--

Harv. Mst.

Summary

Stk. Ldg.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std.

Emg.

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A

--%--

Lbs.

1st CHOICE SEEDS 1st CHOICE SEEDS 1st CHOICE SEEDS AUGUSTA SEED AXIS SEED

FC 7960 TRE RIB FC 8047 PC FC 8257 PC A2360PWE 59D20

254.8 237.6 250.4 266.5 246.6

19.0 20.4 20.6 20.9 19.7

8 2 2 0 2

333 274 305 283 334

92 84 92 94 92

210.9 202.3 219.9 212.5 176.4

20.2 20.6 20.8 18.9 18.0

1 1 0 0 0

355 280 320 290 342

97 85 97 98 93

232.8 220.0 235.2 239.5 211.5

19.6 20.5 20.7 19.9 18.9

4 2 1 0 1

344 277 312 287 338

95 84 95 96 93

58.0 55.9 55.3 56.4 55.5

AXIS SEED AXIS SEED AXIS SEED AXIS SEED BA GENETICS

60C61 62C60 63H27 64H70 BA 25-11 VT2P

233.7 257.1 256.6 254.6 246.3

20.6 20.4 21.4 20.7 19.0

0 1 0 0 5

319 343 342 348 336

86 95 93 95 93

200.5 187.4 177.3 193.1 174.2

19.9 20.8 21.0 22.6 18.7

0 0 1 0 0

333 347 355 363 351

91 97 98 98 98

217.1 222.2 217.0 223.8 210.3

20.3 20.6 21.2 21.7 18.9

0 0 0 0 3

326 345 348 356 343

89 96 96 97 95

56.1 55.5 55.5 56.3 56.3

BA GENETICS BA GENETICS BA GENETICS BA GENETICS DEKALB

BA 25-12 VT2P BA 26-10 PCE BA 26-12 PCE BA 26-14 PCE DKC110-10RIB

240.4 239.9 256.1 232.7 254.9

18.5 20.1 20.5 21.5 19.0

12 19 2 4 7

312 302 341 320 327

85 83 93 89 93

199.7 191.0 182.1 175.0 205.8

19.7 19.2 19.9 22.8 19.1

1 0 1 0 0

348 316 356 342 348

96 87 98 94 98

220.1 215.4 219.1 203.8 230.3

19.1 19.7 20.2 22.2 19.0

6 9 1 2 3

330 309 348 331 338

91 85 96 92 96

58.3 56.0 55.7 54.7 58.3

DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB

DKC110-41RIB DKC111-35RIB DKC112-12RIB DKC114-99RIB DKC64-22RIB

263.5 238.3 279.4 258.2 227.9

18.7 18.1 21.0 20.5 18.2

0 2 0 0 22

332 333 327 327 323

95 95 95 94 92

188.6 189.3 188.2 184.1 182.0

19.7 19.6 20.1 22.9 21.5

0 1 0 1 0

338 350 342 346 350

97 98 99 99 99

226.1 213.8 233.8 221.2 205.0

19.2 18.9 20.5 21.7 19.9

0 1 0 1 11

335 341 334 336 336

96 97 97 96 95

56.3 59.0 57.5 57.4 59.6

DEKALB DEKALB EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS

DKC66-06RIB DKC68-35RIB 1660C 7209TR 7442PC

255.8 265.7 274.8 240.4 249.7

20.9 21.1 21.3 18.6 20.6

0 0 3 5 1

336 303 333 328 311

96 88 96 93 92

172.1 177.3 212.4 209.7 179.9

22.7 21.5 19.0 19.0 18.8

0 2 1 0 0

347 318 338 338 337

99 91 98 98 99

214.0 221.5 243.6 225.0 214.8

21.8 21.3 20.2 18.8 19.7

0 1 2 2 0

341 310 336 333 324

97 90 97 95 95

56.6 57.8 56.2 56.4 55.9

EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS FS INVISION FS INVISION

7770PC 7993PC 9779SSX FS 5947T RIB FS 6042F RIB

234.9 227.2 259.7 275.0 269.0

18.1 21.7 19.4 19.4 20.6

5 0 3 8 1

330 314 339 343 348

96 91 94 95 96

183.5 195.8 200.3 201.7 218.0

19.2 23.1 18.6 19.8 20.2

0 1 0 0 0

337 325 364 359 363

96 96 99 99 99

209.2 211.5 230.0 238.4 243.5

18.6 22.4 19.0 19.6 20.4

3 1 1 4 1

334 319 352 351 356

96 94 96 97 97

57.3 54.6 57.4 57.5 57.4

FS INVISION FS INVISION FS INVISION FS INVISION FS INVISION

FS 6133VDG RIB FS 6157T RIB FS 6245V RIB FS 6349PC RA FS 6447T RIB

256.0 260.3 268.8 244.2 266.0

20.9 20.2 19.4 20.1 20.6

3 3 3 1 2

337 342 345 343 339

92 94 95 95 95

177.3 196.9 206.1 183.0 183.3

19.7 22.0 19.2 21.1 23.1

1 0 0 0 1

361 345 356 356 352

100 94 98 98 98

216.6 228.6 237.5 213.6 224.7

20.3 21.1 19.3 20.6 21.8

2 1 1 1 1

349 343 350 350 346

96 94 96 97 96

56.0 56.5 59.4 55.4 56.5

GREAT HEART SEED GREAT HEART SEED GREAT HEART SEED LG SEEDS NK

7151PCE 7195TRE 7272PCE LG 62C20D NK1056-V

234.7 254.3 257.9 253.2 232.5

18.8 20.5 20.6 19.4 20.1

0 4 3 4 6

310 312 319 337 338

92 91 95 93 94

178.6 178.8 166.9 188.8 183.9

19.8 21.4 20.6 20.3 19.5

0 0 0 0 0

348 332 320 358 358

97 95 96 97 98

206.7 216.6 212.4 221.0 208.2

19.3 20.9 20.6 19.9 19.8

0 2 2 2 3

329 322 319 347 348

95 93 95 95 96

55.7 55.9 54.8 55.5 57.8

NK SEED CONSULTANTS SEED CONSULTANTS SEED CONSULTANTS SEED GENETICS DIRECT

NK1228-AA SC 1094PCE SC 1105PCE SC 1116PCE AGI-C-4111 PWE

260.8 264.5 259.6 263.6 275.3

20.8 19.2 19.7 20.4 19.8

1 0 2 0 3

358 328 337 330 359

98 96 98 96 96

198.7 186.5 171.7 190.1 194.6

20.6 17.9 18.5 18.7 20.6

1 0 0 0 0

350 328 336 329 367

97 98 98 96 98

229.8 225.5 215.7 226.8 234.9

20.7 18.5 19.1 19.6 20.2

1 0 1 0 1

354 328 336 330 363

97 97 98 96 97

57.7 57.1 57.3 58.3 55.6

SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SHUR GROW

AGI-C-6112 PWE Direct 2111-AA Direct 3109 Direct 3111-3110 SG-6911PCE

242.5 245.8 263.1 259.3 262.2

20.6 19.9 20.0 20.8 20.5

0 3 2 0 2

316 343 345 327 329

88 93 95 94 95

153.3 148.5 180.5 182.2 188.1

20.5 21.6 18.9 19.3 18.2

0 0 0 0 1

333 315 355 327 338

91 85 96 95 97

197.9 197.2 221.8 220.7 225.1

20.6 20.7 19.5 20.0 19.3

0 1 1 0 2

325 329 350 327 334

89 89 96 94 96

55.1 56.3 58.7 55.9 58.5

SHUR GROW VIKING / BLUE RIVER VIKING / BLUE RIVER VIKING / BLUE RIVER

SG-7009PCE 76-11 78-13 85-09

254.3 244.1 236.7 236.4

20.8 18.8 21.9 20.0

2 4 27 0

330 318 327 299

96 94 94 89

210.6 153.0 180.1 187.4

19.4 18.6 21.2 19.5

0 0 1 0

339 329 342 319

98 97 97 95

232.4 198.5 208.4 211.9

20.1 18.7 21.6 19.8

1 2 14 0

335 323 334 309

97 96 96 92

56.4 56.4 55.8 58.5

High Average Low LSD .10

279.4 252.7 227.2 23.9

21.9 20.1 18.1 1.1

27 3 0 13

359 328 274 19

98 93 83 5

219.9 188.2 148.5 22.4

23.1 20.2 17.9 1.2

2 0 0 1

367 341 280 12

100 96 85 3

243.6 220.4 197.2 20.2

22.4 20.1 18.5 1.6

14 2 0 6

363 334 277 12

98 95 84 3

59.6 56.7 54.6 1.5

Soil Type Soil Test (pH,P,K) Previous Crop Planting /Harvest Dates Tillage Fertilizer (N,P,K) Fungicide Cooperator County

Pewamo Silty Clay Loam 6.3, 104, 160 Soybean May 19 / Nov. 4, 2025 Min Till 262-70-90-17S Yes Crawford County Extension Crawford

Canfield Silt Loam 5.9, 48, 157 Corn June 4 / Nov. 7, 2025 Min Till 237, 53, 115, 18S Yes Mike Sword / Ken Scaife, OARDC Wayne

2025 eFields Report | 247

Ohio Crop Performance Trials TABLE 8. Two year hybrid performance in NORTH CENTRAL AND NORTHEASTERN Ohio, 2024-2025. Bucyrus Brand

Hybrid

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std.

Emg.

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A

--%--

Lbs.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

1st CHOICE SEEDS AXIS SEED AXIS SEED AXIS SEED AXIS SEED

FC 8257 PC 53M77 55D61 57K72 59D20

240.4 246.9 249.4 250.8 244.2

22.4 19.0 20.4 20.0 21.7

1 3 1 4 1

327 345 338 347 344

93 94 92 95 93

54.0 55.4 55.3 56.0 54.7

AXIS SEED AXIS SEED BA GENETICS BA GENETICS BA GENETICS

60C61 62C60 BA 25-07 PCE BA 25-11 VT2P BA 25-12 VT2P

238.9 252.5 222.3 253.1 240.7

21.7 22.8 20.5 20.6 20.9

0 0 1 3 6

323 334 328 327 310

88 91 93 92 88

55.2 54.2 56.3 55.5 57.2

BA GENETICS BA GENETICS BA GENETICS BA GENETICS DEKALB

BA 26-06 PCE BA 26-10 PCE BA 26-12 PCE BA 26-14 PCE DKC099-11RIB

250.4 247.9 239.1 244.8 241.4

21.8 21.9 23.2 23.7 19.0

1 9 1 2 0

305 316 334 323 328

87 89 93 91 94

54.9 54.8 53.7 53.7 56.5

DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB

DKC101-35RIB DKC102-13RIB DKC103-07RIB DKC110-10RIB DKC110-41RIB

235.6 246.1 235.9 244.3 261.6

18.6 19.1 19.9 20.8 20.6

0 0 0 3 0

328 313 328 336 332

93 90 93 95 95

54.8 56.5 57.5 57.0 56.0

DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB

DKC114-99RIB DKC56-26RIB DKC64-22RIB DKC66-06RIB DKC68-35RIB

263.6 246.4 232.9 252.9 257.6

22.8 20.8 21.1 23.0 23.5

0 1 11 0 0

334 318 325 332 317

95 91 92 94 91

56.7 55.2 58.7 55.9 56.6

EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS

1335C 1660C 7000TR 7188PC 7209TR

245.5 274.6 229.5 226.1 240.5

19.3 22.4 17.8 21.8 20.5

0 1 0 0 2

336 338 352 338 321

96 95 94 93 91

56.8 55.2 56.7 55.4 55.5

EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS FS INVISION

7442PC 7557PC 7993PC 9779SSX FS 5947T RIB

245.2 265.8 222.7 257.9 264.9

22.7 21.2 24.4 20.6 22.1

0 0 0 1 4

316 324 319 355 350

91 91 93 94 95

53.8 55.2 53.2 57.1 55.8

FS INVISION FS INVISION FS INVISION FS INVISION GOLDEN HARVEST

FS 6133VDG RIB FS 6245V RIB FS 6349PC RA FS 6447T RIB G03U08-D

261.5 274.5 243.4 258.2 234.3

23.4 22.2 23.0 22.7 19.6

2 1 1 1 0

345 342 338 343 327

94 93 92 94 92

54.1 57.4 54.0 56.1 57.5

GOLDEN HARVEST LG SEEDS LG SEEDS NK NK

G08U00-V LG 53C44VT2RIB LG 58C48VT2RIB NK0880-V NK1056-V

236.5 225.7 260.6 245.8 242.3

21.4 17.7 21.9 21.5 22.4

0 4 3 0 3

338 324 325 338 343

94 94 94 95 94

54.8 58.3 55.0 55.2 55.8

NK SEED CONSULTANTS SEED CONSULTANTS SEED CONSULTANTS SEED GENETICS DIRECT

NK1228-AA SC 1055PCE SC 1094PCE SC 1105PCE AGI-C-4111 PWE

246.8 258.0 255.8 245.6 259.2

22.5 20.4 20.7 21.3 21.1

1 1 0 1 1

344 333 338 336 358

96 96 96 97 96

56.3 55.7 56.3 55.8 55.2

SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT

AGI-C-5105 PWE Direct 2111-AA Direct 3109 Direct 3111-3110 Direct 4102-AA

252.8 254.4 256.0 249.2 225.3

20.7 22.1 21.5 22.3 19.6

0 1 1 0 7

316 354 340 335 354

84 95 92 93 93

55.2 55.6 57.6 55.3 56.1

SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEEDWAY SEEDWAY SHUR GROW SHUR GROW

Direct 5107-V SW 0123PE RA SW 9822VT RIB SG-5885PCE SG-6122V

229.6 218.9 231.3 241.0 240.2

20.7 19.8 17.9 18.4 19.7

0 25 0 2 1

350 304 300 338 337

93 92 89 95 96

55.1 55.9 56.6 56.7 56.9

SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW

SG-6310PCE SG-6550PCE SG-6707V SG-6884PCE SG-7009PCE

262.8 244.2 240.0 247.1 259.6

19.7 20.9 21.5 22.0 22.3

0 0 0 0 1

323 287 317 321 319

94 84 92 94 93

55.9 55.4 54.9 55.5 55.3

VIKING / BLUE RIVER VIKING / BLUE RIVER VIKING / BLUE RIVER VIKING / BLUE RIVER

75-07 76-11 78-13 85-09

259.5 243.2 228.8 248.4

20.9 20.6 24.1 21.5

1 2 13 0

312 325 316 314

90 95 91 91

56.0 54.9 54.1 57.4

274.6 246.3 218.9

24.4 21.2 17.7

25 2 0

358 330 287

97 93 84

58.7 55.7 53.2

High Average Low

248 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

TABLE 9. Combined regional summary of hybrid performance, 2025. Western Ohio (7 Sites) Brand

Hybrid

Statewide All Regions (9 Sites)

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std.

Emg.

Yield

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A

--%--

Lbs.

Yield

Harv. Mst.

Stk. Ldg.

Final Std.

Emg.

Bu/A

-----%-----

100/A

--%--

Lbs.

246.7

20.5

289

55.7

AUGUSTA SEED AUGUSTA SEED AUGUSTA SEED AUGUSTA SEED AXIS SEED

A2360PWE A4861 Conv A4862 Conv A4961V 59D20

250.3 264.5 266.7 247.1 244.2

20.7 20.2 20.9 20.3 18.7

0 4 6 3 13

290 296 292 319 353

98 98 98 98 97

55.3 57.2 55.7 56.4 56.0

233.3

18.7

348

55.8

AXIS SEED AXIS SEED AXIS SEED AXIS SEED AXIS SEED

60C61 62C60 63H27 64H70 65W75

243.4 257.0 253.1 248.5 258.2

20.4 20.2 21.2 20.0 20.5

1 7 10 12 13

327 357 353 357 349

90 98 98 98 96

55.6 55.2 56.2 57.1 57.5

234.6 245.4 241.0 240.3

20.3 20.4 21.2 20.5

0 5 7 8

327 353 352 357

90 97 97 97

55.8 55.3 56.0 56.8

AXIS SEED BA GENETICS BA GENETICS BA GENETICS BA GENETICS

AEXPT108 BA 25-07 PCE BA 25-11 VT2P BA 25-12 VT2P BA 26-06 PCE

250.3 236.9 250.7 254.8 248.9

18.8 18.4 19.0 19.2 19.1

6 1 11 14 1

346 343 347 346 325

95 95 96 95 91

56.7 57.5 56.5 58.1 56.3

246.0 231.5 237.2 243.2 244.9

18.8 18.5 19.0 19.2 19.3

4 1 8 12 1

348 339 346 341 318

96 94 96 94 89

56.9 57.5 56.4 58.2 56.2

BA GENETICS BA GENETICS BA GENETICS CHANNEL CHANNEL

BA 26-10 PCE BA 26-12 PCE BA 26-14 PCE 205-08TRERIB 209-70TRERIB

252.2 253.8 242.7 237.7 252.7

20.3 20.2 21.6 17.8 21.1

1 2 10 8 8

318 353 356 360 316

88 98 97 98 93

55.7 55.2 55.3 56.5 54.7

240.0 242.2 229.7

20.1 20.2 21.8

4 2 7

315 351 348

87 97 95

55.8 55.4 55.1

CHANNEL CHANNEL DYNA-GRO DYNA-GRO EBBERTS

210-08VT2PRIB 211-11VT2PRIB D52PN76RA D52TC66RIB 1335C

250.2 250.9 258.8 255.2 256.8

19.8 18.8 20.6 19.3 18.1

1 13 3 11 6

324 361 327 330 340

98 98 98 99 98

55.1 58.2 55.1 57.6 57.3

245.6

18.1

338

57.5

EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS

1660C 6883DGVT2P RIB 7114PC 7188PC 7209TR

240.1 258.4 253.4 247.4 256.7

20.5 20.5 21.1 19.7 19.1

2 4 4 4 8

337 356 341 346 339

97 96 98 98 98

55.8 56.7 56.1 57.0 56.3

241.2

20.4

336

55.9

238.0 246.1

19.7 19.0

3 6

343 337

97 97

57.0 56.3

EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS EBBERTS

7442PC 7557PC 7770PC 7993PC 9779SSX

256.8 253.1 256.1 249.1 255.8

20.3 18.8 19.7 21.9 19.3

2 3 6 2 2

335 339 338 335 362

98 97 98 97 99

55.4 56.5 56.3 54.8 57.1

242.8 253.5 240.5 236.6 247.2

20.1 18.9 19.4 22.1 19.2

1 2 5 1 2

331 339 337 330 358

97 97 97 96 98

55.5 56.4 56.6 54.7 57.2

FS INVISION FS INVISION FS INVISION FS INVISION FS INVISION

FS 5947T RIB FS 6042F RIB FS 6133VDG RIB FS 6157T RIB FS 6245V RIB

257.7 260.8 256.7 260.1 256.3

19.4 20.4 20.4 20.1 19.1

17 4 14 9 7

358 359 357 349 355

98 99 98 96 98

57.5 56.5 55.8 56.6 58.5

251.2 255.0 243.4 249.6 250.0

19.5 20.4 20.4 20.4 19.1

13 3 10 6 5

356 358 355 347 354

98 98 97 96 97

57.5 56.8 55.9 56.6 58.8

FS INVISION FS INVISION GOLDEN HARVEST GOLDEN HARVEST GOLDEN HARVEST

FS 6349PC RA FS 6447T RIB G10M87-AA G10U97-V G11V76-AA

255.4 254.7 237.5 243.3 253.2

20.2 20.4 19.3 20.4 20.7

2 11 3 1 5

353 354 362 358 359

98 98 98 98 98

55.4 57.7 57.3 56.7 56.2

241.5 244.7

20.3 20.9

1 8

352 351

97 97

55.4 57.3

GOLDEN HARVEST GOLDEN HARVEST GREAT HEART SEED GREAT HEART SEED GREAT HEART SEED

G12S75-D G12U11-AA 7151PCE 7195TRE 7272PCE

253.0 249.0 250.0 258.8 259.9

21.7 20.8 18.9 20.8 20.9

1 6 0 8 3

333 336 340 335 326

98 98 97 97 96

55.3 57.2 55.7 56.2 54.8

235.6 244.7 244.0

19.0 20.9 20.8

0 6 2

336 331 324

96 96 96

55.7 56.1 54.8

LG SEEDS LG SEEDS LG SEEDS LG SEEDS LG SEEDS

LG 55C40TRC LG 58C48VT2RIB LG 60C05-3110 LG 62C20D LG 62C73VT2RIB

236.0 253.8 260.3 253.1 270.8

17.2 20.2 19.2 20.6 20.1

21 8 14 9 11

349 349 344 355 346

98 98 97 98 99

56.8 55.7 57.3 55.2 58.5

232.1 243.6

17.3 20.0

16 7

347 343

98 98

56.6 55.7

242.4

20.3

352

55.3

NK NK PC SEED PC SEED PC SEED

NK0880-V NK1056-V PC 3305 PC 5510 PC 5511

239.9 242.2 251.4 252.7 232.2

18.8 20.3 17.3 19.7 19.9

1 2 2 0 6

337 349 362 353 355

96 98 98 96 97

56.2 56.8 57.7 56.8 56.0

234.3 230.8

18.6 20.1

1 2

337 348

96 97

56.3 57.1

PC SEED PC SEED PC SEED PC SEED SEED CONSULTANTS

PC 6313 PC 6610 PC 8407 PC 8408 SC 1055PCE

250.4 264.4 254.0 250.1 259.5

21.5 19.4 18.5 19.6 18.7

11 4 1 4 3

363 354 353 366 336

97 95 95 98 98

56.0 57.3 57.3 58.0 56.5

251.7

18.7

334

56.7

SEED CONSULTANTS SEED CONSULTANTS SEED CONSULTANTS SEED CONSULTANTS SEED GENETICS DIRECT

SC 1086PCE SC 1094PCE SC 1105PCE SC 1116PCE AGI-C-3113 PWE

259.8 259.7 260.9 261.0 247.3

19.6 19.7 19.5 19.7 20.5

0 6 5 2 1

320 338 333 337 352

94 99 99 99 94

57.0 56.2 56.9 57.5 56.5

250.0 248.3 245.8 249.6

19.6 19.3 19.4 19.7

0 4 4 1

319 335 334 335

94 98 98 98

57.1 56.5 57.0 57.8

SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT

AGI-C-3114 PWE AGI-C-4111 PWE AGI-C-5105 PWE AGI-C-6104 PWE AGI-C-6108 PWE

253.4 248.1 256.6 259.5 253.7

20.6 19.5 18.9 18.0 19.8

6 1 0 5 3

368 363 335 361 364

98 98 91 98 98

57.7 55.9 56.4 57.7 57.1

243.7 251.9 248.5 245.3

19.7 19.0 17.9 19.8

1 0 5 2

363 334 361 362

98 90 98 98

55.8 56.3 57.8 57.1

SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT SEED GENETICS DIRECT

AGI-C-6112 PWE Direct 2111-AA Direct 3109 Direct 3111-3110 Direct 9107 GT

253.8 242.6 253.0 242.1 241.4

20.4 20.6 19.7 20.5 19.2

5 4 4 0 6

346 348 355 337 359

95 94 97 98 97

55.1 56.3 58.7 55.7 56.0

235.2 227.5 242.6 235.0 233.1

20.5 20.6 19.6 20.4 18.9

3 3 3 0 5

339 342 353 333 353

93 92 96 97 95

55.1 56.3 58.7 55.7 56.4

SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW SHUR GROW

SG-6491PCE SG-6550PCE SG-6707V SG-6807DV SG-6884PCE

253.5 259.4 244.9 253.6 251.2

18.0 18.8 18.9 20.6 19.9

3 1 6 0 1

339 339 341 344 338

98 98 98 99 97

57.5 56.4 56.0 55.3 57.1

242.5 254.6 235.0 251.6 245.3

17.9 18.9 18.7 20.8 20.0

3 1 4 0 0

336 337 336 344 335

97 97 96 99 96

57.7 56.3 56.1 55.3 57.0

SHUR GROW SHUR GROW

SG-6911PCE SG-7009PCE

257.1 253.3

19.6 20.4

3 1

327 336

94 97

58.4 55.8

246.5 246.3

19.5 20.3

3 1

329 336

95 97

58.4 56.0

270.8 252.4 232.2 10.2

21.9 19.8 17.2 0.7

21 5 0 9

368 344 290 5

99 97 88 1

58.7 56.5 54.7 0.6

255.0 242.7 227.5 9.3

22.1 19.7 17.3 0.6

16 4 0 7

363 341 289 5

99 96 87 1

58.8 56.5 54.7 0.5

High Average Low LSD .10

2025 eFields Report | 249

Ohio Crop Performance Trials TABLE 10. Seed source, table location, technology traits and seed treatments for hybrids tested in 2025. Brand

Seed Source

Hybrid No.

------- Table No. -------

Technology Traits*

Fungicide Seed Treatment

Insecticide/Nematicide Seed Treatment/Rate

1st CHOICE

1st CHOICE SEEDS 310 EAST 3rd ST. RUSHVILLE, IN 46173 765-938-3000 1stchoiceseeds.com

FC 7960 TRE RIB FC 8047 PC FC 8257 PC FC 8345 TRE RIB FC 8455 VT2P RIB

7L 7L 1L, 1L 1L

RR,CB,TRE,WBC RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,TRE,WBC RR,CB

Acceleron CruiserMaxx CruiserMaxx Acceleron Acceleron

Poncho 500 Cruiser 500 Cruiser 500 Poncho 500 Poncho 500

AGRIGOLD HYBRIDS

AGRIGOLD 1122 EAST 169th ST. WESTFIELD, IN 46074 317-896-5551 agrigold.com

A641-62D A642-18SSPRIB A642-32VT2PRORIB

1E 1L 1L

GT,CB,RW,LL,BCW RR,CB,RW,LL,CEW RR,CB

Acceleron Acceleron

Cruiser 500 / Avicta Poncho 500 / Votivo Poncho 500 / Votivo

AUGUSTA SEED

AUGUSTA SEED PO BOX 899 VERONA, VA 24482 540-886-6055 augustaseed.com

A2058 Conv A2162AA A2355 Conv A2355 PWE A2357V A2360PWE A4057 Conv A4861 Conv A4862 Conv A4961V A6362V

4E, 1L 4E, 4E 4E, 1E, 4E, 1E, 1L, 1E, 1L,

AXIS SEED 2974 MARION GREEN CAMP RD. MARION, OH 43302 614-348-6314 axisohio.com

53M77 55D61 57K72 59D20 60C61 62C60 63H27 64H70 65W75 AEXPT108

4E, 4E, 4E, 1E, 1E, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1E,

7E 7E 7E 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4E,

7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 10 7E,

10 10 10 10 10

B&A GENETICS

B&A GENETICS 2180 PINE RD. CELINA, OH 45822 419-305-5481 bagenetics.us

BA 25-07 PCE BA 25-11 VT2P BA 25-12 VT2P BA 26-06 PCE BA 26-10 PCE BA 26-12 PCE BA 26-14 PCE

1E, 1E, 1L, 1E, 1E, 1L, 1L,

4E, 4L, 4L, 4E, 4L, 4L, 4L,

7E, 7L, 7L, 7E, 7L, 7L, 7L,

CHANNEL

BAYER CROP SCIENCE 1819 N. STAR RD. COLUMBUS, OH 43212 308-529-1371 channel.com

205-08TRERIB 209-70TRERIB 210-08VT2PRIB 211-11VT2PRIB 214-70TRERIB 215-70TRERIB 218-66VT2PRIB

1E, 1E, 1E, 1E, 1L 1L 1L

4E, 4L, 4L, 4L,

10 10 10 10

DEKALB

BAYER CROP SCIENCE 800 N. LINDBERGH BLVD. ST. LOUIS, MO 63167 800-768-6387 cropscience.bayer.us

DKC092-14RIB DKC099-11RIB DKC101-35RIB DKC102-13RIB DKC103-07RIB DKC104-08RIB DKC108-64RIB DKC110-10RIB DKC110-41RIB DKC111-35RIB DKC112-12RIB DKC114-99RIB DKC56-26RIB DKC64-22RIB DKC66-06RIB DKC68-35RIB

7E 4E, 4E, 4E, 4E, 4E, 4E, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4E, 4L, 4L, 4L,

DYNA-GRO

NUTRIEN 5296 HARVEST LAKE DR. LOVELAND, CO 80538 740-207-0182 & 419-957-2211 dynagroseed.com

D44PN56RA D52PN76RA D52TC66RIB D55TC86RIB

4E, 1L, 1L, 1L

7E 4L, 4L,

10 10

EBBERTS

EBBERTS FIELD SEEDS, INC. 6840 NORTH ST. RT. 48 COVINGTON, OH 45318 937-473-2521 ebbertsseeds.com

1335C 1660C 6883DGVT2P RIB 7000TR 7114PC 7188PC 7209TR 7442PC 7557PC 7770PC 7993PC 9779SSX

1E, 1E, 1L, 7E 1L, 1E, 1E, 1L, 1E, 1E, 1L, 1E,

4E, 4L, 4L,

7E, 7L, 10

4L, 4E, 4L, 4L, 4E, 4L, 4L, 4L,

10 7E, 7L, 7L, 7E, 7L, 7L, 7L,

GROWMARK, INC. 1705 TOWANDA AVE. BLOOMINGTON, IL 61701 309-557-6399 fsseeds.com

FS 5552F RIB FS 5559PC RA FS 5947T RIB FS 6042F RIB FS 6133VDG RIB FS 6157T RIB FS 6245V RIB FS 6349PC RA FS 6447T RIB

4E, 4E, 1E, 1E, 1E, 1E, 1L, 1L, 1L,

7E 7E 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L,

7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L,

AXIS SEED

FS InVISION

7E 7E 7E 4L, 7E 4L, 4L, 4L,

7L,

10 10 10

NON-GMO GT,CB,LL NON-GMO RR,CB,LL, Enlist GT,CB,LL,VIP RR,CB,LL, Enlist NON-GMO NON-GMO NON-GMO GT,CB,LL,VIP GT,CB,LL,VIP

RR,CB,TRE,WBC RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,TRE,WBC RR,CB RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB RR,CB,TRE,WBC RR,CB,TRE,WBC RR,CB,LL, Enlist

Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron

10 10 10 10 10 10 10

RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB RR,CB RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist

Protect N Grow Elite Protect N Grow Elite Protect N Grow Elite Protect N Grow Elite Protect N Grow Elite Protect N Grow Elite Protect N Grow Elite

RR,CB,TRE,WBC RR,CB,TRE,WBC RR,CB RR,CB RR,CB,TRE,WBC RR,CB,TRE,WBC RR,CB

Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron

Poncho 500 Poncho 500 Poncho 500 Poncho 500 Poncho 500 Poncho 500 Poncho 500

RR,CB,BCW,WBC RR,CB RR,CB RR,CB,TRE,WBC RR,CB,TRE,WBC RR,CB,BCW,WBC RR,CB,RW,LL,CEW RR,CB,RW,LL,CEW RR,CB,TRE,WBC RR,CB RR,CB,TRE,WBC RR,CB,BCW,WBC RR,CB,TRE,WBC RR,CB RR,CB,TRE,WBC RR,CB

Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron

Poncho 1250 Poncho 500 Poncho 500 Poncho 500 Poncho 500 Poncho 1250 Poncho 500 Poncho 500 Poncho 500 Poncho 500 Poncho 500 Poncho 1250 Poncho 500 Poncho 500 Poncho 500 Poncho 500

10 10 10 10 10 10 10

NON-GMO NON-GMO RR,CB,DT RR,CB,TRE,WBC RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,TRE,WBC RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,RW,LL,CEW

Ebberts Corn Complete Ebberts Corn Complete Ebberts Corn Complete Ebberts Corn Complete Ebberts Corn Complete Ebberts Corn Complete Ebberts Corn Complete Ebberts Corn Complete Ebberts Corn Complete Ebberts Corn Complete Ebberts Corn Complete Ebberts Corn Complete

Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 500

10 10 10 10 10 10 10

RR,CB,BCW,WBC RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,TRE,WBC RR,CB,BCW,WBC RR,CB,DT RR,CB,TRE,WBC RR,CB RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,TRE,WBC

Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron

Poncho 500 / Votivo Poncho 500 / Votivo Poncho 500 / Votivo Poncho 500 / Votivo Poncho 500 / Votivo Poncho 500 / Votivo Poncho 500 / Votivo Poncho 500 / Votivo Poncho 500 / Votivo

7E 7E 7E 7E 7E 7E 7L 7L 7L 7L 7L 7E 7L 7L 7L

Poncho 250 Poncho 250 Poncho 250 Poncho 250 Poncho 250 Poncho 250 Poncho 250 Poncho 250 Poncho 250 Poncho 250

RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,TRE,WBC RR,CB,TRE,WBC 10 10

*CB - Corn Borer; RW - Root Worm; CEW - Corn Ear Worm; BCW - Black Cut Worm; WBC - Western Bean Cutworm Resistance; VIP - Viptera; TRE - Trecepta *RR, GT - Glyphosate Tolerant; LL - Liberty Link, Enlist - 2,4-D Choline; DT - Drought Tolerant; NON-GMO - No Transgenic Traits

250 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250

Corn

Small Grains

Soybean

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Brand

Seed Source

Hybrid No.

------- Table No. -------

Technology Traits*

Fungicide Seed Treatment

Insecticide/Nematicide Seed Treatment/Rate

GOLDEN HARVEST

GOLDEN HARVEST 2001 BUTTERFIELD RD. DOWNERS GROVE, IL 60515 419-276-5549 goldenharvetseeds.com

G01U74-AA G03U08-D G08U00-V G10M87-AA G10U97-V G11V76-AA G12S75-D G12U11-AA G13M31-AA G14B32-DV

7E 4E, 4E, 1E, 1E, 1E, 1L, 1L, 1L 1L

GT,CB,LL GT,CB,RW,LL,WBC,DT GT,CB,LL,VIP GT,CB,LL GT,CB,LL,VIP GT,CB,LL GT,CB,RW,LL,WBC GT,CB,LL GT,CB,LL GT,CB,RW,LL,BCW,VIP

Cruiser Maxx Corn 500 / Vayantis Cruiser Maxx Corn 500 / Vayantis Cruiser Maxx Corn 500 / Vayantis Cruiser Maxx Corn 500 / Vayantis Cruiser Maxx Corn 500 / Vayantis Cruiser Maxx Corn 500 / Vayantis Cruiser Maxx Corn 500 / Vayantis Cruiser Maxx Corn 500 / Vayantis Cruiser Maxx Corn 500 / Vayantis Cruiser Maxx Corn 500 / Vayantis

Cruiser 500 / Abamectin Cruiser 500 / Abamectin Cruiser 500 / Abamectin Cruiser 500 / Abamectin Cruiser 500 / Abamectin Cruiser 500 / Abamectin Cruiser 500 / Abamectin Cruiser 500 / Abamectin Cruiser 500 / Abamectin Cruiser 500 / Abamectin

GREAT HEART

GREAT HEART SEED 220 W. WASHINGTON ST. PARIS, IL 61944 217-737-6745 greatheartseed.com

7151PCE 7195TRE 7272PCE

1E, 1E, 1L,

GRO-MOR

LUCKEY FARMERS, INC. 1200 W. MAIN ST. WOODVILLE, OH 43469 419-669-3384 luckeyfarmers.com

GM 187DV108 GM 54PC55 GM 56PC65 GM 57V75EZ GM 92487243 GM PC43783263 GM PC83594237

4E 4E 4E 4E 4E 4E 4E

LG SEEDS

LG SEEDS 1122 EAST 169th ST. WESTFIELD, IN 46074 317-896-5552 lgseeds.com

LG 51C62D LG 52C90VT2RIB LG 53C44VT2RIB LG 55C40TRC LG 58C48VT2RIB LG 60C05-3110 LG 62C20D LG 62C73VT2RIB LG 64C43VT2RIB

7E 4E, 7E 1E, 1E, 1E, 1L, 1L, 1L

NK SEEDS 2128 IL-38 MALTA, IL 60150 815-249-2798 syngenta-us.com/corn/nk

NK0451-AA NK0604-DV NK0880-V NK1056-V NK1188-AA NK1228-AA NK1386-VZ NK1523-V

PC SEEDCO

PC SEEDCO 3250 GLADY RD. LYNCHBURG, OH 45142 937-218-8836

SEED CONSULTANTS

7E 7E 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L,

10 10 10 10 10

4L, 4L, 4L,

7L, 7L, 7L,

10 10 10

7E 4E, 4E, 4L, 4L, 4L,

7E, 7E, 10 7L, 10

10 10

4E, 4E, 1E, 1E, 4L 1L, 1L 1L

7E 7E 4E, 4L,

7E, 7L,

10 10

PC 3305 PC 5510 PC 5511 PC 6313 PC 6610 PC 8407 PC 8408

1E, 1E, 1E, 1L, 1E, 1E, 1E,

4E, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4E, 4E,

SEED CONSULTANTS, INC. 648 MIAMI TRACE RD. SW WASHINGTON C. H., OH 43160 800-780-2676 seedconsultants.com

SC 1006PCE SC 1055PCE SC 1066PCE SC 1086PCE SC 1094PCE SC 1105PCE SC 1116PCE SC 1135PCE

4E, 1E, 4E, 1E, 1E, 1E, 1E, 1L

7E 4E, 7E 4E, 4L, 4L, 4L,

SEED GENETICS DIRECT 9983 JEFFERSONVILLE-WEST LANCASTER RD. JEFFERSON, OH 43128 812-212-0200 seedgeneticsdirect.com

AGI-C-3113 PWE AGI-C-3114 PWE AGI-C-4111 PWE AGI-C-4115 PWE AGI-C-5105 PWE AGI-C-6104 PWE AGI-C-6108 PWE AGI-C-6112 PWE Direct 2111-AA Direct 3109 Direct 3111-3110 Direct 4102-AA Direct 5107-V Direct 9107 GT

1L, 1L, 1E, 1L 1E, 1E, 1E, 1L, 1E, 1E, 1E, 4E, 4E, 1E,

SEEDWAY

SEEDWAY, LLC 1734 RAILROAD PL. HALL, NY 14463 800-836-3710 seedway.com

SW 0123PE RA SW 9522TR RIB SW 9655PE RA SW 9822VT RIB SW 9990V4 RIB

7E 7E 7E 7E 7E

SHUR GROW

SHUR GROW SEEDS 6239 ST. RT. 187 MECHANICSBURG, OH 43044 800-231-SEED heritagecooperative.com

SG-5440DV SG-5788DV SG-5885PCE SG-6106DV SG-6122V SG-6310PCE SG-6314DV SG-6491PCE SG-6550PCE SG-6707V SG-6807DV SG-6884PCE SG-6911PCE SG-7009PCE SG-7244PCE SG-7275V SG-7347PCE

4E, 4E, 4E, 4E, 4E, 4E, 4E, 1E, 1E, 1E, 1E, 1E, 1E, 1E, 1L 1L 1L

7E 7E 7E 7E 7E 7E 7E 4E, 4E, 4E, 4E, 4E, 4L, 4L,

49-05 75-07 76-11 78-13 85-09

4E, 4E, 4L, 4L, 4L,

7E 7E 7L 7L 7L

SEED GENETICS DIRECT

VIKING BLUE RIVER

ALBERT LEA SEED HOUSE 1414 W. MAIN ST. / PO BOX 127 ALBERT LEA, MN 56007 800-352-5247 alseed.com

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 7E,

7E, 7L, 7L, 7L,

10 10 10 10

4L, 4L, 4L,

10 10 7L,

4E, 4E, 4E, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 7E 7E 4E,

7E, 7E, 7E, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L,

10 10 10 10 10 10 10

7E,

7E, 7E, 7E, 7E, 7E, 7L, 7L,

10 10 10 10 10 10 10

RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,TRE,WBC RR,CB,LL, Enlist

Poncho 250 Poncho 250 Poncho 250

GT,CB,RW,LL,BCW,VIP RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist GT,CB,LL,VIP RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist

Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250

GT,CB,RW,LL,WBC RR,CB RR,CB RR,CB,TRE,WBC RR,CB GT,CB,LL,VIP GT,CB,RW,LL,WBC RR,CB RR,CB

Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron

Poncho 500 / Votivo Poncho 500 / Votivo Poncho 500 / Votivo Poncho 500 / Votivo Poncho 500 / Votivo Poncho 500 / Votivo Poncho 500 / Votivo Poncho 500 / Votivo Poncho 500 / Votivo

GT,CB,LL GT,CB,RW,LL,BCW,VIP GT,CB,LL,VIP GT,CB,LL,VIP GT,CB,LL GT,CB,LL GT,CB,LL,VIP GT,CB,LL,VIP

Cruiser 500 Cruiser 500 Cruiser 500 Cruiser 500 Cruiser 500 Cruiser 500 Cruiser 500 Cruiser 500

NON-GMO NON-GMO NON-GMO NON-GMO NON-GMO NON-GMO NON-GMO

Cruiser Maxx / Vibrance / Vayantis Cruiser Maxx / Vibrance / Vayantis Cruiser Maxx / Vibrance / Vayantis Cruiser Maxx / Vibrance / Vayantis Cruiser Maxx / Vibrance / Vayantis Cruiser Maxx / Vibrance / Vayantis Cruiser Maxx / Vibrance / Vayantis

Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250

RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist

Lumiscend PRO + Lumiflex Lumiscend PRO + Lumiflex Lumiscend PRO + Lumiflex Lumiscend PRO + Lumiflex Lumiscend PRO + Lumiflex Lumiscend PRO + Lumiflex Lumiscend PRO + Lumiflex Lumiscend PRO + Lumiflex

Lumisure 1250 / Lumialza Lumisure 1250 / Lumialza Lumisure 1250 / Lumialza Lumisure 1250 / Lumialza Lumisure 1250 / Lumialza Lumisure 1250 / Lumialza Lumisure 1250 / Lumialza Lumisure 1250 / Lumialza

RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist GT,CB,LL NON-GMO GT,CB,LL,VIP GT,CB,LL GT,CB,LL,VIP GT

Pro TEC C4+ Pro TEC C4+ Pro TEC C4+ Pro TEC C4+ Pro TEC C4+ Pro TEC C4+ Pro TEC C4+ Pro TEC C4+ Pro TEC C4+ Pro TEC C4+ Pro TEC C4+ Pro TEC C4+ Pro TEC C4+ Pro TEC C4+

RR,CB,LL, Enlist GT,CB,LL,VIP RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB RR,CB,BCW,WBC

Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron Acceleron

Poncho 500 Poncho 500 Poncho 500 Poncho 500 Poncho 500

GT,CB,RW,LL,BCW,VIP GT,CB,RW,LL,BCW,VIP RR,CB,LL, Enlist GT,CB,RW,LL,BCW,VIP GT,CB,LL,VIP RR,CB,LL, Enlist GT,CB,RW,LL,BCW,VIP RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist GT,CB,LL,VIP GT,CB,RW,LL,BCW,VIP RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist RR,CB,LL, Enlist GT,CB,LL,VIP RR,CB,LL, Enlist

Cruiser Vayantis Cruiser Vayantis Cruiser Vayantis Cruiser Vayantis Cruiser Vayantis Cruiser Vayantis Cruiser Vayantis Cruiser Vayantis Cruiser Vayantis Cruiser Vayantis Cruiser Vayantis Cruiser Vayantis Cruiser Vayantis Cruiser Vayantis Cruiser Vayantis Cruiser Vayantis Cruiser Vayantis

Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250

NON-GMO NON-GMO NON-GMO NON-GMO NON-GMO

Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250 Cruiser 250

2025 eFields Report | 251

Ohio Crop Performance Trials The 2025 OHIO SOYBEAN PERFORMANCE TRIALS Allen Geyer, Matthew Hankinson, John McCormick, and Laura Lindsey Department of Horticulture and Crop Science Ohio State University Extension and OARDC INTRODUCTION

MEASUREMENTS AND RECORDS

The purpose of the Ohio Soybean Performance Trials is to evaluate soybean varieties for yield and other agronomic characteristics. This evaluation gives soybean producers comparative information for selecting the best varieties for their unique production systems.

Relative Maturity. Relative maturity (RM) is a rating designed to account for all of the factors that affect maturity date and includes variety, planting date, weather, and latitude. Maturity is defined as the “95% brown pods” stage. A variety with a RM rating of 3.5 should reach the 95% brown pod stage 5 days later than a variety with a rating of 3.0. RM was submitted by seed companies.

FIELD PLOT DESIGN

The entries for each test site were planted in a randomized complete block design. Each entry was replicated four times and planted in plots 28 ft long and 5 ft wide containing four rows seeded at 15-inch row width. Seeding rate was 150,000 seeds per acre. Corn was the previous crop at all locations. All locations were no-till except the C2 which was minimum till and S2 which was planted into a stale seedbed. Farmer cooperators sprayed pre-emergence herbicides (varied by location). All locations were sprayed post-emergence with First Rate, Flexstar, and Select Max. METHOD OF CONDUCTING TRIALS Entries in Trials. Performance of entries in The Ohio Soybean Performance Trials are published if seed will be available to Ohio soybean producers for the following planting season. All 2025 entries were submitted voluntarily by seed companies. Entry fee charges were paid per entry and region. Test by Maturity and Type. Varieties were grouped, tested, and analyzed by maturity (early and late). Conventional (CV), Enlist (EN), and XtendFlex (XF) varieties were tested in the same block to allow for head-to-head comparisons. Varieties are comparable within a location and maturity grouping (early or late). Conventional herbicides were sprayed on all entries. Use the table below to find varieties by region and maturity.

Lodging Score. There was no lodging in 2025. Seed Size is reported as number of seeds per pound. Seed size was determined from varieties grown at the C2 location. Yield. Each soybean variety was harvested when the moisture content was between 8 and 14 percent and yields reported in bushels per acre at 13 percent moisture. Protein, Oil %. Analysis was determined by near infrared transmittance technology. The test was performed using a Foss NIR whole grain analyzer and is reported at 13 percent moisture. Protein and oil were determined from varieties grown at the C2 location. LSD. A Least Significant Difference (LSD) for yield was computed for each location and maturity grouping. LSDs are reported in bushels per acre at 13 percent moisture. Yields of two varieties within a location and maturity grouping are significantly different 90% of the time if their yields differ by more than the LSD value shown for that maturity group. A double asterisk (**) is used to denote the variety with the highest yield within a location and maturity grouping. A single asterisk (*) is used to denote varieties with yield not statistically different than the highest yielding variety. DATA USE. Inclusion of entries in the Ohio Soybean Performance Trials does not constitute an endorsement of a particular entry by the Ohio State University, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, or Ohio State University Extension.

2025 Tables by Region and Maturity Grouping North Central South

Early (2.3-3.1)

Table 3

Late (3.2-3.9)

Table 4

Early (2.4-3.3)

Table 5

Late (3.4-3.9)

Table 6

Early (2.8-3.6)

Table 7

Late (3.7-4.4)

Table 8

Table 1: The 2025 Ohio Soybean Performance Trials, Site Descriptions N1 N2 C1 Henry Co. Sandusky Co. Mercer Co. Soil texture Clay Sandy clay loam Clay loam Organic matter (%) 3.8 3.1 3.1 Soil pH 6.6 6.7 7.1 Soil Test P-Mehlich (ppm) 42 24 90 Soil Test K (ppm) 188 131 143 Plant date May 27 May 30 May 19 Harvest date Oct 11 Oct 13 Oct 14

252 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

C2 Licking Co. Clay loam 3.6 6.7 36 209 May 12 Oct 1

S1 Preble Co. Clay loam 3.7 6.3 146 178 April 28 Sept 30

S2 Clinton Co. Silty clay loam 4.6 6.3 62 138 May 15 Oct 15

Soybean

Corn

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Table 2. Company Listed by Variety, Maturity Rating, and Type Physical characteristics and yield data for a variety can be located using the table number(s) associated with each entry in this directory. Variety

RM Type

Table #

Albert Lea Seed House 1414 W Main St. Albert Lea, MN 56007

Variety

RM Type

Table #

Confluence Genetics

Variety

Type

Table #

FS HiSOY

800-352-5247 1200 Research Blvd.

614-594-7624 1705 Towanda Ave.

309-557-6000

alseed.com St. Louis, MO 63132

confluence.ag Bloomington, IL 61702

fsseed.com

27B4

2.7

BH23H228

30B4

3.0

3, 5

BH31Q146

2.3

HS 23E40

2.3

3.1

3, 5, 7

HS 25E30

2.5

3, 5

30B6

3.0

BH35A233

3.5

4, 6, 7

HS 26E50

2.6

3, 5

32B6

3.2

N35D950S

3.5

4, 6, 7

HS 26F50

2.6

3, 5

3418N

3.4

BH36U203

3.6

6, 7

HS 28E10

2.8

3, 5

39R4

3.9

BH37Q218

3.7

6, 8

HS 28E50

2.8

3, 5

BH37U221

3.7

6, 8

HS 29F50

2.9

3, 5

2974 Marion Green Camp Rd 614-348-6314 BH37U222

3.7

6, 8

HS 30F40

3.0

3, 5

axisohio.com C37H051S

3.7

6, 8

HS 31E20

3.1

3, 5

Axis Seed Marion, OH 43302 2635ES

2.6

C38H052S

3.7

6, 8

HS 32F50

3.2

4, 5

2924ES

2.9

3, 5

BH39A150

3.9

6, 8

HS 33E50

3.3

4, 5, 7

3.9

6, 8

HS 34E40

3016E

3.0

3, 5

BH39A232

3.4

4, 6, 7

3303XF

3.3

4, 5, 7

DonMario

HS 34F30

3.4

4, 6

3314E

3.3

4, 5, 7

2100 S Oak St., Suite 100 217-560-6400 HS 35E50

3.5

4, 6, 7

3.6

4, 6

3.7

4, 6, 8

3406E

3.4

4, 6, 7

Champaign, IL 61822 donmarioseeds.com HS 36F40

3514ES

3.5

4, 6, 7

DM24E84

2.4

3525E

3.5

4, 6, 7

DM33E55

3.3

3605XF

3.6

4, 6, 7

DM36E94

3.6

3616E

3.6

4, 6, 7

DM38E54

3.8

HS 37E40

4, 5

Golden Harvest

4, 6, 7

2001 Butterfield Rd, STE 1600

4, 6, 8

Downer’s Grove, IL 60515 goldenharvestseeds.com

Ebberts Field Seeds Inc.

Bayer Crop Science 800 North Lindbergh Blvd

GH3035E3

3.0

937-473-2521 GH3355E3S

800-768-6387 6840 N State Route 48

3, 5

E2390 E3

2.3

AG26XF4 2.6

3, 5

E2501 E3

2.5

AG27XF3 2.7

3, 5

E2790 E3

2.7

AG30XF4 3.0

3, 5

E2800 E3

2.8 3.0 3.1

3, 5

3.3 EN, STS

St. Louis, MO 63167 cropscience.bayer.us Covington, OH 45318 ebbertsseeds.com GH3774E3 AG24XF4 2.4

419-276-5549

3.7

4, 5, 7 8

GH3836E3S

3.8 EN, STS

GH4093E3

4.0

3, 5

Great Heart Seed Co.

3, 5

23237 Clemens Rd.

3, 5, 7

Athens, IL 62613

3, 5, 7

GT-3120XF

3.1

3, 5, 7

217-737-6745

AG33XF3 3.3

4, 5

E3000 E3

AG35XF5 3.5

4, 6

E3190 E3

AG36XF4 3.6

4, 6

E3301 E3

3.3

4, 5, 7

GT-3337ES

3.3

4, 5, 7

4, 6

E3302 E3

3.3

4, 5, 7

GT-3470ES

3.4

4, 6, 7

E3590 E3

3.5

4, 6, 7

AG39XF3 3.9

Beck’s 6767 E 276th St.

317-984-1102 E3690 E3

3.6

4, 6, 7

Atlanta, IN 46031

beckshybrids.com E3880 E3

3.8

4, 6, 8

384AA

3.8

greatheartseed.com

6, 8

2025 eFields Report | 253

Ohio Crop Performance Trials

Table 2. Company Listed by Variety, Maturity Rating, and Type CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE Physical characteristics and yield data for a variety can be located using the table number(s) associated with each entry in this directory.

Variety

Type

Table #

Heritage Cooperative

Variety

Type

Table #

Nutrien Ag Solutions 800-231-7333 717 Robinson Rd SE

59 Grief Pkwy.

Variety

Type

740-207-0182 1734 Railroad Place

Delaware, OH 43015 heritagecooperative.com Washington CH, OH 43160

Table #

Seedway dynagroseed.com

Hall, NY 14463

800-836-3710 seedway.com

SG2388E3

2.3

S29ES45

2.9

3, 5, 7

SG 2423E3

2.4

SG2520E3

2.5

S31EN96

3.1

3, 5, 7

SG 2705E3

2.7

SG2745E3

2.7

S33ES76

3.3

4, 5, 7

SG 2923E3

2.9

CT2846E3S

2.8

3, 5, 7

S36EN36

3.6

6, 7

SG 3323E3

3.3

SG2954E3S

2.9

3, 5, 7

S38EN75

3.8

6, 8

SX 3305E3

3.3

Seed Consultants, Inc.

CT3046E3S

3.0

3, 5, 7

SG3026E3

3.0

3, 5, 7

648 Miami Trace Rd.

CT3385E3S

3.3

4, 5, 7

Washington CH, OH 43160

SG3300E3 SG3500E3 CT3604E3S SG3784E3 CT3896E3S SG3933E3S

3.3 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9

Xitavo Soybean Seed 800-708-2676 103 Avenue D

419-466-5154

seedconsultants.com West Point, IA 52656

xitavoseed.com

4, 5, 7

SC7315E

3.1

3, 5

XO 2366E

2.3

4, 6, 7

SC7326ETM

3.2

4, 5, 7

XO 2444E

2.4

4, 6, 7

3.5

4, 6, 7

XO 2556E

2.5

3, 5

3.6

4, 6, 7

XO 2735E

2.7

3, 5

3.7

4, 6, 8

XO 2865E

2.8

3, 5

SC7385E

3.8

6, 8

XO 2926E

2.9

3, 5, 7

SC7416ETM

4.1

XO 3014E

3.0

3, 5, 7

XO 3105E

3.1

3, 5, 7

740-505-6545 XO 3224E

3.2

4, 5, 7

EN EN EN EN

4, 6, 8 4, 6, 8 4, 6, 8

Luckey Farmers Inc.

SC7355E SC7364E

SC7375E

419-669-3384 Seed Genetics Direct

1200 W Main St. Woodville, OH 43469

luckeyfarmers.com PO Box 32

GM 24E66

2.4

9983 Jeffersonville West Lancaster Rd.

XO 3375E

3.3

4, 5, 7

GM 26E55

2.6

Jeffersonville, OH 432128 seedgeneticsdirect.com XO 3456E

3.4

4, 6, 7

GM 28E45

2.8

ET-5723E3

2.3

XO 3555E

3.5

4, 6, 7

GM 31E86

3.1

ET-4725E3

2.5

XO 3655E

3.6

4, 6, 7

GM 32E96

3.2

ET-3729E3

2.9

3, 5, 7

XO 3705E

3.7

4, 6, 8

GM 33E03

3.3

ET-5730E3

3.0

3, 5, 7

XO 3855E

3.8

6, 8

GM 35E76

3.5

ET-4732E3

3.2

4, 5, 7

XO 4056E

4.0

ET-0733E3

3.3

4, 5, 7

NK Seeds

815-249-2798 ET-5734E3

3.4

4, 6, 7

syngenta-us.com/seeds/nk ET-5735E3

3.5

4, 6, 7

2128 IL-38 Malta, IL 60150 NK28-G7E3

2.8

ET-4736E3

3.6

4, 6, 7

NK34-P4E3S

3.4

4, 6

ET-4738E3

3.8

6, 8

NK38-B5E3S

3.8

4, 6, 8

ET-3739E3

3.9

NK39-S6XF

3.9

ET-5740E3

4.0

ET-5743E3

4.4

254 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Small Grains

Soybean

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

TABLE 3: The 2025 Ohio Soybean Performance Trials, North Region - Early Varieties (RM 2.3-3.1) Variety CT2846E3S E3190 E3 S29ES45 SC7315ETM GM 28E45 30B4 SG 2923E3 E2790 E3 ET-3729E3 27B4 SG2954E3S XO 3014E AG27XF3 HS 30F40 XO 3105E XO 2444E S31EN96 SG2520E3 E2501 E3 HS 31E20 HS 28E10 SG 2705E3 E2800 E3 AG30XF4 GM 31E86 DM24E84 E3000 E3 ET-5730E3 AG26XF4 SG2745E3 HS 28E50 30B6 HS 25E30 HS 29F50 ET-5723E3 SG3026E3 2924ES CT3046E3S 2635ES NK28-G7E3 GT-3120XF 3016E XO 2926E GH3035E3 HS 26F50 GM 26E55 XO 2366E AG24XF4 XO 2735E GM 24E66 SG 2423E3 HS 26E50 XO 2556E XO 2865E HS 23E40 E2390 E3 BH31Q146

Entry

Brand Shur Grow Ebberts Field Seeds Dyna-Gro Seed Consultants, Inc. Gro Mor Viking|Blue River Seedway Ebberts Field Seeds Seed Genetics Direct Viking|Blue River Shur Grow Xitavo Asgrow GROWMARK, INC. Xitavo Xitavo Dyna-Gro Shur Grow Ebberts Field Seeds GROWMARK, INC. GROWMARK, INC. Seedway Ebberts Field Seeds Asgrow Gro Mor DonMario Ebberts Field Seeds Seed Genetics Direct Asgrow Shur Grow GROWMARK, INC. Viking|Blue River GROWMARK, INC. GROWMARK, INC. Seed Genetics Direct Shur Grow Axis Seed Shur Grow Axis Seed NK Seeds Great Heart Seed Co. Axis Seed Xitavo Golden Harvest GROWMARK, INC. Gro Mor Xitavo Asgrow Xitavo Gro Mor Seedway GROWMARK, INC. Xitavo Xitavo GROWMARK, INC. Ebberts Field Seeds Confluence Genetics

Type EN EN EN EN EN CV EN EN EN CV EN EN XF XF EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN XF EN EN EN EN XF EN EN CV EN XF EN EN EN EN EN EN XF EN EN EN XF EN EN XF EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN CV

Seed & Plant Characteristics Seed Treatment Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro EBBERTS Complete Equity VAYO + Saltro LumiGen GM Caveo ST None Obtayn EBBERTS Complete Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force None Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya Acceleron Standard Acceleron I+F with Saltro Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya Equity VAYO + Saltro Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro EBBERTS Complete Acceleron I+F with Saltro Acceleron I+F with Saltro Obtayn EBBERTS Complete Acceleron Standard GM Caveo ST CruiserMaxx + APX + Saltro EBBERTS Complete Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force Acceleron Standard Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro Acceleron I+F with Saltro None Acceleron I+F with Saltro Acceleron I+F with Saltro Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro Revolve PLUS Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro Revolve PLUS CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro Imidacloprid + Fludioxonil Revolve PLUS Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro Acceleron I+F with Saltro GM Caveo ST Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya Acceleron Standard Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya GM Caveo ST Obtayn Acceleron I+F with Saltro Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya Acceleron I+F with Saltro EBBERTS Complete CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro

North Region Yield (bu/ac) RM N1 N2 '25 Mean '24-'25 Mean 2.8 80.0* 68.3* 74.2 3.1 78.0* 69.7** 73.9 2.9 78.7* 67.8* 73.3 59.6 3.1 80.6** 65.6* 73.1 60.8 2.8 78.7* 66.8* 72.8 3.0 78.0* 66.6* 72.3 63.3 2.9 77.9* 66.5* 72.2 62.3 2.7 77.8* 66.6* 72.2 60.8 2.9 77.1 66.8* 72.0 2.7 77.8* 65.9* 71.9 60.7 2.9 76.3 66.6* 71.5 3.0 78.9* 63.7 71.3 58.2 2.7 77.2 65.2 71.2 56.1 3.0 77.9* 64.4 71.2 60.0 3.1 78.4* 63.3 70.9 56.7 2.4 73.7 67.7* 70.7 56.4 3.1 78.1* 63.0 70.6 2.5 74.5 66.6* 70.6 2.5 74.4 66.6* 70.5 3.1 77.7* 63.1 70.4 56.9 2.8 74.7 66.0* 70.4 55.5 2.7 75.8 64.9 70.4 2.8 72.9 66.9* 69.9 3.0 75.1 64.5 69.8 58.2 3.1 74.8 64.6 69.7 2.4 73.4 65.9* 69.7 53.1 3.0 74.2 64.9 69.6 3.0 73.1 66.0* 69.6 2.6 74.7 64.0 69.4 58.7 2.7 74.9 63.6 69.3 2.8 75.0 62.9 69.0 3.0 71.5 65.6* 68.6 2.5 73.5 63.2 68.4 57.2 2.9 72.7 64.0 68.4 2.3 71.7 64.9 68.3 3.0 72.2 64.2 68.2 2.9 73.5 62.7 68.1 3.0 74.7 61.3 68.0 2.6 71.8 64.1 68.0 55.8 2.8 73.9 61.7 67.8 3.1 72.5 62.8 67.7 3.0 72.1 63.0 67.6 2.9 74.1 60.7 67.4 3.0 74.5 58.8 66.7 55.0 2.6 72.8 60.5 66.7 2.6 70.1 63.0 66.6 2.3 72.2 60.8 66.5 2.4 72.0 60.5 66.3 51.9 2.7 71.5 60.7 66.1 2.4 69.8 62.2 66.0 2.4 70.7 61.2 66.0 2.6 72.9 58.0 65.5 2.5 71.7 59.0 65.4 2.8 71.8 58.6 65.2 53.1 2.3 66.3 63.5 64.9 48.7 2.3 67.7 60.2 64.0 51.0 3.1 68.9 58.1 63.5 52.1

NOTE: North Region, Early Variety Trial Results are Continued on the Next Page.

2025 eFields Report | 255

Ohio Crop Performance Trials TABLE 3: The 2025 Ohio Soybean Performance Trials, North Region - Early Varieties (RM 2.3-3.1) CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE Entry

Variety BH23H228 SG2388E3 ET-4725E3

Brand Confluence Genetics Shur Grow Seed Genetics Direct

Seed & Plant Characteristics

Type CV EN EN

Seed Treatment RM CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro 2.3 Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro 2.3 Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force 2.5 Min 2.3 Max 3.1 Mean 2.8 LSD (0.1) CV

North Region Yield (bu/ac) '24-'25 N1 N2 '25 Mean Mean 61.5 62.7 62.1 49.1 63.9 56.9 60.4 65.8 54.5 60.2 61.5 54.5 60.2 80.6 69.7 74.2 74.0 63.7 68.6 3.2 4.2 3.7 5.7

**Highest yielding variety; *Varieties with yield not statistically different than the highest yielding variety. Please note: Minimum, maximum, and mean include data for experimental soybean varieties that are not published in this bulletin.

TABLE 4: The 2025 Ohio Soybean Performance Trials, North Region - Late Varieties (RM 3.2-3.9) Entry

Variety AG36XF4 XO 3555E 32B6 SG3300E3 AG35XF5 3605XF SC7364ETM AG39XF3 DM38E54 SX 3305E3 DM33E55 E3302 E3 SC7375ETM XO 3224E XO 3456E E3880 E3 SG 3323E3 3406E SC7355ETM S33ES76 SG3784E3 ET-4736E3 3314E E3590 E3 GM 32E96 AG33XF3 HS 36F40 ET-4732E3 E3690 E3 HS 37E40 GM 33E03 GT-3470ES SG3933E3S SG3500E3 ET-5734E3

Brand Asgrow Xitavo Viking|Blue River Shur Grow Asgrow Axis Seed Seed Consultants, Inc. Asgrow DonMario Seedway DonMario Ebberts Field Seeds Seed Consultants, Inc. Xitavo Xitavo Ebberts Field Seeds Seedway Axis Seed Seed Consultants, Inc. Dyna-Gro Shur Grow Seed Genetics Direct Axis Seed Ebberts Field Seeds Gro Mor Asgrow GROWMARK, INC. Seed Genetics Direct Ebberts Field Seeds GROWMARK, INC. Gro Mor Great Heart Seed Co. Shur Grow Shur Grow Seed Genetics Direct

Seed & Plant Characteristics

Type XF EN CV EN XF XF EN XF EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN XF XF EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN

North Region Yield (bu/ac) '24-'25 Seed Treatment RM N1 N2 '25 Mean Mean Acceleron Standard 3.6 81.6** 66.3* 74.0 59.4 Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya 3.5 79.0* 68.4* 73.7 62.8 None 3.2 80.2* 66.7* 73.5 Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro 3.3 77.4 68.7** 73.1 Acceleron Standard 3.5 80.5* 65.2* 72.9 Revolve PLUS 3.6 79.4* 65.2* 72.3 61.6 LumiGen 3.6 77.7 66.9* 72.3 61.1 Acceleron Standard 3.9 78.0 66.2* 72.1 59.7 CruiserMaxx + APX + Saltro 3.8 77.4 66.6* 72.0 60.0 Obtayn 3.3 76.5 66.8* 71.7 CruiserMaxx + APX + Saltro 3.3 80.9* 62.3 71.6 EBBERTS Complete 3.3 78.4 64.6* 71.5 LumiGen 3.7 75.5 67.5* 71.5 61.5 Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya 3.2 75.8 67.1* 71.5 61.1 Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya 3.4 76.7 66.1* 71.4 EBBERTS Complete 3.8 76.5 66.2* 71.4 64.1 Obtayn 3.3 76.0 66.5* 71.3 61.5 Revolve PLUS 3.4 77.0 65.3* 71.2 LumiGen 3.5 76.5 65.8* 71.2 60.1 Equity VAYO + Saltro 3.3 77.7 64.5* 71.1 Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro 3.7 76.3 65.9* 71.1 Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force 3.6 75.3 66.8* 71.1 58.5 Revolve PLUS 3.3 78.0 63.6 70.8 60.5 EBBERTS Complete 3.5 76.3 65.1* 70.7 GM Caveo ST 3.2 77.6 63.7 70.7 Acceleron Standard 3.3 76.5 64.7* 70.6 57.7 Acceleron I+F with Saltro 3.6 77.7 63.5 70.6 62.5 Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force 3.2 75.8 65.4* 70.6 61.2 EBBERTS Complete 3.6 74.5 66.6* 70.6 62.3 Acceleron I+F with Saltro 3.7 74.8 66.0* 70.4 61.7 GM Caveo ST 3.3 76.4 64.3 70.4 Imidacloprid + Fludioxonil 4L + Metalaxyl 3.4 75.1 65.5* 70.3 Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro 3.9 76.6 63.9 70.3 Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro 3.5 74.8 65.6* 70.2 Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force 3.4 77.7 62.4 70.1

NOTE: North Region, Late Variety Trial Results are Continued on the Next Page.

256 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

TABLE 4: The 2025 Ohio Soybean Performance Trials, North Region - Late Varieties (RM 3.2-3.9) CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE Entry

Variety 3418N HS 35E50 HS 34F30 ET-0733E3 DM36E94 HS 34E40 GT-3337ES CT3896E3S BH35A233 CT3385E3S 3303XF SC7326ETM XO 3705E 3616E HS 32F50 E3301 E3 GH3355E3S GM 35E76 XO 3375E NK38-B5E3S NK34-P4E3S XO 3655E ET-5735E3 3525E CT3604E3S HS 33E50 3514ES N35D950S

Brand Viking|Blue River GROWMARK, INC. GROWMARK, INC. Seed Genetics Direct DonMario GROWMARK, INC. Great Heart Seed Co. Shur Grow Confluence Genetics Shur Grow Axis Seed Seed Consultants, Inc. Xitavo Axis Seed GROWMARK, INC. Ebberts Field Seeds Golden Harvest Gro Mor Xitavo NK Seeds NK Seeds Xitavo Seed Genetics Direct Axis Seed Shur Grow GROWMARK, INC. Axis Seed Confluence Genetics

Seed & Plant Characteristics

North Region Yield (bu/ac) '24-'25 Type Seed Treatment RM N1 N2 '25 Mean Mean CV None 3.4 74.5 65.6* 70.1 59.4 EN Acceleron I+F with Saltro 3.5 74.9 65.1* 70.0 XF Acceleron I+F with Saltro 3.4 73.2 66.5* 69.9 59.4 69.8 58.4 EN Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force 3.3 77.1 62.5 EN CruiserMaxx + APX + Saltro 3.6 74.9 64.5* 69.7 59.5 EN Acceleron I+F with Saltro 3.4 73.8 65.0* 69.4 62.0 EN Imidacloprid + Fludioxonil 4L + Metalaxyl 3.3 75.9 62.7 69.3 EN Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro 3.8 74.4 64.0 69.2 CV CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro 3.5 75.7 62.5 69.1 58.3 EN Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro 3.3 74.9 62.8 68.9 XF Revolve PLUS 3.3 75.9 61.4 68.7 EN LumiGen 3.2 73.1 64.2 68.7 EN Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya 3.7 77.0 60.3 68.7 EN Revolve PLUS 3.6 72.5 64.5* 68.5 XF Acceleron I+F with Saltro 3.2 75.0 61.6 68.3 EN EBBERTS Complete 3.3 72.4 63.9 68.2 EN, STS CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro 3.3 73.5 62.2 67.9 58.2 EN GM Caveo ST 3.5 71.4 64.3 67.9 EN Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya 3.3 74.4 61.3 67.9 59.1 EN CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro 3.8 73.7 61.4 67.6 EN CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro 3.4 73.9 60.5 67.2 EN Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya 3.6 73.2 61.2 67.2 54.5 EN Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force 3.5 71.3 61.8 66.6 EN Revolve PLUS 3.5 72.5 60.2 66.4 54.3 EN Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro 3.6 71.2 61.2 66.2 EN Acceleron I+F with Saltro 3.3 72.2 59.6 65.9 EN Revolve PLUS 3.5 73.0 58.5 65.8 55.9 CV CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro 3.5 70.1 55.7 62.9 57.6 Min 3.2 70.1 55.7 62.9 Max 3.9 81.6 68.7 74.0 Mean 3.5 75.6 63.8 69.8 LSD (0.1) 3.1 4.3 CV 3.5 5.7

TABLE 5: The 2025 Ohio Soybean Performance Trials, Central Region - Early Varieties (RM 2.4-3.3) Entry

Variety AG33XF3 30B4 E3190 E3 SG2954E3S S31EN96 E2800 E3 HS 28E50 E3302 E3 SC7315ETM XO 3014E

Brand Asgrow Viking|Blue River Ebberts Field Seeds Shur Grow Dyna-Gro Ebberts Field Seeds GROWMARK, INC. Ebberts Field Seeds Seed Consultants, Inc. Xitavo

Seed & Plant Characteristics

Type XF CV EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN

Seed Treatment Acceleron Standard None EBBERTS Complete Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro Equity VAYO + Saltro EBBERTS Complete Acceleron I+F with Saltro EBBERTS Complete LumiGen Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya

RM 3.3 3.0 3.1 2.9 3.1 2.8 2.8 3.3 3.1 3.0

Central Region Yield (bu/ac) '25 '24-'25 C1 C2 Mean Mean 69.9 102.0** 86.0 80.9 72.6* 98.0* 85.3 84.3 70.7* 98.6* 84.7 69.7 99.5* 84.6 81.1 67.2 101.8* 84.5 68.1 99.6* 83.9 68.5 99.2* 83.9 70.3* 97.2* 83.8 70.9* 94.7 82.8 79.7 69.8 94.9 82.4 79.2

NOTE: Central Region, Early Variety Trial Results are Continued on the Next Page.

2025 eFields Report | 257

Ohio Crop Performance Trials TABLE 5: The 2025 Ohio Soybean Performance Trials, Central Region - Early Varieties (RM 2.4-3.3) CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE Entry

Variety AG30XF4 AG26XF4 S33ES76 ET-3729E3 2924ES HS 31E20 SG3300E3 AG24XF4 HS 33E50 HS 28E10 AG27XF3 DM33E55 CT2846E3S HS 30F40 3016E ET-5730E3 XO 2556E S29ES45 E3000 E3 HS 26F50 SC7326ETM E3301 E3 GT-3337ES GT-3120XF GH3355E3S 3303XF GH3035E3 XO 3224E CT3046E3S 3314E ET-0733E3 E2790 E3 CT3385E3S HS 29F50 BH31Q146 HS 26E50 XO 3375E HS 32F50 XO 2926E SG3026E3 ET-4732E3 HS 25E30 XO 3105E XO 2865E XO 2735E

Brand Asgrow Asgrow Dyna-Gro Seed Genetics Direct Axis Seed GROWMARK, INC. Shur Grow Asgrow GROWMARK, INC. GROWMARK, INC. Asgrow DonMario Shur Grow GROWMARK, INC. Axis Seed Seed Genetics Direct Xitavo Dyna-Gro Ebberts Field Seeds GROWMARK, INC. Seed Consultants, Inc. Ebberts Field Seeds Great Heart Seed Co. Great Heart Seed Co. Golden Harvest Axis Seed Golden Harvest Xitavo Shur Grow Axis Seed Seed Genetics Direct Ebberts Field Seeds Shur Grow GROWMARK, INC. Confluence Genetics GROWMARK, INC. Xitavo GROWMARK, INC. Xitavo Shur Grow Seed Genetics Direct GROWMARK, INC. Xitavo Xitavo Xitavo

Seed & Plant Characteristics

Type XF XF EN EN EN EN EN XF EN EN XF EN EN XF EN EN EN EN EN XF EN EN EN XF EN, STS XF EN EN EN EN EN EN EN XF CV EN EN XF EN EN EN EN EN EN EN

Seed Treatment RM Acceleron Standard 3.0 Acceleron Standard 2.6 Equity VAYO + Saltro 3.3 Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force 2.9 Revolve PLUS 2.9 Acceleron I+F with Saltro 3.1 Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro 3.3 Acceleron Standard 2.4 Acceleron I+F with Saltro 3.3 Acceleron I+F with Saltro 2.8 Acceleron Standard 2.7 CruiserMaxx + APX + Saltro 3.3 Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro 2.8 Acceleron I+F with Saltro 3.0 Revolve PLUS 3.0 Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force 3.0 Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya 2.5 Equity VAYO + Saltro 2.9 EBBERTS Complete 3.0 Acceleron I+F with Saltro 2.6 LumiGen 3.2 EBBERTS Complete 3.3 Imidacloprid + Fludioxonil 4L + Metalaxyl 3.3 Imidacloprid + Fludioxonil 4L + Metalaxyl 3.1 CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro 3.3 Revolve PLUS 3.3 CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro 3.0 Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya 3.2 Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro 3.0 Revolve PLUS 3.3 Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force 3.3 EBBERTS Complete 2.7 Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro 3.3 Acceleron I+F with Saltro 2.9 CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro 3.1 Acceleron I+F with Saltro 2.6 Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya 3.3 Acceleron I+F with Saltro 3.2 Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya 2.9 Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro 3.0 Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force 3.2 Acceleron I+F with Saltro 2.5 Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya 3.1 Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya 2.8 Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya 2.7 Min 2.4 Max 3.3 Mean 3.0 LSD (0.1) CV

Central Region Yield (bu/ac) '25 '24-'25 C1 C2 Mean Mean 66.0 97.3* 81.7 75.4 67.4 95.6* 81.5 75.3 70.3* 90.7 80.5 68.8 92.2 80.5 66.9 94.0 80.5 72.0 68.8 92.1 80.5 75.6 64.1 96.8* 80.5 68.4 92.2 80.3 75.0 65.5 94.6 80.1 66.5 93.3 79.9 78.5 73.0* 86.7 79.9 77.1 65.0 94.6 79.8 74.7** 84.6 79.7 69.9 89.3 79.6 78.9 67.5 91.1 79.3 67.9 90.4 79.2 66.7 90.2 78.5 65.8 90.7 78.3 75.1 68.9 87.5 78.2 64.4 91.6 78.0 64.5 91.2 77.9 67.4 88.0 77.7 70.7* 84.2 77.5 69.6 85.3 77.5 64.0 90.3 77.2 73.8 69.2 84.8 77.0 65.1 88.5 76.8 72.8 69.6 82.7 76.2 73.3 66.1 86.1 76.1 68.9 83.0 76.0 74.0 65.6 85.9 75.8 72.7 67.6 83.5 75.6 75.4 64.2 86.0 75.1 72.1 60.2 89.9 75.1 60.7 89.2 75.0 60.1 89.7 74.9 66.6 82.7 74.7 73.7 64.9 84.2 74.6 66.0 83.1 74.6 68.1 80.5 74.3 74.3 64.6 83.2 73.9 74.1 63.0 84.7 73.9 72.6 63.7 83.3 73.5 77.4 65.6 71.0 68.3 66.0 60.8 75.5 68.2 60.1 71.0 68.2 74.7 102.0 86.0 67.4 90.0 78.3 4.5 6.4 5.7 6.1

258 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

TABLE 6: The 2025 Ohio Soybean Performance Trials, Central Region - Late Varieties (RM 3.4-3.9) Entry

Variety HS 34F30 HS 35E50 E3590 E3 3605XF AG39XF3 XO 3555E GT-3470ES S36EN36 AG35XF5 SC7355ETM HS 36F40 E3880 E3 BH35A233 ET-5734E3 3406E AG36XF4 HS 34E40 39R4 3616E E3690 E3 BH39A150 SG3500E3 SG3933E3S 3525E SC7385ETM NK38-B5E3S 384AA CT3896E3S DM38E54 S38EN75 BH39A232 HS 37E40 3835E SC7364ETM SG3784E3 XO 3855E SC7375ETM XO 3655E ET-5735E3 XO 3456E ET-4738E3 NK34-P4E3S DM36E94 CT3604E3S 3514ES ET-4736E3 N35D950S BH37U221 XO 3705E C38H052S

Brand GROWMARK, INC. GROWMARK, INC. Ebberts Field Seeds Axis Seed Asgrow Xitavo Great Heart Seed Co. Dyna-Gro Asgrow Seed Consultants, Inc. GROWMARK, INC. Ebberts Field Seeds Confluence Genetics Seed Genetics Direct Axis Seed Asgrow GROWMARK, INC. Viking|Blue River Axis Seed Ebberts Field Seeds Confluence Genetics Shur Grow Shur Grow Axis Seed Seed Consultants, Inc. NK Seeds Beck's Shur Grow DonMario Dyna-Gro Confluence Genetics GROWMARK, INC. Axis Seed Seed Consultants, Inc. Shur Grow Xitavo Seed Consultants, Inc. Xitavo Seed Genetics Direct Xitavo Seed Genetics Direct NK Seeds DonMario Shur Grow Axis Seed Seed Genetics Direct Confluence Genetics Confluence Genetics Xitavo Confluence Genetics

Seed & Plant Characteristics

Type XF EN EN XF XF EN EN EN XF EN XF EN CV EN EN XF EN CV EN EN CV EN EN EN EN EN CV EN EN EN CV EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN CV CV EN CV

Seed Treatment Acceleron I+F with Saltro Acceleron I+F with Saltro EBBERTS Complete Revolve PLUS Acceleron Standard Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya Imidacloprid + Fludioxonil 4L + Metalaxyl Equity VAYO + Saltro Acceleron Standard LumiGen Acceleron I+F with Saltro EBBERTS Complete CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force Revolve PLUS Acceleron Standard Acceleron I+F with Saltro None Revolve PLUS EBBERTS Complete CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro Revolve PLUS LumiGen CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro Equity VAYO + Saltro CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro Acceleron I+F with Saltro Revolve PLUS LumiGen Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya LumiGen Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya Fludioxonill + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro CruiserMaxx + APX + Saltro Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro Revolve PLUS Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro

RM 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.9 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.8 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.9 3.6 3.6 3.9 3.5 3.9 3.5 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.7 3.8 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.8 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.7

Central Region Yield (bu/ac) '25 '24-'25 C1 C2 Mean Mean 74.5* 95.3* 84.9 75.9 73.1* 95.3* 84.2 75.4** 91.6* 83.5 72.1* 94.5* 83.3 80.7 72.7* 92.6* 82.7 78.0 68.6 96.5** 82.6 78.5 71.7* 92.6* 82.2 75.2* 88.8 82.0 71.4* 91.9* 81.7 72.6* 90.6* 81.6 81.2 72.1* 91.0* 81.6 77.4 68.2 94.0* 81.1 76.0 69.0 92.8* 80.9 74.3 68.7 92.1* 80.4 72.3* 88.2 80.3 64.1 95.2* 79.7 77.7 73.7* 85.2 79.5 77.6 67.9 90.5* 79.2 76.9 73.4* 84.7 79.1 67.3 90.3* 78.8 79.4 68.0 89.5 78.8 67.4 89.8 78.6 69.0 88.2 78.6 66.3 89.7 78.0 76.2 68.0 88.0 78.0 75.6 67.2 88.5 77.9 67.7 87.7 77.7 68.3 86.7 77.5 67.9 86.5 77.2 77.0 63.2 91.2* 77.2 77.2 63.4 90.1 76.8 75.1 65.2 88.3 76.8 75.7 67.8 85.3 76.6 72.2 65.2 87.8 76.5 76.6 63.1 89.8 76.5 75.4 68.3 84.5 76.4 74.1 66.5 85.5 76.0 76.6 69.6 82.1 75.9 73.7 66.1 85.4 75.8 71.1* 77.5 74.3 59.5 88.4 74.0 76.2 67.0 80.7 73.9 60.6 86.8 73.7 73.3 65.0 81.7 73.4 61.8 84.2 73.0 73.4 62.5 80.4 71.5 73.0 66.4 75.1 70.8 72.6 64.9 75.0 70.0 64.1 75.8 70.0 63.6 75.8 69.7 67.7

NOTE: Central Region, Late Variety Trial Results are Continued on the Next Page.

2025 eFields Report | 259

Ohio Crop Performance Trials TABLE 6: The 2025 Ohio Soybean Performance Trials, Central Region - Late Varieties (RM 3.4-3.9) CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE Entry Variety BH36U203 BH37U222 BH37Q218 C37H051S

Brand Confluence Genetics Confluence Genetics Confluence Genetics Confluence Genetics

Seed & Plant Characteristics Type CV CV CV CV

Seed Treatment CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro

RM 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 Min 3.4 Max 3.9 Mean 3.6 LSD (0.1) CV

South Region Yield (bu/ac) '24-'25 C1 C2 ‘25 Mean Mean 58.0 80.2 69.1 64.2 73.4 68.8 61.4 75.5 68.5 70.9 60.3 73.8 67.1 58.0 71.5 66.7 75.4 96.5 84.9 67.5 86.9 76.8 5.3 6.3 6.7 6.2

TABLE 7: The 2025 Ohio Soybean Performance Trials, South Region - Early Varieties (RM 2.8-3.6) Entry

Variety SG3300E3 SG3026E3 E3690 E3 E3190 E3 ET-5734E3 E3000 E3 3605XF 3616E E3301 E3 SC7355ETM S33ES76 XO 3555E SG3500E3 SG2954E3S S31EN96 ET-3729E3 XO 3105E XO 3014E S29ES45 XO 3224E ET-5730E3 HS 34E40 S36EN36 3406E SC7364ETM CT2846E3S SC7326ETM XO 3375E GT-3337ES E3302 E3 E3590 E3 XO 2926E ET-4732E3

Brand Shur Grow Shur Grow Ebberts Field Seeds Ebberts Field Seeds Seed Genetics Direct Ebberts Field Seeds Axis Seed Axis Seed Ebberts Field Seeds Seed Consultants, Inc. Dyna-Gro Xitavo Shur Grow Shur Grow Dyna-Gro Seed Genetics Direct Xitavo Xitavo Dyna-Gro Xitavo Seed Genetics Direct GROWMARK, INC. Dyna-Gro Axis Seed Seed Consultants, Inc. Shur Grow Seed Consultants, Inc. Xitavo Great Heart Seed Co. Ebberts Field Seeds Ebberts Field Seeds Xitavo Seed Genetics Direct

Seed & Plant Characteristics

Type EN EN EN EN EN EN XF EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN

Seed Treatment RM Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro 3.3 Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro 3.0 EBBERTS Complete 3.6 EBBERTS Complete 3.1 Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force 3.4 EBBERTS Complete 3.0 Revolve PLUS 3.6 Revolve PLUS 3.6 EBBERTS Complete 3.3 LumiGen 3.5 Equity VAYO + Saltro 3.3 Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya 3.5 Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro 3.5 Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro 2.9 Equity VAYO + Saltro 3.1 Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force 2.9 Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya 3.1 Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya 3.0 Equity VAYO + Saltro 2.9 Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya 3.2 Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force 3.0 Acceleron I+F with Saltro 3.4 Equity VAYO + Saltro 3.6 Revolve PLUS 3.4 LumiGen 3.6 Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro 2.8 LumiGen 3.2 Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya 3.3 Imidacloprid + Fludioxonil 4L + Metalaxyl 3.3 EBBERTS Complete 3.3 EBBERTS Complete 3.5 Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya 2.9 Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force 3.2

NOTE: South Region, Early Variety Trial Results are Continued on the Next Page.

260 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

South Region Yield (bu/ac) '25 '24-'25 S1 S2 Mean Mean 100.9* 92.9* 96.9 99.0* 92.5* 95.8 99.5* 90.9* 95.2 88.5 97.1 93.3** 95.2 100.4* 89.2* 94.8 98.3* 89.9* 94.1 104.1** 81.6 92.9 84.9 94.3 90.6* 92.5 96.7 87.4 92.1 94.4 89.6* 92.0 85.5 97.8* 86.1 92.0 101.5* 82.0 91.8 86.6 96.7 86.2 91.5 95.0 87.8 91.4 92.0 90.4* 91.2 97.2 85.2 91.2 95.2 86.8 91.0 82.8 91.3 89.9* 90.6 85.5 93.9 86.9 90.4 85.0 95.3 85.5 90.4 83.7 94.0 86.6 90.3 91.4 88.4* 89.9 94.3 84.3 89.3 96.1 81.9 89.0 92.8 85.1 89.0 82.8 93.6 83.8 88.7 94.5 81.9 88.2 91.7 84.6 88.2 81.3 87.8 88.1* 88.0 95.3 79.8 87.6 96.0 79.1 87.6 91.6 83.4 87.5 86.4 87.9* 87.2 81.1

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

TABLE 7: The 2025 Ohio Soybean Performance Trials, South Region - Early Varieties (RM 2.8-3.6) CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE Entry

Variety XO 3456E 3314E ET-4736E3 ET-0733E3 GT-3120XF HS 33E50 N35D950S HS 35E50 3514ES BH31Q146 DM36E94 GT-3470ES BH35A233 3303XF XO 3655E 3525E CT3385E3S ET-5735E3 CT3046E3S CT3604E3S GH3355E3S BH36U203

Brand Xitavo Axis Seed Seed Genetics Direct Seed Genetics Direct Great Heart Seed Co. GROWMARK, INC. Confluence Genetics GROWMARK, INC. Axis Seed Confluence Genetics DonMario Great Heart Seed Co. Confluence Genetics Axis Seed Xitavo Axis Seed Shur Grow Seed Genetics Direct Shur Grow Shur Grow Golden Harvest Confluence Genetics

Seed & Plant Characteristics

Type Seed Treatment EN Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya EN Revolve PLUS EN Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force EN Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force XF Imidacloprid + Fludioxonil 4L + Metalaxyl EN Acceleron I+F with Saltro CV CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro EN Acceleron I+F with Saltro EN Revolve PLUS CV CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro EN CruiserMaxx + APX + Saltro EN Imidacloprid + Fludioxonil 4L + Metalaxyl CV CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro XF Revolve PLUS EN Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya EN Revolve PLUS EN Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro EN Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force EN Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro EN Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro EN, STS CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro CV CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro Min Max Mean LSD (0.1) CV

RM 3.4 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.0 3.6 3.3 3.6 2.8 3.6 3.3

Other

South Region Yield (bu/ac) '25 '24-'25 S1 S2 Mean Mean 89.9 84.1 87.0 87.3 86.4 86.9 83.4 89.5 83.8 86.7 84.3 88.7 82.6 85.7 79.2 90.7 80.4 85.6 88.5 81.9 85.2 91.3 78.8 85.1 78.1 96.1 73.7 84.9 85.9 82.9 84.4 80.0 87.2 81.5 84.4 93.1 75.6 84.4 81.3 93.8 73.6 83.7 93.4 73.5 83.5 78.3 91.3 73.3 82.3 89.3 74.8 82.1 78.2 84.1 77.1 80.6 78.5 89.5 71.2 80.4 78.5 81.9 80.2 86.7 72.6 79.7 77.5 80.9 79.2 83.8 74.1 79.0 78.3 84.4 72.9 78.7 77.5 70.4 74.6 104.1 93.3 96.9 92.2 83.3 87.5 6.6 5.4 6.2 5.6

TABLE 8: The 2025 Ohio Soybean Performance Trials, South Region - Late Varieties (RM 3.7-4.4) Entry

Variety GH3836E3S ET-4738E3 S38EN75 HS 37E40 GH4093E3 NK38-B5E3S SC7416ETM ET-3739E3 E3880 E3 SG3933E3S SG3784E3 SC7385ETM DM38E54 384AA BH39A150 3835E

Brand Golden Harvest Seed Genetics Direct Dyna-Gro GROWMARK, INC. Golden Harvest NK Seeds Seed Consultants, Inc. Seed Genetics Direct Ebberts Field Seeds Shur Grow Shur Grow Seed Consultants, Inc. DonMario Beck's Confluence Genetics Axis Seed

Seed & Plant Characteristics

Type Seed Treatment EN, STS CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro EN Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force EN Equity VAYO + Saltro EN Acceleron I+F with Saltro EN CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro EN CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro EN LumiGen EN Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force EN EBBERTS Complete EN Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro EN Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro EN LumiGen EN CruiserMaxx + APX + Saltro CV CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro CV CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro EN Revolve PLUS

RM 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.7 4.0 3.8 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.9 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.8

South Region Yield (bu/ac) '25 '24-'25 S1 S2 Mean Mean 97.0* 86.2* 91.6 98.6** 81.5 90.1 88.0 93.6* 85.2* 89.4 87.0 93.0 82.4 87.7 88.9 85.8* 87.4 86.1 87.8* 87.0 88.3 85.6* 87.0 85.6 88.3** 87.0 91.7 81.9 86.8 91.7 81.9 86.8 91.6 81.8 86.7 91.7 81.4 86.6 83.4 92.6 80.5 86.6 81.0 91.4 80.1 85.8 91.7 79.5 85.6 88.8 81.2 85.0 83.4

NOTE: South Region, Late Variety Trial Results are Continued on the Next Page.

2025 eFields Report | 261

Ohio Crop Performance Trials TABLE 8: The 2025 Ohio Soybean Performance Trials, South Region - Late Varieties (RM 3.7-4.4) CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE Entry

Variety ET-5740E3 BH39A232 SC7375ETM C38H052S GH3774E3 CT3896E3S NK39-S6XF BH37Q218 XO 3705E XO 3855E XO 4056E C37H051S BH37U221 BH37U222 ET-5743E3

Seed & Plant Characteristics

Brand

Type

Seed Treatment

EN CV EN CV EN EN XF CV EN EN EN CV CV CV EN

Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro LumiGen CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro Shur Coat FI + Preside + Saltro CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya Obvius Plus + Poncho Votivo + Ilevo + Relenya CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro CruiserMaxx APX + Saltro Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl + Vitavax-34 + N-Force Min Max Mean LSD (0.1) CV

4.0 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.8 4.0 3.7 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.8

Seed Genetics Direct Confluence Genetics Seed Consultants, Inc. Confluence Genetics Golden Harvest Shur Grow NK Seeds Confluence Genetics Xitavo Xitavo Xitavo Confluence Genetics Confluence Genetics Confluence Genetics Seed Genetics Direct

South Region Yield (bu/ac) '25 '24-'25 S1 S2 Mean Mean 88.6 90.2 88.6 85.8 88.1 86.6 78.8 84.0 86.4 86.0 88.5 76.8 80.7 78.1 66.1 66.1 98.6 87.3 5.3 5.2

81.4 79.3 79.5 82.0 78.2 77.8 80.5 72.4 69.8 70.2 67.0 75.7 66.3 62.2 69.5 62.2 88.3 78.8 4.3 4.7

85.0 84.8 84.1 83.9 83.2 82.2 79.7 78.2 78.1 78.1 77.8 76.3 73.5 70.2 67.8 67.8 91.6 83.1

82.6 82.5 75.8 82.1 75.2

77.1

TABLE 9: Seed characteristics (seeds/lb, % protein, and % oil) from seed collected at the Licking County location, 2025. Variety 27B4 30B4 30B6 32B6 3418N 39R4 2635ES 2924ES 3016E 3303XF 3314E 3406E 3514ES 3525E 3605XF 3616E AG24XF4 AG26XF4 AG27XF3 AG30XF4 AG33XF3 AG35XF5 AG36XF4 AG39XF3

Entry

Seed Quality RM Type Seeds/lb % Protein Albert Lea Seed House 2.7 CV 2914 33.5 3.0 CV 2554 31.9 3.0 CV 2990 33.4 3.2 CV 2952 34.1 3.4 CV 2738 33.8 3.9 CV 2877 33.3 Axis Seed 2.6 EN 2914 33.8 2.9 EN 2952 33.2 3.0 EN 2806 33.3 3.3 XF 3247 34.3 3.3 EN 2990 32.9 3.4 EN 3392 33.6 3.5 EN 3666 33.6 3.5 EN 3247 35.1 3.6 XF 2806 33.1 3.6 EN 2806 34.0 Bayer Crop Science 2.4 XF 3497 33.4 2.6 XF 3157 34.4 2.7 XF 2990 33.4 3.0 XF 3342 35.5 3.3 XF 3113 33.9 3.5 XF 2841 33.3 3.6 XF 2806 33.5 3.9 XF 3071 33.6

19.2 18.9 19.1 18.8 18.6 18.3 18.9 19.0 19.9 18.5 19.4 18.7 19.9 19.2 19.2 19.3 18.5 19.3 18.8 17.7 19.0 18.3 18.7 17.8

NOTE: Seed Characteristic Results are Continued on the Next Page.

262 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Entry Variety

% Oil 384AA

BH23H228 BH31Q146 BH35A233 N35D950S BH36U203 BH37Q218 BH37U221 BH37U222 C37H051S C38H052S BH39A150 BH39A232 DM24E84 DM33E55 DM36E94 DM38E54 E2390 E3 E2501 E3 E2790 E3 E2800 E3 E3000 E3 E3190 E3

Seed Quality RM Type Seeds/lb % Protein % Oil Beck’s 3.8 CV 3342 36.9 16.6 Confluence Genetics 2.3 CV 2643 38.9 18.4 3.1 CV 3551 38.5 17.5 3.5 CV 2841 33.5 18.5 3.5 CV 3247 39.1 16.6 3.6 CV 2990 33.8 19.4 3.7 CV 3201 38.2 16.3 3.7 CV 2952 40.4 16.5 3.7 CV 2990 40.9 16.2 3.7 CV 3030 39.0 16.1 3.7 CV 2952 39.4 17.4 3.9 CV 3157 34.0 17.4 3.9 CV 3071 33.6 17.4 DonMario 2.4 EN 3444 35.6 18.4 3.3 EN 2952 33.8 19.8 3.6 EN 3071 34.8 19.0 3.8 EN 2990 33.3 19.1 Ebberts Field Seeds Inc. 2.3 EN 3247 34.0 18.9 2.5 EN 2914 33.4 19.0 2.7 EN 3157 34.5 19.5 2.8 EN 3987 32.1 20.0 3.0 EN 2952 33.4 19.4 3.1 EN 3201 34.5 18.7

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

TABLE 9: Seed characteristics (seeds/lb, % protein, and % oil) from seed collected at the Licking County location, 2025. CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE Variety E3301 E3 E3302 E3 E3590 E3 E3690 E3 E3880 E3 HS 23E40 HS 25E30 HS 26E50 HS 26F50 HS 28E10 HS 28E50 HS 29F50 HS 30F40 HS 31E20 HS 32F50 HS 33E50 HS 34E40 HS 34F30 HS 35E50 HS 36F40 HS 37E40 GH3035E3 GH3355E3S GH3774E3 GH3836E3S GH4093E3 GT-3120XF GT-3337ES GT-3470ES SG2388E3 SG2520E3 SG2745E3 CT2846E3S SG2954E3S CT3046E3S SG3026E3 CT3385E3S SG3300E3 SG3500E3 CT3604E3S SG3784E3 CT3896E3S SG3933E3S

GM 24E66 GM 26E55 GM 28E45 GM 31E86 GM 32E96 GM 33E03 GM 35E76

Entry

Seed Quality RM Type Seeds/lb % Protein Ebberts Field Seeds Inc. 3.3 EN 2841 34.0 3.3 EN 3608 32.4 3.5 EN 3342 32.1 3.6 EN 3113 32.8 3.8 EN 2990 34.5 FS HiSOY 2.3 EN 3247 34.3 2.5 EN 3608 34.2 2.6 EN 3157 33.9 2.6 XF 2583 35.8 2.8 EN 3444 33.5 2.8 EN 3201 34.0 2.9 XF 3497 33.1 3.0 XF 3247 33.6 3.1 EN 3157 33.8 3.2 XF 3392 34.4 3.3 EN 2841 35.9 3.4 EN 3157 33.1 3.4 XF 2952 34.6 3.5 EN 3551 33.4 3.6 XF 3030 33.0 3.7 EN 2990 33.8 Golden Harvest 3.0 EN 2990 34.2 3.3 EN, STS 3157 34.5 3.7 EN 3392 33.1 3.8 EN, STS 3294 31.7 4.0 EN 3392 34.0 Great Heart Seed Co. 3.1 XF 3342 33.4 3.3 EN 2914 33.2 3.4 EN 3551 32.6 Heritage Cooperative 2.3 EN 3392 33.6 2.5 EN 2990 32.6 2.7 EN 3392 34.3 2.8 EN 3113 36.3 2.9 EN 3030 32.7 3.0 EN 2914 35.0 3.0 EN 2806 34.0 3.3 EN 3247 33.9 3113 33.5 3.3 EN 3.5 EN 3201 32.5 3.6 EN 3987 33.1 3.7 EN 2914 33.9 3.8 EN 3157 33.2 3.9 EN 3392 31.9 Luckey Farmers Inc. 2.4 EN 3342 34.6 2.6 EN 3497 33.1 2.8 EN 3030 33.9 3.1 EN 2877 34.6 3.2 EN 3294 33.5 3.3 EN 2877 34.5 3.5 EN 2990 33.7

% Oil 19.2 18.8 18.9 18.8 18.3 19.1 20.1 19.1 18.6 18.8 19.2 19.7 18.7 19.0 18.3 18.9 19.9 18.7 18.6 19.1 18.4 18.7 19.2 19.0 18.7 19.1 20.0 19.4 18.7 19.4 19.3 19.1 17.8 19.4 19.0 19.5 18.4 18.9 19.3 19.3 18.7 18.7 19.4

19.4 20.3 19.8 18.5 19.0 19.1 19.3

Entry Variety

NK28-G7E3 NK34-P4E3S NK38-B5E3S NK39-S6XF S29ES45 S31EN96 S33ES76 S36EN36 S38EN75 SC7315ETM SC7326ETM SC7355ETM SC7364ETM SC7375ETM SC7385ETM SC7416ETM ET-5723E3 ET-4725E3 ET-3729E3 ET-5730E3 ET-4732E3 ET-0733E3 ET-5734E3 ET-5735E3 ET-4736E3 ET-4738E3 ET-3739E3 ET-5740E3 ET-5743E3 SG 2423E3 SG 2705E3 SG 2923E3 SG 3323E3 SX 3305E3 XO 2366E XO 2444E XO 2556E XO 2735E XO 2865E XO 2926E XO 3014E XO 3105E XO 3224E XO 3375E XO 3456E XO 3555E XO 3655E XO 3705E XO 3855E XO 4056E

Seed Quality RM Type Seeds/lb % Protein % Oil NK Seeds 2.8 EN 2554 34.7 18.6 3.4 EN 2914 34.5 19.3 3.8 EN 3392 31.9 18.1 3.9 XF 3030 34.0 18.7 Nutrien Ag Solutions 2.9 EN 2990 33.6 18.8 3.1 EN 2990 34.4 18.7 3.3 EN 3392 33.4 18.2 3.6 EN 2914 33.5 18.9 3.8 EN 3247 33.5 19.1 Seed Consultants, Inc. 3.1 EN 3113 33.1 20.0 3.2 EN 2806 35.4 19.1 3.5 EN 3030 33.2 18.8 3.6 EN 2877 34.6 19.4 3.7 EN 2990 34.1 19.0 3.8 EN 2806 34.4 18.4 4.1 EN 3157 33.0 17.5 Seed Genetics Direct 2.3 EN 2952 34.8 19.0 2.5 EN 3918 33.0 18.8 2.9 EN 2914 33.1 19.1 3.0 EN 2914 33.6 19.5 3.2 EN 3071 32.9 19.5 3.3 EN 3157 34.3 18.9 3.4 EN 3201 32.9 19.0 3.5 EN 3342 33.6 19.2 3.6 EN 3294 33.5 18.9 3.8 EN 3157 33.2 18.9 3.9 EN 2952 33.2 18.7 4.0 EN 3201 33.2 18.7 4.4 EN 3157 33.7 17.9 Seedway 2.4 EN 3551 34.4 19.9 2.7 EN 3852 33.9 19.7 2.9 EN 2952 33.5 18.9 3.3 EN 2877 33.3 19.3 3.3 EN 3201 32.9 18.6 Xitavo 2.3 EN 3497 33.5 19.5 2.4 EN 2643 34.5 19.2 2.5 EN 3247 34.3 19.1 2.7 EN 4209 32.8 18.3 2.8 EN 3726 33.9 17.9 2.9 EN 3444 33.2 19.2 3.0 EN 2841 33.3 19.1 3.1 EN 2952 32.3 19.6 3.2 EN 2772 33.8 19.1 3.3 EN 3201 33.5 19.4 3.4 EN 3444 34.0 18.0 3.5 EN 3497 33.8 18.5 3.6 EN 3201 34.7 18.8 3.7 EN 3788 33.1 19.2 3.8 EN 3444 35.1 18.4 4.0 EN 3608 34.1 18.9

2025 eFields Report | 263

Ohio Crop Performance Trials THE 2025 OHIO WHEAT PERFORMANCE TEST M.W. Hankinson, J. McCormick, A.B. Geyer, C.H. Sneller, L.E. Lindsey, Dept. of Horticulture and Crop Science P. Paul, Dept. of Plant Pathology B.-K. Baik, USDA-ARS Soft Wheat Quality Laboratory The purpose of the 2025 Ohio Wheat Performance Test is to evaluate wheat varieties, blends, brands, and breeding lines for yield, grain quality, and other important performance characteristics. This information gives wheat producers comparative information for selecting the varieties best suited for their production system and market. Varieties differ in yield potential, winter hardiness, maturity, standability, disease and insect resistance, and other agronomic characteristics. Selection should be based on performance from multiple test sites and years. EVALUATION PROCEDURES Each entry was evaluated at five test sites using four replications per site in a randomized complete block design. Plots consisted of seven rows, 7.5 inches apart and 25 ft long. Participating companies specified the seeding rate used for each of their varieties. Test sites were planted within 17 days of the fly-free date. Approximately 30 lb N/ acre was applied at planting with 80-100 lb N/acre in early spring. Herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides were applied as needed. Soybean was the previous crop and fields were minimally-tilled at all locations. The following data were collected: Yield is reported in bushels/acre at 13.5% moisture. Test Weight is reported in lb/bushel averaged across all locations. Seed Size is thousands of harvested seed/pound (Ex. 15.5=15,500 seeds/ lb) from the Wood County location. Lodging is the percent of plants that lean more than 45° from vertical. Plant Height is the distance in inches from the soil surface to top of heads measured at the Clark County location. Heading Date was the average calendar day of the year on which 50% of the heads were completely emerged at the Clark County location (Ex: Day 135 = May 15). Stagonospora Leaf and Glume Blight Varieties were evaluated for Stagonospora leaf and glume blotch in an inoculated, mist-irrigated disease screening nursery in Wooster. Both SLB and SGB severity were rated at approximately Feekes growth stage 11.3 as the average percent flag leaf and spike area diseased, respectively. Powdery Mildew Varieties were evaluated for powdery mildew in Wooster at Feekes growth stage 10.5 (heading). Varieties were classified as susceptible, moderately susceptible, moderately resistant, and resistant. Fusarium Head Blight (FHB) Varieties were evaluated in an inoculated disease screening nursery in Wooster. FHB was rated as the percentage of spikelets showing disease symptoms. Varieties were classified as susceptible, moderately susceptible, moderately resistant, and resistant. Flour Yield is the percent flour yield from milled whole grain. Flour Softness is the percent of fine-granular milled flour. Values higher than approximately 50 indicate kernel textures that are appropriate for soft wheat. Generally, high values are more desirable. GROWING CONDITIONS In fall 2024, wheat was planted at three out of five locations within 17 days of the fly-free date. Wet fall weather prevented earlier planting. Fall growth was adequate given later planting dates, and wheat entered dormancy in good condition. Cool temperatures and adequate subsoil moisture led to a long grain fill period. Wet conditions in May and June resulted in higher disease pressure and lower test weights compared to previous years, and also delayed harvest. Grain yield averaged between 75.8 and 101.2 bu/acre among the five locations.

264 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

CULTURAL PRACTICES BY TEST SITE Wood

Union

Wayne

Clark

Pickaway

Previous crop

Soybean

Soil Texture

Clay

Clay Loam

Silt loam

Clay Loam

Loam

Soil Series

Hoytville

Blount

Canfield

Crosby

Miamian

Fly-Free Date

Sept. 23

Sept. 28

Sept. 26

Sept. 29

Oct. 1

Plant Date

Oct. 10

Oct. 8

Oct. 11

Oct. 9

Oct. 7

Soil pH

6.4

5.4

5.8

6.9

6.2

Soil P– Mehlich (ppm)

189

278

116

212

Soil K (ppm) Fertilizer (NPK)

123-54-72 149-46-45-12S 119-58-75-14S 126-63-77-21S 124-56-54-14S

Herbicides

Huskie

None

Sharpen, Roundup (preplant)

Harmony Extra, Axial Star

Quelex

Fungicide

Prosaro

Sphaerex

Miravis Ace

None

Sphaerex

Insecticide

None

Tombstone

Harvest Date

July 6

July 4

July 7

July 3

July 5

RESULTS

Results of the 2025 wheat performance test are presented in Tables 1-3. Entries in the data tables are arranged by seed source. A least significant difference (LSD) value can be used to determine if the performance of two varieties was statistically different. The yields of two varieties are expected to be significantly different 90 percent of the time if their yields differ by more than the reported LSD value. Flour yield and softness tests were performed by USDA-ARS Soft Wheat Quality Laboratory, at OARDC in Wooster, OH, Dr. Byung-Kee Baik, Director. A new mill was used in 2025. On average, flour yield and softness equivalence have increased 2.1% and 4.2%, respectively, over previous years. Test results for the 76 winter wheat varieties evaluated in 2025 are presented in Table 1. Tables 2 and 3 contain multi-year variety performance data. Depending on variety and test site, yields varied between 42.7 and 116.6 bu/acre and test weight ranged from 53.8 to 58.1 lb/bu. Yield differences among test sites were due primarily to the soil drainage, weather during the grain fill period and harvest, and disease level. Variety selection should be based on disease resistance, average yield across test sites and years (Tables 2 & 3), winter hardiness, test weight, and standability. Table 4 includes grain quality (flour yield and softness) and disease information. Table 5 contains the company contact information and seed treatments used for each variety entered in the 2025 Ohio Wheat Performance Test. This report is online at: https://ohiocroptest.cfaes.osu.edu/wheattrials/. Any column of data can be sorted by clicking at the top of the column, which makes it easy to arrange varieties in order by any characteristic for comparison purposes. Inclusion of varieties in the Ohio Wheat Performance Test does not constitute an endorsement of any variety by The Ohio State University, Ohio Agriculture Research and Development Center, or Ohio State University Extension.

Acknowledgments: We thank our farmer cooperators for their contributions to the 2025 wheat variety testing program. We are grateful for the assistance provided by Ken Scaife, OARDC Field Operations, Wooster, Matt Davis, Northwest Agricultural Research Station, and Joe Davlin, Western Agricultural Research Station. Special thanks to Rich Minyo, OARDC Wooster, for his assistance and expertise.

Corn

Small Grains

Soybean

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

Table 1. Yield and Agronomic Characteristics of Wheat Varieties Tested in Ohio, 2025. Brand

Variety

Seed Wood Union Wayne Clark Rate

Pickaway

Ave.

Moisture

Test Wt.

Seed Size

Lodging

Height

#/ft

————————— bu/acre —————————

lb/bu

1000 seeds/lb

inch

Heading Date

AGI

114

94.6

49.6

96.2

76.3

89.3

81.2

13.1

56.1

15.4

135

AGI

240

92.6

53.1

99.4

76.2

100.5

84.4

13.1

56.1

15.9

133

AGI

312

100.5

57.6

100.9

87.2

102.3

89.7

13.1

55.3

13.9

135

AGI

220B

97.0

72.2

100.8

75.4

97.3

88.5

12.8

57.5

12.9

134

AGI

244B

104.0

78.3

109.7

95.2

99.4

97.3*

13.0

54.2

13.2

134

AGI

310B

100.3

77.4

103.2

81.8

99.8

92.5

13.1

54.4

14.3

134

AGI

410B

101.5

82.9

103.7

83.5

92.2

92.8

13.2

55.9

12.9

134

AgriMAXX AM 505

94.9

63.0

106.5

72.3

93.4

86.0

12.9

57.7

13.0

135

AgriMAXX AM 513

96.5

75.3

101.0

77.0

91.5

88.3

12.9

56.6

13.3

132

AgriMAXX AM 525

99.0

51.2

108.0

91.2

101.0

90.1

13.3

56.3

13.3

135

AgriMAXX AM 545

104.2

85.6

106.2

86.6

97.6

96.0

12.9

54.0

12.8

135

AgriMAXX AM 553

96.5

60.9

101.0

79.1

101.5

87.8

13.2

55.2

13.0

135

AgriMAXX AM 555

99.7

65.2

98.6

92.5

105.0

92.2

13.1

55.4

14.0

135

AgriMAXX AM 556

103.1

85.7

113.2

79.6

92.5

94.8

13.1

56.0

12.9

135

AgriMAXX AM 568

105.5

68.6

106.6

88.2

98.4

93.5

13.1

55.1

14.9

135

Blue River 801

103.9

62.9

105.7

79.7

94.9

89.4

13.0

56.1

12.8

133

Blue River 844

105.6

68.7

97.8

76.1

99.7

89.6

13.4

55.5

14.3

134

Certified

Enterprise

99.0

80.3

107.4

97.3

97.2

96.2

13.1

56.1

14.0

132

Certified

Kokosing

89.5

81.2

96.7

77.8

90.7

87.2

12.7

55.0

13.2

131

Certified

Scioto

101.1

68.7

109.1

84.5

104.3

93.5

13.2

57.3

14.7

132

Certified

Sunburst

97.3

51.5

92.2

78.6

84.1

80.7

12.8

55.7

13.7

133

Dyna-Gro

9151

102.8

75.4

104.4

75.5

96.4

90.9

12.8

57.7

12.2

134

Dyna-Gro

9172

101.9

63.0

94.2

66.4

84.1

81.9

13.1

55.6

13.7

133

Dyna-Gro

9231

99.2

66.4

108.7

82.4

94.8

90.3

12.8

56.1

13.3

133

Dyna-Gro

9422

99.2

63.8

97.3

76.2

97.9

86.9

13.0

54.2

13.4

135

Dyna-Gro

9533

97.2

69.7

109.1

81.5

94.7

90.4

12.9

54.0

13.8

135

Dyna-Gro

9570

104.4

67.9

98.9

83.0

96.3

90.1

13.0

54.8

14.0

132

Dyna-Gro

9593

107.5

82.2

108.5

102.6

105.4

101.2**

12.9

55.4

14.2

133

Dyna-Gro

9612

105.4

76.2

105.2

91.3

104.9

96.6

12.9

55.3

14.4

133

Dyna-Gro

9862

91.2

72.7

97.6

70.1

88.6

84.0

13.0

56.3

14.1

135

Ebberts

914

102.4

76.3

103.5

93.3

108.1

96.7

12.6

55.8

14.2

132

Ebberts

922

99.1

49.3

102.6

85.7

97.7

86.9

13.2

56.1

15.5

133

Ebberts

965

98.5

64.9

102.5

89.5

100.1

91.1

13.0

54.3

13.1

134

Ebberts

978

105.2

85.8

110.1

96.1

101.1

99.7*

12.8

54.2

12.6

135

FS Wheat FS 597

91.7

66.7

95.7

69.8

86.6

82.1

12.8

55.3

12.0

134

FS Wheat FS 600

98.7

75.1

105.0

76.4

101.4

91.3

12.8

57.7

12.7

134

FS Wheat FS 606

103.2

62.5

103.4

79.0

95.3

88.7

13.3

58.1

14.0

133

FS Wheat FS 617

95.9

59.9

92.6

71.9

90.9

82.2

13.1

55.6

13.7

136

FS Wheat FS 624

92.6

69.0

96.6

68.4

81.1

81.5

13.1

55.5

13.2

134

FS Wheat FS 743

98.4

54.2

107.8

79.6

96.7

87.3

13.0

56.1

12.5

133

FS Wheat FS 745

97.1

42.7

92.7

66.1

80.2

75.8

13.3

54.9

14.2

134

FS Wheat FS 749

106.5

71.0

107.4

84.1

95.3

92.9

13.0

56.3

14.0

135

FS Wheat FS WX25A

106.7

59.3

97.7

72.9

103.4

88.0

13.3

55.4

13.6

134

Table 1 is continued on the next page.

2025 eFields Report | 265

Ohio Crop Performance Trials Table 1. Yield and Agronomic Characteristics of Wheat Varieties Tested in Ohio, 2025. (continued) Brand

Variety

Seed Wood Rate #/ft

Union Wayne

Clark

Pickaway

Ave.

————————— bu/acre —————————

Moisture

Test Wt.

Seed Size

LodgHeight ing

lb/ bu

1000 seeds/lb

inch

Heading Date

FS Wheat

FS WX25B

100.9

76.9

107.3

91.4

98.3

95.0

13.7

54.6

14.6

133

FS Wheat

FS WX25C

98.5

73.9

108.4

81.2

97.2

91.8

12.8

56.6

15.3

133

Grow Pro

GP 015

90.3

52.1

92.9

75.3

90.4

80.2

13.2

55.3

14.9

132

Grow Pro

GP 543

99.0

57.4

102.1

79.0

97.9

87.1

13.9

54.1

15.2

133

Grow Pro

GP 893

108.2

51.5

106.4

77.4

100.2

88.7

13.2

55.0

10.8

134

Grow Pro

GP 944

104.8

78.3

111.1

89.1

98.1

96.3

12.9

54.3

15.0

135

KWS

KWS 579

106.3

82.6

104.5

74.6

105.9

94.8

13.0

55.6

12.4

134

KWS

KWS 591

102.5

60.5

107.2

84.7

100.6

91.1

13.0

54.9

13.7

133

KWS

KWS 604

108.2

87.0

99.3

80.3

93.0

93.6

12.9

55.8

12.8

136

KWS

KWS 623

101.7

60.1

116.6**

97.3

107.4

96.6

13.2

55.1

15.0

133

KWS

KWS 625

109.1

65.6

112.8

85.1

99.7

94.5

13.1

55.2

13.5

134

Pond

PSC 224

99.9

75.1

109.7

73.3

95.0

90.6

12.9

56.0

12.5

133

Pond

PSC 613

98.9

72.5

103.5

75.8

83.6

86.9

13.3

56.0

14.1

134

Pond

PSC 707

101.9

90.9

104.1

85.1

102.8

97.0*

13.5

54.8

15.5

132

Seed Consultants 13S03

106.6

63.6

111.0

81.1

97.6

92.0

12.8

56.4

12.5

133

Seed Consultants 13S14

97.0

56.6

102.9

80.1

96.0

86.5

13.1

54.4

13.4

134

Seed Consultants 13S25

106.8

77.9

109.5

99.5

106.2

100.0*

12.8

55.7

14.3

133

Shur Grow

SG-1493S

98.3

60.5

110.8

86.7

98.5

91.0

12.9

56.2

13.2

133

Shur Grow

SG-1546S

105.6

68.7

98.0

78.7

99.0

90.0

13.2

55.8

14.4

134

Shur Grow

SG-1776S

101.9

67.1

106.1

91.8

97.1

92.8

13.0

55.2

13.5

134

Shur Grow

SG-1790S

110.0

75.8

105.2

83.6

103.8

95.7

12.9

53.9

12.7

135

Shur Grow

SG-17X1

106.1

77.3

108.6

83.8

95.6

94.3

13.0

56.1

12.7

135

Shur Grow

SG-17X2

104.7

77.1

106.4

85.1

91.3

92.9

12.9

54.8

13.7

132

Strike Genetics

127

101.0

61.7

102.2

87.4

88.4

88.1

12.8

55.9

13.1

133

Strike Genetics

419

98.7

84.3

95.3

73.8

90.1

88.4

13.1

55.9

14.9

134

Strike Genetics

Envy

100.6

75.5

106.2

79.9

102.3

92.9

13.4

54.7

14.8

133

Synergy

EXP 2537

103.3

68.8

109.3

87.1

106.5

95.0

13.1

53.8

12.5

135

Synergy

EXP 2578

99.3

83.0

106.4

79.7

97.0

93.1

13.0

55.1

13.6

135

Synergy

Kessler

108.1

73.7

111.5

87.9

101.7

96.6

13.0

54.3

12.1

134

Synergy

Wagner

100.3

73.3

101.8

85.1

94.6

91.0

12.9

53.8

13.5

135

Synergy

Wiser

103.3

82.3

112.4

80.3

93.8

94.4

13.0

56.0

12.8

135

Yerks

Y938

97.7

53.4

103.5

78.1

99.0

86.3

13.1

55.9

15.3

133

Yerks

Y950

101.2

69.5

106.1

87.3

100.7

93.0

13.1

53.9

13.1

134

High

110.0

90.9

116.6

102.6

108.1

101.2

13.9

58.1

15.9

136

Average

100.9

69.1

104.0

82.2

96.9

90.6

13.0

55.5

13.7

134

Low

10.8

131

89.5

42.7

92.2

66.1

80.2

75.8

12.6

53.8

LSD (p = 0.10)

7.4

12.6

4.8

9.7

5.1

4.4

0.5

0.2

1.2

1.0

6.2

15.5

3.9

10.1

4.5

17.5

4.4

4.0

3.3

0.6

**Highest yielding variety *Not statistically different from the highest yielding variety.

266 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Table 2. Yield and Agronomic Characteristics of Wheat Varieties Tested in Ohio, 2024-2025. Darke/ Brand Variety Wood Union Wayne Pickaway Ave. Clark ————––————— bu/acre ————————— AGI 114 90.7 60.7 77.7 79.1 85.5 78.7 AGI 240 93.7 65.5 81.8 82.5 93.0 83.3 AGI 312 97.1 64.3 84.3 94.1 97.2 87.4 AGI 220B 95.9 71.4 82.8 87.8 90.2 85.6 AGI 310B 98.8 76.2 82.1 91.6 92.7 88.3 AgriMAXX AM 505 96.5 68.1 89.3 83.5 88.0 85.1 AgriMAXX AM 513 94.3 77.0 84.7 88.9 87.0 86.4 AgriMAXX AM 525 100.1 64.3 89.5 92.6 94.7 88.2 AgriMAXX AM 545 101.5 80.9 85.2 92.3 90.6 90.1 AgriMAXX AM 556 102.3 84.4 92.3 87.5 89.3 91.1 Blue River 801 101.2 70.1 88.3 88.5 89.2 87.4 Certified Enterprise 98.2 78.2 87.5 96.2 92.8 90.6 Certified Kokosing 87.1 74.7 81.2 79.8 86.1 81.7 99.3 72.8 82.7 85.0 96.5 87.2 Certified Scioto Certified Sunburst 93.3 60.4 74.8 85.5 80.2 78.8 Dyna-Gro 9151 99.0 75.7 86.7 83.4 91.8 87.3 Dyna-Gro 9172 97.6 62.0 77.8 76.8 78.9 78.6 Dyna-Gro 9231 101.4 70.8 88.4 89.6 90.4 88.1 Dyna-Gro 9533 95.8 74.2 87.9 87.5 93.4 87.7 Dyna-Gro 9570 99.3 73.3 80.3 89.8 92.9 87.1 Dyna-Gro 9862 91.3 73.1 80.6 78.6 85.7 81.8 Ebberts 922 97.1 62.2 81.6 87.9 95.6 84.8 101.1 70.6 82.6 91.5 90.3 87.2 Ebberts 965 Ebberts 978 104.1 81.9 89.1 98.5 96.1 93.9 FS Wheat FS 597 93.1 68.4 81.6 82.2 82.8 81.6 FS Wheat FS 600 97.3 74.9 88.3 89.2 94.9 88.9 FS Wheat FS 606 100.7 70.1 85.5 85.6 93.6 87.1 FS Wheat FS 617 92.5 65.5 77.8 81.2 85.2 80.4 FS Wheat FS 624 95.1 70.0 81.8 80.1 79.9 81.4 FS Wheat FS 743 97.2 65.3 87.8 87.5 90.2 85.6 FS Wheat FS 745 93.7 53.8 78.0 75.2 75.0 75.1 FS Wheat FS 749 100.9 70.8 88.5 91.9 92.5 88.9 Grow Pro GP 015 89.9 62.6 77.0 80.7 84.8 79.0 Grow Pro GP 543 97.2 67.5 85.0 88.7 94.2 86.5 Grow Pro GP 893 105.3 63.9 89.5 86.0 92.0 87.3 Pond PSC 224 99.3 74.3 87.7 82.8 90.5 86.9 95.1 74.8 82.0 83.0 85.1 84.0 Pond PSC 613 Pond PSC 707 102.1 84.8 85.7 91.5 97.3 92.3 Seed Consultants 13S03 102.4 68.7 90.5 87.7 90.7 88.0 Seed Consultants 13S14 97.6 66.8 82.8 88.7 88.4 84.9 Shur Grow SG-1493S 98.6 68.3 86.4 88.6 92.6 86.9 Shur Grow SG-1546S 100.7 71.4 83.8 87.6 92.3 87.1 Shur Grow SG-1790S 106.3 78.1 83.8 93.1 101.7 92.6 Strike Genetics 127 97.6 69.4 87.2 88.4 83.8 85.3 Strike Genetics 419 99.3 83.4 84.2 85.7 88.9 88.3 Strike Genetics Envy 101.3 78.4 86.6 91.0 97.6 90.9 Synergy Wagner 98.7 76.8 86.2 90.6 92.8 89.0 Synergy Wiser 103.5 81.6 92.4 91.1 91.5 92.0 Yerks Y938 97.1 63.8 81.4 84.7 94.8 84.3 High 106.3 84.8 92.4 98.5 101.7 93.9 Average 97.9 71.1 84.5 86.9 90.2 86.1 Low 87.1 53.8 74.8 75.2 75.0 75.1

Ag Tech

Moisture Test Wt. % 13.3 13.3 13.4 13.1 13.4 13.2 13.2 13.6 13.2 13.5 13.2 13.3 13.0 13.6 13.2 13.1 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.1 13.2 13.4 13.4 13.1 13.4 13.1 13.6 13.4 13.5 13.4 13.4 13.2 13.4 14.1 13.4 13.2 13.6 13.8 13.2 13.5 13.3 13.5 13.2 13.2 13.7 13.9 13.2 13.5 13.3 14.1 13.4 13.0

lb/bu 57.5 57.2 56.4 58.9 55.9 59.1 57.9 57.5 55.6 56.9 57.4 57.4 56.5 58.4 57.8 59.1 56.7 57.4 55.2 56.0 57.7 57.2 56.0 55.8 57.0 59.1 59.3 56.9 57.0 57.5 56.4 57.5 56.7 55.6 56.7 57.3 57.3 56.1 57.6 56.0 57.4 57.0 55.6 56.7 56.7 56.0 55.2 56.9 57.1 59.3 57.0 55.2

Other

Lodging Height % 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 7 0 1 0 1 0 7 1 0

inch 33 33 34 33 34 34 34 32 32 33 35 36 36 32 31 34 33 34 30 34 32 33 34 33 34 34 34 32 34 34 32 32 33 35 35 34 34 35 34 34 35 33 33 32 33 35 30 33 32 36 33 30

Heading Date 133 131 134 132 132 132 131 133 133 132 131 130 130 130 132 132 131 131 133 130 133 131 132 133 131 132 131 134 132 131 132 133 130 131 132 131 131 130 130 132 131 132 133 131 131 130 133 133 131 134 132 130

Note: In 2024, the Ohio Wheat Performance Test was located on-farm in Darke County, Ohio. In 2025, the trial was conducted at the Western Agricultural Research Station in Clark County, Ohio.

2025 eFields Report | 267

Ohio Crop Performance Trials

Table 3. Yield and Agronomic Characteristics of Wheat Varieties Tested in Ohio, 2023-2025. Brand

Variety

Wood

Union

Wayne

Clark/ Darke

Pickaway

Ave.

———–—————– bu/acre —————————

Moisture Test Wt.

Lodging

Height

Heading Date

lb/bu

inch

94.7

66.3

86.5

92.7

92.4

86.5

13.4

58.2

136

312

99.8

72.7

94.8

106.6

102.6

95.3

13.7

57.1

136

310B

102.5

81.0

92.7

103.3

99.3

95.8

13.4

56.7

135

AgriMAXX

AM 505

101.1

74.9

99.5

97.4

98.8

94.4

13.2

59.5

135

AgriMAXX

AM 513

98.7

78.6

91.4

100.0

90.4

91.8

13.2

58.3

133

AgriMAXX

AM 525

101.6

70.8

98.1

101.0

99.6

94.2

13.7

58.1

136

Blue River

801

102.3

76.9

97.2

101.3

95.6

94.7

13.3

57.8

134

Certified

Enterprise

100.3

81.1

96.9

105.0

98.9

96.4

13.4

58.0

132

Certified

Kokosing

89.6

77.7

88.3

92.9

92.7

88.2

13.2

57.2

132

Certified

Scioto

100.9

80.4

92.5

98.2

100.1

94.4

13.7

58.8

133

AGI

114

AGI AGI

Certified

Sunburst

96.7

66.2

84.4

99.3

89.0

87.1

13.5

58.9

135

Dyna-Gro

9151

101.5

81.7

97.3

94.5

97.4

94.5

13.2

59.4

135

Dyna-Gro

9172

99.6

70.7

88.7

96.2

87.8

88.6

13.5

57.0

135

Dyna-Gro

9231

103.4

76.4

95.5

102.3

96.6

94.9

13.3

57.9

134

Dyna-Gro

9862

93.5

74.9

87.4

93.1

91.0

88.0

13.4

58.3

136

Ebberts

922

98.7

70.4

88.9

97.1

99.4

90.9

13.4

57.3

134

FS Wheat

FS 597

96.0

73.7

90.2

97.2

87.9

89.0

13.5

57.5

134

FS Wheat

FS 600

99.8

75.2

98.3

101.4

97.4

94.4

13.2

59.5

135

FS Wheat

FS 606

103.9

75.1

95.5

97.9

96.8

93.8

13.7

59.6

134

FS Wheat

FS 617

96.4

73.0

89.2

94.7

94.2

89.5

13.5

57.5

137

FS Wheat

FS 624

100.6

76.0

93.9

96.1

93.1

91.9

13.8

57.6

135

FS Wheat

FS 743

102.2

70.3

99.1

101.0

96.8

93.9

13.4

57.9

134

FS Wheat

FS 745

98.5

66.5

90.0

95.2

85.8

87.2

13.6

57.0

135

Pond

PSC 224

102.4

75.3

97.3

96.7

94.9

93.3

13.4

57.8

134

Pond

PSC 613

97.0

76.8

90.0

97.0

93.7

90.9

13.7

57.9

135

Pond

PSC 707

103.8

87.6

96.1

104.8

103.9

99.2

14.0

56.9

133

Seed Consultants 13S03

104.3

77.1

98.7

101.9

99.0

96.2

13.3

57.9

134

Seed Consultants 13S14

102.9

78.0

93.6

105.4

97.2

95.4

13.5

56.7

135

Shur Grow

SG-1493S

103.3

75.8

96.7

102.8

100.6

95.8

13.4

57.9

134

Strike Genetics

127

101.1

78.0

93.5

100.3

92.1

93.0

13.3

57.0

134

Strike Genetics

Envy

104.2

81.8

96.9

102.8

104.7

98.1

14.0

56.9

133

Yerks

Y938

100.3

70.2

89.1

95.7

100.3

91.1

13.3

57.3

134

High

104.3

87.6

99.5

106.6

104.7

99.2

14.0

59.6

137

Average

100.1

75.3

93.4

99.1

95.9

92.8

13.5

57.9

134

Low

89.6

66.2

84.4

92.7

85.8

86.5

13.2

56.7

132

Note: In 2023 and 2024, the Ohio Wheat Performance Test was located on-farm in Darke County, Ohio. In 2025, the trial was conducted at the Western Agricultural Research Station in Clark County, Ohio.

268 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Table 4. Grain Quality and Disease Ratings of Wheat Varieties Tested in Ohio, 2025. Brand Variety Grain Quality Stagonospora Flour Softness Leaf Glume % % % % AGI 114 76.2 62.2 1.0 3.0 AGI 240 70.1 67.1 4.3 1.7 AGI 312 73.0 66.3 0.4 0.3 AGI 220B 69.4 66.9 4.3 3.7 AGI 244B 71.7 67.3 1.7 0.3 AGI 310B 71.8 68.7 3.7 0.7 AGI 410B 71.6 67.4 6.0 0.0 AgriMAXX AM 505 69.6 66.3 2.3 3.0 AgriMAXX AM 513 75.1 54.8 6.0 1.7 AgriMAXX AM 525 71.3 69.3 2.3 0.7 AgriMAXX AM 545 71.6 70.4 3.0 0.0 AgriMAXX AM 553 73.2 67.2 1.0 2.3 AgriMAXX AM 555 72.3 67.8 0.1 0.3 AgriMAXX AM 556 71.9 67.7 4.3 0.0 AgriMAXX AM 568 73.4 68.3 0.7 1.0 Blue River 801 71.4 69.7 5.7 1.7 Blue River 844 72.5 67.1 2.3 0.3 Certified Enterprise 71.3 66.2 6.3 4.3 Certified Kokosing 74.4 64.7 2.3 1.0 Certified Scioto 72.8 62.1 3.0 0.3 Certified Sunburst 68.8 62.0 1.7 1.0 Dyna-Gro 9151 68.9 66.4 3.7 3.0 Dyna-Gro 9172 72.1 68.1 6.3 1.0 Dyna-Gro 9231 70.8 68.5 3.7 1.0 Dyna-Gro 9422 71.5 70.3 1.7 0.3 Dyna-Gro 9533 70.2 67.2 2.3 1.0 Dyna-Gro 9570 72.3 67.8 1.7 2.3 Dyna-Gro 9593 71.3 65.7 0.7 1.0 Dyna-Gro 9612 71.8 65.5 1.1 3.7 Dyna-Gro 9862 77.4 58.5 1.7 3.7 Ebberts 914 73.1 68.7 1.0 1.0 Ebberts 922 69.6 66.7 1.7 1.7 Ebberts 965 71.4 70.3 2.3 0.3 Ebberts 978 71.8 69.8 3.0 0.3 FS Wheat FS 597 71.8 68.6 8.0 1.0 FS Wheat FS 600 69.2 66.6 3.7 2.3 FS Wheat FS 606 72.0 65.8 3.7 1.0 FS Wheat FS 617 72.3 66.8 2.3 1.0 FS Wheat FS 624 71.5 66.5 8.3 11.3 FS Wheat FS 743 70.8 67.3 5.0 4.3 FS Wheat FS 745 71.5 69.9 4.3 1.0 FS Wheat FS 749 70.8 68.8 1.0 0.0 FS Wheat FS WX25A 72.8 65.8 2.3 0.3 FS Wheat FS WX25B 70.5 68.0 3.0 0.7 FS Wheat FS WX25C 69.8 69.3 1.0 2.3 Grow Pro GP 015 73.0 67.5 10.7 1.7 Grow Pro GP 543 70.1 69.1 3.7 1.0 Grow Pro GP 893 71.5 66.1 3.0 1.0 Grow Pro GP 944 71.6 65.5 1.4 1.7 KWS KWS 579 71.8 67.6 1.4 1.7 KWS KWS 591 71.8 66.2 3.0 0.0 KWS KWS 604 73.7 64.7 2.0 3.7 KWS KWS 623 71.8 69.1 5.7 1.7 KWS KWS 625 69.3 68.7 2.3 4.3

Ag Tech

Powdery Mildew Rank

R MS MR R MS R MS R R MR MS MS MS MS S MR S MS R MR R R R R R R MS MS MS MR MS MS MS MS MS MR MS MR MS MR R S S MR MR MR R R S S MR MS MR R

Other

Fusarium Head Blight Rank

MR MR MS MR MR MS MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MS MR MS R MS MR MS MR MS MR MS MR R MR MR R MR MR MR MR MR MS S MR MR R MS MR R MS MR S MR R R MR MR MR

Table 4 is continued on the next page.

2025 eFields Report | 269

Ohio Crop Performance Trials Table 4. Grain Quality and Disease Ratings of Wheat Varieties Tested in Ohio, 2025. (continued) Brand Variety Grain Quality Stagonospora Flour Softness Leaf Glume % % % % Pond PSC 224 71.1 68.6 1.7 1.7 Pond PSC 613 72.4 66.1 1.7 1.7 Pond PSC 707 69.8 69.0 3.0 0.7 Seed Consultants 13S03 71.1 67.2 8.3 2.3 Seed Consultants 13S14 71.9 68.7 2.3 0.3 Seed Consultants 13S25 72.3 65.8 1.0 0.3 Shur Grow SG-1493S 71.1 68.2 5.0 1.7 Shur Grow SG-1546S 73.2 70.8 2.0 0.0 Shur Grow SG-1776S 74.2 67.6 1.0 1.7 Shur Grow SG-1790S 71.1 69.6 2.3 0.3 Shur Grow SG-17X1 72.0 66.1 4.3 0.0 Shur Grow SG-17X2 72.1 68.7 3.0 3.7 Strike Genetics 127 71.5 67.7 1.4 2.3 Strike Genetics 419 68.2 67.1 28.3 1.0 Strike Genetics Envy 70.2 70.7 2.3 1.0 Synergy EXP 2537 73.6 67.5 0.4 1.7 Synergy EXP 2578 74.1 67.1 1.7 1.0 Synergy Kessler 71.5 67.3 3.7 0.0 Synergy Wagner 69.9 68.0 2.0 0.7 Synergy Wiser 71.5 67.6 3.0 0.0 Yerks Y938 69.3 68.4 2.3 2.3 Yerks Y950 71.8 67.2 4.3 0.3 S = susceptible, MS = moderately susceptible, MR = moderately resistant, R = resistant

Powdery Mildew Rank

MR S R MR MR S MR MS S S MS S MS MR R S S S R MS MR MS

Fusarium Head Blight Rank

MR MR MR MR MS R MR MR R MR R MR R MS MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR

Table 5. Ohio Wheat Performance Test, 2025 — Seed Source & Seed Treatment

Brand AGI

Producer Variety Advanced Genetics, Inc. 114 11491 Foundation Rd. 240 Croton, OH 43013 312 740-893-2501 220B www.advancedgeneticsinc.com 244B 310B 410B AgriMAXX AgriMAXX Wheat Company AM 505 7167 Highbanks Rd. AM 513 Mascoutah, IL 62258 AM 525 855-629-9432 AM 545 www.agrimaxxwheat.com AM 553 AM 555 AM 556 AM 568 801 Blue River Albert Lea Seed 844 1414 W. Main Street Albert Lea, MN 56007 800-352-5248 www.alseed.com Certified Ohio Foundation Seeds, Inc. Enterprise 11491 Foundation Rd. Kokosing Croton, OH 43013 Scioto 614-889-1136 Sunburst www.ohioseed.org Dyna-Gro Nutrien Ag Solutions 9151 3005 Rocky Mountain Ave. 9172 Loveland, CO 80538 9231 970-685-3300 9422 www.nutrienagsolutions.com 9533 9570 9593 9612 9862 Ebberts Ebberts Field Seeds Inc. 914 6840 N. State Route 48 922 Covington, OH 45318 965 973-473-2521 978 www.ebbertsseeds.com FS Wheat GROWMARK, Inc. FS 597 1701 Towanda Avenue FS 600 Bloomington, IL 61701 FS 606 309-557-6000 FS 617 www.fsseeds.com FS 624 FS 743 FS 745 FS 749 FS WX24A FS WX24B FS WX24C

Seed Treatment CeresUS TBZ IM MF04 Impress CeresUS TBZ IM MF04 Impress CeresUS TBZ IM MF04 Impress CeresUS TBZ IM MF04 Impress Cruiser 5FS/Vibrance Extreme CeresUS TBZ IM MF04 Impress CeresUS TBZ IM MF04 Impress Prime ST Prime ST Prime ST Prime ST Prime ST Prime ST Prime ST Prime ST CruiserMaxx/Vibrance CruiserMaxx/Vibrance

CeresUS ST IM G8 CeresUS ST IM G8 CeresUS ST IM G8 CeresUS ST IM G8 Awaken ST/Foothold Virock Awaken ST/Foothold Virock Awaken ST/Foothold Virock Awaken ST/Foothold Virock Awaken ST/Foothold Virock Awaken ST/Foothold Virock Awaken ST/Foothold Virock Awaken ST/Foothold Virock Awaken ST/Foothold Virock Vibrance Extreme Vibrance Extreme Vibrance Extreme Vibrance Extreme

Vibrance Extreme/Insecticide Vibrance Extreme/Insecticide Vibrance Extreme/Insecticide Vibrance Extreme/Insecticide Vibrance Extreme/Insecticide Vibrance Extreme/Insecticide Vibrance Extreme/Insecticide Vibrance Extreme/Insecticide Vibrance Extreme/Insecticide Vibrance Extreme/Insecticide Vibrance Extreme/Insecticide

270 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Brand Grow Pro

Producer Variety Seed Treatment Grow Pro Genetics GP 015 Cruiser 5FS/Vibrance Extreme/Vayantis 375 N Old US Route 66 GP 543 Cruiser 5FS/Vibrance Extreme/Vayantis Hamel, IL 62046 GP 893 Cruiser 5FS/Vibrance Extreme/Vayantis 618-633-2017 GP 944 Cruiser 5FS/Vibrance Extreme/Vayantis www.growprogenetics.com KWS KWS Cereals KWS 579 Cruiser 5FS/Vibrance 495 County Road 1300 N. KWS 591 Cruiser 5FS/Vibrance Champaign, IL 61822 KWS 604 Cruiser 5FS/Vibrance 217-888-0176 KWS 623 Cruiser 5FS/Vibrance www.kws.com KWS 625 Cruiser 5FS/Vibrance Pond Pond Seed Company, LLC PSC 224 Swamp Master XT 12462 Blaine St. PSC 613 Swamp Master XT Scott, OH 45886 PSC 707 Swamp Master XT 419-622-6141 www.pondseedco.com Seed Con- Seed Consultants, Inc. SC 13S03TM Lumigen SC 13S14TM Lumigen 648 Miami Trace Rd. SW sultants Washington Courthouse, OH 43160 SC 13S25TM CruiserMaxx Vibrance/Cruiser 5FS 800-708-2676 www.seedconsultants.com Shur Grow Heritage Cooperative, Inc. SG-1493S Warden Cereals II 6239 State Route 187 SG-1546S Warden Cereals II Mechanicsburg, OH 43044 SG-1776S Warden Cereals II 800-231-7333 SG-1790S Warden Cereals II www.heritagecooperative.com SG-17X1 Warden Cereals II SG-17X2 Warden Cereals II Strike Ge- Burtch Seed Co., Inc. 127 Untreated 4742 Tama Rd. 419 Vibrance Extreme netics Celina, OH 45822 Envy Vibrance Extreme 800-622-8262 www.burtchseed.com Synergy Synergy Ag EXP 2537 CruiserMaxx/Vibrance Extreme 6150 N. County Rd. 33 EXP 2578 CruiserMaxx/Vibrance Extreme Tiffin, OH 44883 Kessler CruiserMaxx Vibrance/Cruiser 5FS 419-618-8011 Wagner Athena-V TBZ ST IM www.synergyseeds.com Wiser CeresUS TBZ IM MF04 Impress Yerks

Yerks Seed, Inc. 20202 Notestine Rd. Woodburn, IN 46797 260-657-5127 www.yerksseed.com

Y 938 Y 950

CeresUS MF04 IM Impress CeresUS MF04 IM Impress

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

2025 eFields Report | 271

Acknowledgements Research Collaborators and Supporters Allgyre Farms Rohit Anand Collin Bauerbach Beam Precision Ag Beck's Hybrids Bobby Bench Jason Berchtold Bodey Farm Daniel Call Jillian Carbone Jared Chester Luke Chuko Eric and Cordelia Clawson Richard Clifton Connor Collins Rachell Cornell Casey Coughlin Chandler Cox John Coyne Matt Davis Joe Davlin Chris Dean Defiance County Commissioners Defiance County Soil and Water Conservation District Owen Detweiler Johnathan Dorsten Nate Douridas Stephanie Dunkel Eckel Grain Farms Eggers Farms - Matt Eggers Wilson Ett Farview Farm, Jim Timmons Fayette County Commissioners Fayette County Research Farm Jonathan Francis Kyle Gehres Generations Family Farm Golden Ag LLC Greenfield Ag Hamiel Farm HARTC

Jeff Hartman Hawkins Farms - Lucas and Keith Hawkins Connor Headings Von Herron Todd Hesterman Brandon Horman Brent Hostetler Jim Jacobs Doug Jennings Matt Karhoff Bill Kellogg Brett Kenworthy Brianna, Ryan, Ethan, Leah, and Jenna Klopfenstein Evan Klopfenstein Gary Klopfenstein Matthew Klopfenstein Roy Klopfenstein Justin Koch Mike Kryling Brandon Ledbetter and Allen Bulach Lee Farms Bill Lehmkuhl Leonhard Farms Adam Lesch Jim Love Jim Love Will Luli Curt Maurer Jerry McBride Jacob McCarty Ed Mershon Deanna Miller Kevin & Derek Miller Lonnie & Rodney Miller Coleman Mitchell Mitchem Farms Morrow County Commissioners Morrow County Soil and Water Conservation District Sarah Mosier Dave Myerholtz

272 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Erin Neal NextGen Farms Garrett Nowak Tony Nye OARDC Molly Caren Ag Center OARDC North Central Ag Research Station OARDC Northwest Ag Research Station OARDC Western Ag Research Station OARDC Wooster Campus Farms Ohio Till Farmstead Alex Parsio Steve Payn David Peart Keith Peters Pickaway Farms, Jay, Austin and Brad Wippel Taylor Pulver Putnam County Commissioners Putnam County Soil and Water Conservation District R&R Buchman Farms Rethmel Farms Rickett's Farm Eric Rife Dan and Michael Robinette Lucas Rodgers Matt Ruff Dennis Sams Sandburr Ridge Farm Sam Sawmiller Evan Schafer Andrew Schaub Michael Schmid Bryce Schott Tyler Schindel Cory Smith Ron Snyder Jack Sommers

Corn

Soybean

Southwest Ohio Corn Growers Association Tom Stannard Jackson Sullivan Matt Sullivan Kirk Swensen Swihart Family Farms Mike Sword Chris Tkach Randy and Becky Tietje Ryan, Caitlyn, Lane and Alie Tietje

Small Grains

Forages

Rex, Elizabeth, Eleanor, and Leonard Tietje Triple K Farms Emily Truebner Turnow Enterprises Twin Castle Farms, David and Jacob Weinman Brett Unverferth Ramarao Venkatesh Vennekotter Farms, Kyle and Denny Vennekotter Vonderhaar Farms

Ag Tech

Other

Chad Warner WeFeedUFarms Eddie Willing Wilmington College Academic Farm Kristen Wisecarver Doug Yoder Fred Yoder Josh Yoder Mike Youshak Nick Zachrich

2025 eFields Report | 273

Acknowledgements Industry Partners

274 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Ag Tech

Other

2025 eFields Report | 275

Acknowledgements Industry Partners

Tietje Seed Sales

276 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Corn

Soybean

Small Grains

Forages

Explore our majors in... Agricultural Systems Management Construction Systems Management Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering

Ag Tech

Other

Learn more about our research opportunities, programs, and all that The Ohio State University has to offer you! fabe.osu.edu

eFields is an Ohio State program dedicated to advancing production agriculture through the use of field-scale research. eFields utilizes modern technologies and information to conduct on-farm studies with an educational and demonstration component used to help farmers and their advisors understand how new practices and techniques can improve farm efficiency and profitability. The program is dedicated to delivering timely and relevant, data-driven, actionable information to farmers throughout Ohio.