2025 ePLUS Report

2025 ePLUS Report Produce, Landscape, Urban, Specialty Crops Ohio State Digital Ag Program

2025 Research Recap

ePLUS

Produce, Landdscape, Urban, Specialty Crops

“connecting science to lands and communities” ePLUS represents an Ohio State University program dedicated to advancing production agriculture and wise use of natural resources through on-location research. The 2025 ePLUS Report is a culmination of the research conducted over the past year on partner locations throughout Ohio. Current research is focused on crop pest and cultural management, conservation, technology, mechanization, economic analysis, and community engagement. ePLUS builds on the foundation of the successful eFields and eBarns programs which have grown since 2017 and 2022, respectively. 2025 marks the second year of ePLUS studies, representing 219 research sites in 64 counties.

2025 Research Recap New for 2025 • • • •

64 Counties 219 Research Sites

Real-time Pest Monitoring Network Processing and Marketing Reports Specialty Market Small Grains Natural Resource and Community Case Studies

86 Total Studies • • • • • • •

15 Fruit 35 Vegetable 8 Other Specialty 3 Ornamental 19 Home & Consumer 2 Woodland 4 Aquatic

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

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

Editorial Welcome to the 2025 edition of the Ohio State ePLUS Report.

The 2025 ePLUS report is the 2nd edition. Our team has worked hard over the 2025 growing season to report on the research being conducted across Ohio with farmers, land managers, and other partners. This year’s ePLUS report is a cooperative effort reflecting the dedication of everyone involved, especially our team members and collaborators. We extend appreciation to all who support the ePLUS program here at Ohio State and help ensure its continued success to support Ohio agriculture. Special praise goes to all the OSU Extension Educators, field and state specialists, faculty, staff, students, industry partners, and the many others that dedicated time and resources for all the different studies. ePLUS represents cross collaboration of all sectors of agricultural production, food, community, and environment to help farmers, consultants, land management, families, and other community members utilize results to improve Ohio’s agriculture and natural resource production.

The 2025 growing season was unique and often difficult for many regions of Ohio, yet provided an excellent opportunity to learn at the field and farm operation levels. In general, many crops yields were good across the state with some areas and crops having a bumper year while others experienced early wet and hot weather followed by extended drought conditions thereby limiting yields. On-going global conflicts, trade policy shifts and tariffs, government funding and policy changes, and rising use of artificial intelligence dominated headlines throughout the year. High input costs, volatile weather, labor shortages and global market conditions remained stressors in 2025 and are likely to persist into the near future. Outbreaks of extreme weather and challenging pests added additional challenges. Despite concerns, Ohio growers and natural resource stewards remain optimistic, seeking ways to improve efficiency and manage costs effectively.

For the 2025 ePLUS Report, the team and partners were able to conduct 86 studies in 64 counties. The ePLUS team is pleased with the variety of trials being conducted across Ohio during this second year. We are optimistic and excited about the future and the new research being planned to expand on what learning we can bring through the program. To review the 2025 as well as past and future reports, visit go.osu.edu/eplus.

We hope you find value in the 2025 ePLUS Report. If you have interest in cooperating with the ePLUS program for the upcoming 2026 growing season or have any comments to share, please reach out to minter.21@osu.edu.

Sincerely, The 2025 ePLUS Team

The ePLUS Report is published on an annual basis.

To view this and furture reports digitally, please visit go.osu.edu/eplusreports

2025 ePLUS Report | 3

Table of Contents Get Involved ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 8 Ohio State Digital Ag Program ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 10 Report Guide �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 12 Calculations and Statistics; Understanding IPM Decision Making ������������������������������������������������������������� 14 ePLUS Contributors �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 16 2025 Growing Season Weather ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 22 Respiratory Hazards ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 24 Statewide Insect Monitoring Network ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 26 Ohio State Fruit Research ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 28 Performance Evaluation of Monitoring Tools to Predict Codling Moth Activity ��������������������������������� 28 IPM Trapping Network: Codling Moth Monitoring, Ashland, Holmes, Medina, Stark, Wayne ������� 30 IPM Trapping Network: Codling Moth Monitoring, Crawford County ��������������������������������������������������� 32 IPM Trapping Network: Codling Moth Monitoring, Jackson County ������������������������������������������������������ 34 IPM Trapping Network: Codling Moth Monitoring, Lorain County ��������������������������������������������������������� 36 IPM Trapping Network: Codling Moth Monitoring, Seneca County ������������������������������������������������������� 38 IPM Trapping Network: Peachtree Borer Monitoring, Holmes County ������������������������������������������������� 40 IPM Trapping Network: Dogwood Borer, Stark and Wayne County ����������������������������������������������������� 42 IPM Trapping Network:Oriental Fruit Moth Monitoring, Holmes, Medina, Stark, Wayne ��������������� 44 IPM Trapping Network: Spotted-wing Drosophila Monitoring, Lorain County ���������������������������������� 46 IPM Trapping Network: Spotted-wing Drosophila Monitoring, Medina County �������������������������������� 48 IPM Trapping Network: Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Monitoring, Greene County ������������������������ 50 IPM Trapping Network: Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Monitoring, Holmes County ����������������������� 52 Long-cane Raspeberry Production ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 54 Shortening Blueberry Establishment Time with the “Pots in Raised Beds with Drip...Method” �� 56 Ohio State Vegetable Research ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 58 Pie Pumpkin and Cabbage Production with Crimped Winter Rye Cover Crop ��������������������������������� 58 Mulch Variety Trial on Onions ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 60 Northern Ohio Sh2 Sweet Corn Variety Trial ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 62 Northern Ohio Processing Cabbage Variety Trial ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 64 Northern Ohio Bell Pepper Variety Trial ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 66 Multi-location Evaluation of Tar Spot on Late-Planted Sweet Corn ������������������������������������������������������ 68 Updates for Squash Bug Management ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 70 Cover Crops and Compost in High and Low Tunnels: Weed control and Biomass �������������������������� 72 Irrigation Strategies of Tomato Under Drip Systems in High Tunnel ���������������������������������������������������� 74 Irrigation Strategies of Pepper Under Drip Systems in High Tunnel ����������������������������������������������������� 76 Perimeter Trap Cropping for Pumpkin ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 78 Aphid Management in Ohio Leafy Greens and Cucurbits ������������������������������������������������������������������������� 80 Field Evaluation of Alternative Products for Managing Black Rot of Cabbage ���������������������������������� 82 Using Season-long Row Covers for Winter Squash ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 84 Season-long Row Covers and Squash Variety ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 Season-long Row Cover Potential for Melons ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 88 Statewide Pest Monitoring Network: Cucurbit Downy Mildew in Sentinel Plots ������������������������������ 90 IPM Trapping Network: Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Monitoring, Morrow County ���������������������� 92 IPM Trapping Network: Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Monitoring, Portage County ���������������������� 94 IPM Trapping Network: Squash Vine Borer Monitoring, Clark County ������������������������������������������������� 96 IPM Trapping Network: Squash Vine Borer Monitoring, Columbiana County ������������������������������������ 98 IPM Trapping Network: Squash Vine Borer Monitoring, Greene County ������������������������������������������� 100 4 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

IPM Trapping Network: Squash Vine Borer Monitoring, Greene County ������������������������������������������� 102 IPM Trapping Network: Squash Vine Borer Monitoring, Miami County ��������������������������������������������� 104 IPM Trapping Network: Urban Squash Vine Borer Monitoring, Montgomery County ������������������� 106 IPM Trapping Network: Squash Vine Borer Monitoring, Morrow County ������������������������������������������ 108 IPM Trapping Network: Squash Vine Borer Monitoring, Pike County ������������������������������������������������� 110 IPM Trapping Network: Squash Vine Borer Monitoring, Ross County ������������������������������������������������ 112 IPM Trapping Network: Squash Vine Borer Monitoring, Seneca County ������������������������������������������� 114 IPM Trapping Network: Urban Squash Vine Borer Monitoring, Stark County ���������������������������������� 116 IPM Trapping Network: Sweet Corn Pest Monitoring, Clark County ��������������������������������������������������� 118 IPM Trapping Network: Sweet Corn Pest Monitoring, Mahoning County ������������������������������������������ 120 IPM Trapping Network: Sweet Corn Pest Monitoring, Miami County ������������������������������������������������� 122 IPM Trapping Network: Sweet Corn Pest Monitoring, Pike County ����������������������������������������������������� 124 IPM Trapping Network: Sweet Corn Pest Monitoring, Wayne County ����������������������������������������������� 126 Ohio State Other Specialty Crop Research ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 128 Garlic Variety Trial ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 128 Peanut Variety Trial ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 130 Biologicals- Flint Corn ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 132 Biologicals- Sunflower ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 134 Biologicals- Sunflower ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 136 Hybrid Trial- Sunflowers ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 138 Under the Sustainable Radar: Tracking Nurient Losses �������������������������������������������������������������������������� 140 Under the Sustainable Radar: Tracking Metal Concentrations and Solubility ���������������������������������� 142 Ohio State Ornamental Research ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 144 Irrigation Scheduling and Nutrient Management in Cutflower Production ��������������������������������������� 144 Herbaceous Cultivar Trial, Columbus ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 146 Herbaceous Cultivar Trial, Springfield ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 148 Ohio State Home and Consumer Research ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 150 Urban Ticks: Not Just in the Woods ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 150 Local Food Market Price Report ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 152 CSA Modeling: Through In-depth Interviews and Consumer Market Survey ���������������������������������� 154 Engaging Youth in Agricultural Entrepreneurship ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 156 Pawpaw Processing ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 158 Home Garden Myth Buster: Weed Killer ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 160 Ohio Home Garden Variety Trials ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 162 Ohio Home Garden Variety Trials: Parsley ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 162 Ohio Home Garden Variety Trials: Peppers ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 164 Ohio Home Garden Variety Trials: Cucumbers ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 166 Ohio Home Garden Variety Trials: Lettuce ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 168 Ohio Home Garden Variety Trials: Tomatoes �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 170 Ohio Home Garden Variety Trials: Spinach ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 172 Ohio Home Garden Variety Trials: Summer Squash ������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 174 Ohio Home Garden Variety Trials: Beets ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 176 Ohio Home Garden Variety Trials: Zinnias ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 178 Ohio Home Garden Variety Trials: Carrots ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 180 Ohio Home Garden Variety Trials: Peas ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 182 Ohio Home Garden Variety Trials: Green Beans �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 184 Ohio Home Garden Variety Trials: Crazy Beans ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 186 2025 ePLUS Report | 5

Table of Contents Ohio State Woodland Research ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 188 Heat Treatment of Acorns to Reduce Weevil Damage and Improve Oak Restoration ������������������ 188 Cost-benefit Analysis of On-farm Mushroom Spawn Production �������������������������������������������������������� 190 Ohio State Aquatic Research ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 192 Scenic River Designation Criteria Analysis for Scioto Brush Creek and South Fork Watershed 192 Aquaculture and Aquaponics Bi-products Towards Sustainable Agriculture ���������������������������������� 194 Production of Largemouth Bass in a Floating In-pond Raceway System ������������������������������������������ 196 Production of Redear Sunfish in a Floating In-pond Raceway System: A Pilot Study ������������������ 198 Research Collaborators and Supporters ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 200 ePLUS Study and Production Support ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������202 Industry Partners ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 203

6 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

South Centers 1864 Shyville Road | Piketon, Ohio Enhancing Southern Ohio by assisting people with informed decision-making through responsive research, education, entrepreneural application and collaborative partnerships.

INNOVATIVE RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION IMPACTFUL EXTENSION EDUCATION

southcenters.osu.edu 740-289-2071 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.

2025 ePLUS Report | 7

Get Involved

Are you interested in contributing to the 2025 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!

Growers 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 16. 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!

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-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!

Extension Educators and Field Specialists If you are a current ANR Educator and are interested in getting involved with ePLUS, contact us at digitalag@osu.edu or reach out to Dr. Logan Minter (minter.21@osu.edu).

Help Us Shape the Future of ePLUS! Your input is valuable to us so we would like to invite you to participate in a survey to evaluate the impact of the OSU ePLUS program and assist us with making improvements. You can access the survey by scanning the QR code or by visiting this page: go.osu.edu/ePLUSimpact

8 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

“

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

The partnership with OSU and their Extension Educators has been immeasurably helpful in the development of the Mid-Ohio Food Collective Farms. With their help and extensive knowledge, we have been able to increase our production yields, improving our ability to support our local community with fresh and healthy produce. We enjoyed taking part in this season’s research study and look forward to future collaborations.

- Allison Davis Mid-Ohio Food Collective

“ We have grown up raising many types of animals and we used those informal practices when we started our aquaculture farm. These research projects, though, taught us methods to standardize feeding, measurements, and routines that have been integral to our successful harvests and allowed us to position the growth of our farm in the larger regional aquaculture landscape.

-Kirk Manson Hemloch Farm 2025 ePLUS Report | 9

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.

10 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

ePLUS Initiatives OBSERVATION Scouting, phenology, monitoring, and detection surveys are important tools to inform decision making for farm, forest, soil, water quality, and garden management.

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT Studies aimed specifically to better manage pests of crops, animals, forests, and people in a more sustainable manner.

VARIETY TRIALS Evaluations of yield, economics, and preferences on new and estabished crop varieties.

CULTURAL MANAGEMENT Fine-tuning tillage, fertility, environmental controls, and materials to enhance production.

CONSERVATION Habitat studies or enhancements to conserve natural resoucres or improve regenerative agriculture practices.

URBAN Studies directly linked to and conducted in urban communities.

ORGANIC Studies conducted using NOP standards for management.

CONTAINED ENVIRONMENT Studies conducted in greenhouse, high tunnel, and indoor facilities.

EQUIPMENT/ APPS/ TECHNOLOGY Development and testing of digital resources/ tools for decision making and management as well as evaluation of new technology and infrastructure for management

POST-HARVEST Considerations of handling, shipping, packaging, and food safety.

ECONOMIC Analysis of farm management and business considerations considring economic return and market sales.

2025 ePLUS Report | 11

Report Guide OBJECTIVE

Location Box

Explains the primary aim or reason for the study and may contain brief context.

STUDY INFORMATION

Look to see the county where the study was conducted.

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 05/30/2024 Harvest Date 09/16/2024 Variety Autumn Gold Acres 3 Treatments 3 Reps 4 Treatment Width 40 ft.

Tillage Conventional Management Fertilizer, Herbicide, Insecticide Soil Type Crosby silt loam, 52% Celina silt loam, 48%

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. This further explains the snapshop under study information.

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

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

12 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

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 highlights ‘big pictue’ results and findings from the study.

•

Thank you for taking the time to explore our 2024 ePLUS Report!

RESULTS Treatments (XXX)

Pest Pressure (scouting counts)

Total Yield (lbs/acre)

Marketable Yield (lbs/acre)

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.

2025 ePLUS Report | 13

Calculations and Statistics To effectively collect, analyze, and interpret data, statistical calculations were made for as many ePLUS studyies as possible. All statistical calculations were conducted using JMP Software or an ANOVA spreadsheet, using Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD, alpha = 0.05) method to determine if treatment differences are statistically significant.

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 (lbs/ac)

A

230 a

B

229 a

C

226 ab

D

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 0.05 (or 5%) was used, which means when a treatment is statistically significant, a 95% 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 lbs/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 lbs/ac (here they differ by 5 lbs/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 lbs/ac, there is 95% certainity that the results of the treatments were indeed different and not just random chance. 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/eplus

14 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

Understanding IPM Decision Making Economic Injury Levels (EILs) are a central concept for decision making based on Integrated Pest Management (IPM). They define the breakeven point where pest damage equals the cost of managing the pest population. For damage below this level, insecticide application costs exceed the benefits.

EILs are calculated by considering likely product value, pesticide (or other) treatment costs, and crop damage/ financial loss caused by insect, pathogen, or weed injury.

While the first two values are readily measurable, the latter requires extensive research spanning years. The resulting EIL represents the level where we want to prevent pest populations from escalating; marking the onset of economic damage or losses. To achieve this, we set an action threshold below the EIL, indicating the point where treatment should be initiated. The Economic Threshold (ET) serves as a trigger for growers to take proactive measures to prevent the EIL from being surpassed, rather than signifying the commencement of economic losses.

Although we frequently discuss EILs, values presented to growers are typically ETs, as these correlate to when actionable steps should be taken.

Economic Injury Levels play a crucial role in IPM, emphasizing the importance of taking action only when economic damage is probable. EILs and ETs vary depending on the crop and pest species. In crops with aesthetic value, such as food crops or seed crops, EILs and ETs tend to be lower. For pests that impact human health and safety, they can be lower still. Values can fluctuate with changes in crop prices and management costs.

Nevertheless, comprehending EILs and ETs is essential for making informed decisions that align with the principles of IPM and sustainable agriculture.

A practical example for growers involves cucumber beetles on pumpkin crops. An action level is reached when on average up to 2 beetles per plant, for fourthleaf stage plants, is reached based on scouting. This level corresponds to the Economic Threshold (ET). However, it typically takes many more beetles per plant before economic damage occurs, or the Economic Injury Level (EIL). Therefore, we recommend taking action or spraying insecticides when the population reaches 2 beetles per plant, which aligns with the ET.

For more information contact Dr. Logan Minter, Ohio IPM Coordinator, minter.21@osu.edu

This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 15

ePLUS Contributors

Israel Acham

Graduate Student,

Annika Anderson

Department of Horticulture and Crop Science

Waterman Student Farm Production Coordinator Department of Horticulture and Crop Science

Thomas Becker

Amanda Bennett

Extension Educator Lorain County

Dara Barclay

Frank Becker

OSU Extension

OSU Extension

Program Manager, eFields & eBarns

Extension Educator Wayne County

Pam Bennett

Alessandra Bertucci

OSU Extension

Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering

OSU Extension

Ed Brown

Jessica Burns

Pressley Buurma

Wayne Dellinger

OSU Extension

OSU Extension

OSU Extension

OSU Extension

Extension Educator Athens County

OSU Extension

Extension Educator Vinton County

16 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Professor, Extension Educator Clark County

Graduate Student

Assitant Professor, Extension Educator Miami County

Extension Educator Seneca County

Extension Educator Union County

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Alan Gahler

Extension Educator Sandusky County OSU Extension

Elizabeth Hawkins Associate Professor, Field Specialist

Gary Gao Professor

Michael Gastier

Thom Harker

OSU Extension

Extension Educator Huron County

Sarah Hickey

Amy Hurst

Carri Jagger

Department of Horticulture and Crop Science

OSU Extension

OSU Extension

Professor

OSU Extension

OSU Extension

Extension Intern Montgomery County OSU Extension

Jim Jasinksi

Dee Jepsen

Seth Kannberg

Deeksa Kasirajan

OSU Extension

Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering

OSU Extension

Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering

Professor

Professor

Graduate Student

Aquatic

Extension Educator Portage County

Extension Educator Morrow County

Undergraduate Student

2025 ePLUS Report | 17

ePLUS Contributors

Fernanda Krupek

Ashley Kulhanek

Assistant Professor, Assistant Professor Department of Horticulture Extension Educator Medina County and Crop Science

Yiyun Lin

Assistant Professor, Urban Ag Specialist

Erika Lyon

Ashley Leach

Assistant Professor

Department of Entomology

Extension Educator Henry County

Yu Ma

Tim McDermott

Rommel Muñoz

OSU Extension

Extension Educator Jefferson & Harrison Counties OSU Extension

Assistant Professor Department of Horticulture and Crop Science

Logan Minter

Marina Miquilini

Lorrayne Miralha

OSU Extension

Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering

Associate Professor, Field Specialist OSU Extension

Extension Educator Greene County

18 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Alan Leninger

Assistant Professor

OSU Extension

Assistant Professor, Extension Educator Franklin County

Visting Scholar Department of Horticulture and Crop Science

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Chevula Motswaledi

Catherine Mwanijisi

Jean Anne Myers Program Assisant Vinton County

Extension Educator Mahoning County OSU Extension

Graduate Student Department of Plant Pathology

Amanda Perkins

Tracey Perry

Rylee Kay Puthoff

OSU Extension

OSU Extension

OSU Extension

Extension Educator Pike County

Extension Educator Vinton County

OSU Extension

Extension Educator Shelby County

Jo Peacock

Assistant Professor School of Environment and Natural Resources

Herbert QuinteroFonseca Program Director OSU Extension

Layla Ramsey-Sapp

Eric Richer

Maggie Rivera

Kendra Rose

Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering

OSU Extension

OSU Extension

OSU Extension

Research Assistant

Associate Professor, Field Specialist

Extension Educator Summitt County

Aquatic

Extension Educator Crawford County

2025 ePLUS Report | 19

ePLUS Contributors

Francesca Rotondo

Breh Ruger

C. Wayne Ellett Plant and Pest Diagnostic Clinic

Department of Entomology

Program Director

Graduate Student

Andres SanabriaVelazquez Assistant Professor Department of Plant Pathology

Hannah Scott

Bradford Sherman

CFAES Center for Cooperatives OSU South Centers

OSU South Centers

Extension Educator Columbiana County

Ambria Small

Jalen Smith

Samuel Stachler

OSU Extension

Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering

Program Director

Extension Educator Champaign County

Program Assistant

Graduate Student

20 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Raven Schaffter Research Assistant Department of Plant Pathology

Haley Shoemaker

Ryan Slaughter

OSU Extension

OSU Extension

Undergraduate Student School of Environment and Natural Resources

Extension Educator Ross County

Christie Welch

Program Specialist OSU South Centers

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Leeoria Willis

Aaron Wilson

Josh Winters

OSU Extension

OSU Extension

OSU Extension

Extension Educator Montgomery County

Assistant Professor, Field Specialist

Extension Educator Jackson County

Aquatic

Ted Wiseman

Assistant Professor Extension Educator Perry County OSU Extension

2025 ePLUS Report | 21

2025 Weather The historic drought of 2024 left soil moisture severely depleted across northwest, central, and southeast Ohio by year’s end. Recovery was slow through winter, with meaningful relief arriving only in April and May. However, excessive rainfall in central and south-central counties, combined with cool temperatures and sluggish growing degree day (GDD) accumulation, created significant challenges for spring fieldwork. By June and July, conditions shifted dramatically; overnight lows were well above normal, and humidity reached record levels. August brought another sharp turn, as extreme drought gripped much of northwest Ohio. While the region stayed dry throughout fall, southern Ohio returned to wetter conditions. Overall, average temperatures for December 2024 – November 2025 were within ±2°F of the 19912020 normal (Fig. 1). Precipitation patterns were mixed: southern, north-central, and northeastern counties finshed slightly above normal, while northwest and eastern counties fell below normal (75-100% of average; Fig. 1). Through November, 2025 ranks as the 23rd warmest and 52nd driest on record (1895-present) for Ohio according the National Centers for Environmental Information. For detailed in-season climate analysis, visit the State Climate Office of Ohio. Below is a summary of the growing season and seasonal breakdown.

Figure 1: (Left) Temperature departures (°F), (Middle) Precipitation departures (inches), and (Right) Precipitation departures (percent of normal) from the longterm (1991-2020) normal for December 2024 - November 2025.

Figure courtesy of the Midwestern Regional Climate Center.

Winter (December – February) The 2024-25 winter season brought highly variable weather conditions. Winter temperatures averaged 1-3°F below normal. While December was warm, January temperatures were 5-9°F below normal (1991-2020). Overall, precipitation (rain + melted snow equivalent) for the period ranged from approximately 5 inches in northwest Ohio to about 15 inches across southern Ohio. This was 75-100% of normal across northwest and southeast counties, with areas in between running 100-150% of normal. Snowfall for the entire season (October – April) was significantly below normal—25-75% of normal—for all but south-central Ohio. Winter 2024-25 ranks as the 61st coldest and 51st wettest for Ohio.

Spring (March – May) Spring 2025 started warm and dry. March 2025 was the 9th warmest March on record, with precipitation running 0.5 inches below normal. Conditions turned wetter in April and May. Total precipitation for April and May ranged from 1015 inches across the state, with April and May ranking as the 13th and 15th wettest April and May, respectively. These wet conditions were felt hardest across Clermont, Brown, and Adams counties extending northeast toward Pickaway, Fairfield, and Licking counties. Several counties experienced their top 8-15th wettest springs. 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 (Fig. 2). Despite the May chill, Spring 2025 ranks as the 12th warmest and 16th wettest for Ohio.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this information, contact Dr. Aaron B. Wilson, Assistant Professor and Field Specialist Ag Weather and Climate, OSU Extension State Climatologist of Ohio wilson.1010@osu.edu

22 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

https://weather.cfaes.osu.edu/gdd/

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

Figure 2: Departure from normal growing degree days for January 1 – May 31, 2025. Figure courtesy of the Iowa Environmental Mesonet.

Summer (June-August)

Figure 3: County precipitation ranks for Ohio for August 2025. White shading indicates near normal conditions, while the top third (lighter colors) and top ten (darker colors) of the record are depicted for either dry (brown) or wet (green) conditions. Figure courtesy NOAA.

June-July 2025 ranked as the 4th warmest June-July on record, driven by warm overnight temperatures that ran 2-6°F above normal. Humidity levels during this period were extreme as well. Dayton recorded 28 days with dewpoint temperatures above normal, and the dewpoint temperature was above 70°F (oppressive) on 35% of all hourly observations over the two-month period. Precipitation remained well above average through July as well, with the 4-month period of April-July 2025 ranking as the 8th wettest April-July on record in Ohio. However, conditions became dry in August, which ranked as the driest August on record for Ohio over the last 131 years. Most locations in Ohio saw rainfall deficits of 2-4 inches for the month, with 31% of counties (27 counties) experiencing their driest August on record (Fig. 3). This initiated rapid and extreme drought development across Ohio. Summer 2025 ranks as the 11th warmest and 50th driest on record.

Fall (September – November)

Figure 4: Drought conditions in Ohio on October 28, 2025. Figure courtesy of the U.S. Drought Monitor.

Drought conditions persisted across northwest Ohio throughout all of fall 2025, with strong soil moisture recovery across southern and eastern Ohio. Ohio reached peak drought intensity in late October, with about 11% of the state covered

by D3-extreme drought conditions according to the U.S. Drought Monitor (Fig. 4). Soil moisture and river/stream flows we strongly impacted, with near surface moisture values near zero percent by volume. Many gauges along the Maumee River Basin recorded historically low depths and flows during much of fall, with area farm ponds and reservoirs exhibiting extreme deficits. Precipitation deficits over the period were 4-6 inches (~50% of normal). Meanwhile, parts of southern Ohio received 2-6 inches more than normal, improving soil moisture and stream flows in that region. Winter got a cold and snowy start this year, with December temperatures running 6-14°F below normal with 150-750% of normal snowfall (northeast to southwest). Fall 2025 ranks as the 31st warmest and 53rd driest on record.

2025 ePLUS Report | 23

Respiratory Hazards 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.

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.

24 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

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

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

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.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact: Dee Jepsen Professor, Agricultural Safety & Health Program OSU Food, Agricultural & Biological Engineering jepsen.4@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 25

Statewide Insect Monitoring Network WHY IS TRAPPING CONDUCTED? Integrated Pest Management (IPM), is considered by many to be the most favorable, science-based strategy for managing pests in a sustainable way. The basic theory relies on understanding current, evolving conditions to inform management decisions to reflect reality and eliminate guesswork. For any system to be considered a candidate for integrated pest management, basic understandings of the pests involved and their ecological activity are needed to make assessments and ultimately management decisions. Surveillance and identification techniques are also principal components of any such program.

One method of collecting this data to inform decision making is through detection and monitoring of pest insects with trapping. Traps often rely on pest biology using lures (often based on sex pheromones or food chemicals) to signal specific changes in pest activity, life cycle, and prevalence.

In some cases, this can translate directly to decision making to prevent reaching Economic Injury Levels (EILs), which define the breakeven point where pest damage equals the cost of managing the pest population. For damage below this action level, insecticide application costs exceed the benefits.

OHIO’S MONITORING NETWORK: PAST AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS The Specialty Crop Insect Monitoring Network has provided a foundation for monitoring several pests in Ohio for a number of years.

While benefits to direct cooperating farms have been noted, the ability to expand the reach of timely data has been an elusive goal.

In 2025, a new user interface was developed for growers to view trap counts and trends in real-time as traps are checked. OSU Extension educators and supporting staff across the state are now able to enter trap counts live from the field through a webapp interface.

This populates charts based on county and pest which are viewable immediately by farmers and agriculture professionals needing data to inform pest management decisions.

Ultimately, through improved, rapid communication of real-time results and detailed reports of trends and analyses, Ohio growers will be provided with more efficient and tailored tools to base decision making and management actions that ultimately provide positive returns to the bottom lines of people, planet, and profit.

26 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

The very basis of using trap monitoring to trigger management decisions is rooted in the goal to provide savings from pesticide application and achieve greater sustainability as primary outcomes.

Communication of findings developed by partnerships between university researchers and growers further increases synergy of the project and we hope to learn more through hearing feedback from you and your success stories using IPM decision making.

To see the trap reports by county in real-time during the growing season, visit:

COOPERATOR RECRUITMENT

If you would like to participate in the monitoring network next year for specialty crop insect pests, please send an email to Logan Minter, minter.21@osu.edu or call (614) 292-3202. There is no cost to participate but monitoring sites are limited.

go.osu.edu/traps

To learn more about the insect pests we are monitoring, check out the IPM YouTube library:

go.osu.edu/IPMLib

PROJECT CONTACT

This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

For inquiries about this project, contact Dr. Logan Minter Field Specialist and Associate Professor Ohio IPM Coordinator OSU Extension minter.21@osu.edu

Dr. Ashley Leach State Specialist and Assistant Professor, Specialty Crops OSU Entomology leach.379@osu.edu

Bradford Sherman Program Assistant OSU South Centers sherman.1473@osu.edu (740)247-9680

2025 ePLUS Report | 27

Performance Evaluation of Monitoring Tools to Predict Codling Moth Activity OBJECTIVE Evaluate the performance of three monitoring tools (CropVue Camera, FarmSense Flight Sensor and traditional delta trap) to predict Codling Moth activity.

STUDY INFORMATION

ePLUS Collaborating Farm OSU Extension WayneCounty

WEATHER INFORMATION

Traps Set 08/01/2025 Traps Removed 08/31/2025 Variety Various apple Management Conventional tree fruit production System Apple production (staked and high-density) Study type Replicated trial Treatments 3 Replications 3 Size of trial 15 acres

STUDY DESIGN An on-farm trial in Wayne County, Ohio evaluated three codling moth monitoring approaches: (1) CropVue automated camera traps using image algorithms, (2) FarmSense FlightSensors using wing-beat signatures, and (3) traditional sticky delta traps. Each method was replicated three times and spatially randomized within the orchard to minimize variation associated with trap placement and/or localized moth activity. CropVue and traditional traps were paired with codling moth L2 pheromone lures. Data were collected from August 1–31 2025. Delta traps were inspected weekly, whereas automated traps transmitted daily observations to a web-based interface or mobile app.

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEPT

Total

Precip (in.)

3.92

4.25

5.22

4.91

0.73

2.27

21.3

Cumulative GDDs

200

493

1140

1892

2455

2922

1922

OBSERVATIONS Unfortunately, several traps arrived late, preventing evaluation during the early-season flight period, which is typically the most critical for management decisions. Codling moth activity during August appeared to be moderate and relatively steady, without clear generation peaks.

In this short trial, camera traps and traditional delta traps detected moths more consistently than the FarmSense ‘FlightSensor’, although all systems recorded codling moth activity. These observations are preliminary and the study will be repeated in future seasons to determine whether similar patterns occur.

CropVue automated camera trap as placed in orchard canopy

28 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

RESULTS

Average catch of codling moth from Aug 1 to Aug 31 across three monitoring approaches (n=3).

Average catch of codling moth per week per trap over the entire season (n=3).

SUMMARY •

Across the monitoring period, camera traps generally reported higher codling moth counts than the other methods, while FarmSense detections tended to be low, with some counts later in August.

•

Traditional delta traps recorded intermediate levels that were sometimes higher than FarmSense and sometimes lower than camera traps, depending on the sampling date.

•

Further and longer-term testing is needed to assure consistent trends.

PROJECT CONTACT

For inquiries about this project, contact Dr. Ashley Leach State Specialist and Assistant Professor OSU Entomology leach.379@osu.edu

Frank Becker OSU Extension Educator Wayne County becker.587@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 29

IPM Trapping Network: Codling Moth Monitoring OBJECTIVE Monitor insect pests on Ohio farms, for enhanced pest management, specifically the Codling Moth, near orchard fruit productions in Wayne, Homles, Stark, Ashland, and Medina counties.

STUDY INFORMATION

ePLUS Collaborating Farm OSU Extension

Ashland, Homles, Medina, Stark, Wayne

WEATHER INFORMATION

Trap Set 04/01/2025 Trap Removed 09/26/2025 Crop Monitored Apples Crop Area ~400 acres Production type Commercial Orchard Management Conventional and Organic Number of sites 10 Farms, 20 sites monitored Number of traps 3-17 per site

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

21.3

Cumulative GDDs

200

493

1140

1892

2455

2922

2922

STUDY DESIGN Bucket style traps were placed in orchard blocks in orchards in Wayne, Holmes, Ashland, Stark and Medina counties. 2-3 traps were placed in the blocks, scattered randomly throughout; placed in trees at least two rows in from the edge of orchard and five trees from ends of row. Each trap had a Trece pherocon codling moth lure that was changed out every 6 weeks. Each trap also had a Hercon Vaportape kill strip. Traps were hung in trees about 6 feet from the ground and were checked weekly until traps were removed. There were 9 sites in Wayne County, 2 sites in Holmes, 2 sites in Ashland, 5 in Medina and 2 in Stark.

OBSERVATIONS Codling Moth inside trap pheromone chamber

30 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Orchards that deployed integrated approaches for codling moth management, such as mating disruption, consistently had lower overall catches during this trapping year. Additionally, due to the warm summer, generally growers expressed a feeling of overall increased pressure this year.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

SUMMARY •

Comparatively, codling moth catch was consistent with previous years.

•

Some orchard growers expressed their evaluation as the pressure being sporadic in this year compared to previous years.

•

Trap data was utilized by growers, in conjunction with GDD modeling from NEWA to determine spray application timings and intervals.

Bucket trap placement in orchard

Codling Moths inside trap

RESULTS

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

Frank Becker OSU Extension Educator, Wayne County becker.587@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 31

IPM Trapping Network: Codling Moth Monitoring OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farm

Monitor insect pests on Ohio farms, for enhanced pest management, specifically the Codling Moth, in an orchard in Crawford County.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Crawford County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Traps Set 06/06/2025 Traps Removed 09/26/2025 Primary Adjacent Apple Crop Adjacent Area 0.7 acre Production type Demonstration orchard Management Conventional Number of sites 2 Number of traps 2 per site

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

4.06

4.63

4.11

5.15

2.28

0.84

21.07

Cumulative GDDs

226

543

1217

2002

2601

3069

3069

STUDY DESIGN The traps were placed on the north and south side of the orchard.

The trap was hung on the tree and was checked weekly for codling moths.

The bait was changed every other week. The traps used were three delta tick traps for the first three weeks and then switched to two bucket traps for the duration of the season.

OBSERVATIONS The traps changed from a sticky trap to a bucket trap after the first three weeks might have impacted the amount of moths trapped.

There were not a lot of visible feeding spots in the fruits within the orchard.

Bucket trap placement in full-size apple tree

32 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

SUMMARY •

The population of Codling Moths decreased after August 1st.

•

The threshold was not reached this season.

•

There was not a large second generation of Codling Moths caught in the traps from August to the beginning of October.

Codling Moth aduls on sticky trap.

Delta ‘sticky’ trap placement in a full size apple tree

RESULTS

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Kendra Rose OSU Extension Educator, Crawford County rose.1919@osu.edu This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 33

IPM Trapping Network: Codling Moth Monitoring OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farm

Monitor insect pests on Ohio farms, for enhanced pest management, specifically the Codling Moth, in an orchard in Jackson County.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Jackson County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Traps Set 06/16/2025 Traps Removed 08/25/2025 Primary Adjacent Apple Crop Adjacent Area 1 acre Production type Commercial orchard Management Conventional Number of sites 1 Number of traps 2 per site

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

6.59

6.09

3.64

6.55

0.13

3.6

26.6

Cumulative GDDs

283

638

1317

2130

2794

3274

3274

STUDY DESIGN The traps were placed on two young apple trees with one being on the end of the row of trees and one on a randomly selected tree in the middle of the row.

The traps were hung on lower branches of the trees and checked once a week for the codling moth. Traps were out for 10 weeks to collect data, with the lure being replaced after the 5th week.

OBSERVATIONS No anomalies were reported in this data set, however, this is a very new orchard, so some trees were not producing fruit at the time.

Codling Moth trap placed in a young tree

34 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

RESULTS

SUMMARY •

Through the 10-weeks trapping, there were only two codling moths that were captured; one by each trap. Both moths were caught during the month of July.

•

Traps were also put out later than expected, so this may have impacted the results.

Codling Moth adult in bucket trap.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Josh Winters OSU Extension Educator, Jackson, County winters.249@osu.edu This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 35

IPM Trapping Network: Codling Moth Monitoring OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farm

Monitor insect pests on Ohio farms, for enhanced pest management, specifically the Codling Moth, in an orchard in Lorain County.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Lorain County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Traps Set 04/28/2025 Traps Removed 09/25/2025 Primary Apple Adjacent Crop Adjacent Area 11 acres (Central Block: 6.5 acres) (West Block : 4.5 acres) Production type Commercial orchard Management Conventional Number of sites 2 Number of traps 3 per site

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

0

0

2.00

3.65

0.76

0.84

7.25

Cumulative GDDs

195

476

1113

1877

2473

2941

2941

STUDY DESIGN Bucket traps were placed in 2 blocks of apples in the orchard. 3 bucket traps were placed randomly in each block, for a total of 6 traps.

Each trap had a Trece pherocon codling moth lure that was changed out every 6 weeks. Each trap also had a Hercon Vaportape kill strip.

Traps were hung in trees about 6 feet from the ground and were checked weekly until traps were removed.

OBSERVATIONS Apple orchard during early season monitoring

36 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Trap counts for the week of 08/22 are elevated because there are 3 weeks of trap catch accounted for. Traps were not checked between 07/30 and 08/22.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

SUMMARY •

Compared to last year’s data, there was more consistent codling moth activity throughout the growing season, with very few weeks of no activity. There was still enough variation in activity that it was easy to notice peaks in flights to determine what generation was active.

•

For the initial codling moth treatment, the grower did use trap data and GDD data from NEWA to time their spray application. As the season went on, the grower maintained a consistent spray schedule.

RESULTS

Adult Codling Moths in bucket trap.

Central Block

West Block

TOOLS OF THE TRADE

PROJECT CONTACT

Bucket traps are a simple, yet effective way for growers to monitor for many species of moths. The traps lure adults with pheromones to signal when populations are active and egg laying imminent. .

Thomas Becker OSU Extension Educator, Lorain, County becker.643@osu.edu

go.osu.edu/cmtrap

For inquiries about this project, contact

This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 37

IPM Trapping Network: Codling Moth Monitoring OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farm

Monitor insect pests on Ohio farms, for enhanced pest management, specifically the Codling moth, in an orchard in Seneca County.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Seneca County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Traps Set 05/29/2025 Traps Removed 08/05/20252 Primary Adjacent Apple Crop Adjacent Area 1 acre Production type Diversified farm Management Conventional Number of sites 1 Number of traps 2 per site

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

19.7

Cumulative GDDs

213

514

1177

1947

2528

3008

3008

STUDY DESIGN The traps were placed in the orchard, approximately 5 feet from the orchard edge. The trap was hung on the apple tree and was checked weekly for Codling Moths.

The bait was the Scentry Colding Moth pheromone cap and was placed starting May 23 and was changed weekly until the traps were removed.

Codling Moth trap hanigng in tree.

38 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS Spring started very wet and the season ended with a severe drought. The apple trees showed visible stress but no signs of insect activity.

SUMMARY •

No management methods were conducted as no Codling Moths or their damage was viewed.

RESULTS

Educational signage at trap location.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Pressley Buurma OSU Extension Educator, Seneca County buurma.20@osu.edu This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 39

IPM Trapping Network: Peachtree Borer Monitoring OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farm

Monitor insect pests on Ohio farms, for enhanced pest management, specifically the Greater and Lesser Peachtree Borer, near orchard fruit productions in Holmes County.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Homles County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Trap Set 05/20/2025 Trap Removed 09/26/2025 Crop Monitored Peach Crop Area 30 acres Production type Commercial Management Conventional Number of sites 1 farm monitored Number of traps 4 traps, 2 of each per site

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

21.3

Cumulative GDDs

200

493

1140

1892

2455

2922

2922

STUDY DESIGN Bucket style traps were placed in orchard blocks in peach orchards in Holmes County and were scattered randomly throughout; placed in trees at least two rows in from the edge of orchard and five trees from ends of row.

Each trap had an either a Greater Peachtree Borer (GPTB) or Lesser Peachtree Borer (LPTB) Trece pherocon lure. Each trap also had a Hercon Vaportape kill strip.

Traps were hung in trees about 6 feet from the ground, and near the trunk of the tree, and were checked weekly until traps were removed.

40 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS Flights were consistently occurring throughout the year, confirming consistent pressure from both lesser and greater peach tree borer at this site. The prolonged warm temperatures in the fall seemed to have spurred on an additional generation of lesser peach tree borer near the time that traps were being taken down.

SUMMARY •

Trap catch considered normal for this site

•

Grower utilized trap data to make management decisions and narrow down application timings.

RESULTS

Adult male Lesser Peachtree borer

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Frank Becker OSU Extension Educator, Wayne County becker.587@osu.edu This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 41

IPM Trapping Network: Dogwood Borer Monitoring OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farm

Monitor insect pests on Ohio farms, for enhanced pest management, specifically the Dogwood Borer, near orchards in Wayne and Stark County.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Stark and Wayne Counties

WEATHER INFORMATION

Trap Set 05/02/2025 Trap Removed 09/01/2025 Crop Monitored Trellis Apples Crop Area 50 Acres Production type Trellis Apple Orchard Management Organic and Conventional Number of sites 2 farms monitored Number of traps 1 trap per farm per site

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

21.3

Cumulative GDDs

200

493

1140

1892

2455

2922

2922

STUDY DESIGN Bucket style traps were placed in orchard blocks in apple orchards in Wayne County and Stark County and were scattered randomly throughout; placed in trees at least two rows in from the edge of orchard and five trees from ends of row. Each trap had a dogwood borer pherocon lure. Each trap also had a Vapor tape kill strip. Traps were hung in trees about 6 feet from the ground, and near the trunk of the tree, and were checked weekly until traps were removed.

OBSERVATIONS One of the two sites had an alarmingly high population of dogwood borer that was caught consistently throughout the season. It was determined that the presence and pressure of the dogwood borer had actually led to tree death for a significant amount of young trellis trees in the orchard.

42 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Fruit

Aquatic

SUMMARY •

This is the first year that we have trapped dogwood borer in the Wayne County IPM program

•

Tree guards should be watched carefully, or removed if there is high pressure of dogwood borers as they can create ideal habitat and protect them from management applications

•

Mating disruption can be an effective management tool for this pest

Adult dogwood borer moth

RESULTS 30 Traps Set

(Image: James Solomon, USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org)

Traps Removed

Trap Counts

25 20

Wayne County, Mt. Eaton Stark County, Navarre

15 10 5 0

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Frank Becker OSU Extension Educator, Wayne County becker.587@osu.edu This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 43

IPM Trapping Network: Oriental Fruit Moth Monitoring OBJECTIVE Monitor insect pests on Ohio farms, for enhanced pest management, specifically the Oriental Fruit Moth, near orchard fruit productions in Wayne, Holmes, Medina and Stark counties.

STUDY INFORMATION

ePLUS Collaborating Farm OSU Extension Holmes, Medina, Stark, and Wayne

WEATHER INFORMATION

Trap Set 04/01/2025

Trap Removed 09/26/2025 Crop Monitored Peach, Pear Crop Area ~150 Acres Production type Commercial orchard Management Conventional and Organic Number of sites 6 Farms, 9 sites monitored Number of traps 3-9 per site

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

21.3

Cumulative GDDs

200

493

1140

1892

2455

2922

2922

STUDY DESIGN Bucket style traps were placed in orchard blocks in orchards in Wayne, Holmes, Stark and Medina counties. 2-3 traps were placed in the blocks, scattered randomly throughout; placed in trees at least two rows in from the edge of orchard and five trees from ends of row. Each trap had a Trece pherocon oriental fruit moth lure that was changed out every 6 weeks. Each trap also had a Hercon Vaportape kill strip. Traps were hung in trees about 6 feet from the ground and were checked weekly until traps were removed. There were 5 sites in Wayne County, 2 sites in Holmes, 1 in Medina and 1 in Stark.

OFM trap hanging in a peach tree.

44 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS Orchards that deployed integrated approaches for oriental fruit moth management, such as mating disruption, consistently had lower overall catches during this trapping year. Additionally, due to the warm summer, generally growers expressed a feeling of overall increased pressure this year.

SUMMARY •

Observed catches and grower commentary both supported higher than normal OFM catch, as well as increased duration of flights.

•

Trap data was utilized by growers, in conjunction with GDD modeling from NEWA to determine spray application timings and intervals.

Oriental Fruit Moth

(Image: Mark Dreiling, Bugwood.org)

RESULTS

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Frank Becker OSU Extension Educator, Wayne County becker.587@osu.edu

This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 45

IPM Trapping Network: Spotted-wing Drosophila Monitoring OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farm

Monitor insect pests on Ohio farms, for enhanced pest management, specifically the Spotted-wing Drosophila, near small fruit productions in Lorain County.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Lorain County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Trap Set 07/03/20254

Traps Removed 07/29/2025 - blueberry 09/25/2025 - blackberry Primary Adjacent Blueberry Crop Blackberry Adjacent Area 12 Acres Production type Commercial small fruit/U-pick Management Conventional Number of sites 1 Number of traps 2 per site

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

0

0

2.00

3.65

0.76

0.84

7.25

Cumulative GDDs

195

476

1113

1877

2473

2941

2941

STUDY DESIGN The traps were placed in blueberry and blackberry. The traps were hung on the plants and were checked weekly for SWD flies.

The bait was diluted apple Cider Vinegar. 2 traps were set, one in blueberries and one in blackberries starting on 07/3/2025.

The trap in the blueberries was removed on 07/29/2025. The trap in the blackberries was removed on 09/25/2025.

Growers during small fruit workshop

46 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS Low trap counts may be a result of only using apple cider vinegar as a lure. No Scentry lure was used. Also, did not check traps between 7/30 and 8/22, traps were knocked over during this time

SUMMARY •

Compared to the previous year, trap counts were much lower overall. This could be a result of only using apple cider vinegar and not using a Scentry lure, however, the grower also noted less cull fruits and fewer complaints from customers about fruit with worms.

•

The grower did use trap count data to inform management decisions.

Female (top) and male (bottom ) SWD flies

RESULTS

TOOLS OF THE TRADE

PROJECT CONTACT

A saltwater test can be used as a quick method for detecting SWD larvae in fruit. This can be used to assess effectiveness of spray programs as well as marketability of fruit.

Thomas Becker OSU Extension Educator, Lorain, County becker.643@osu.edu

For inquiries about this project, contact

go.osu.edu/swdsalt

This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 47

IPM Trapping Network: Spotted-wing Drosophila Monitoring OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farm

Monitor insect pests on Ohio farms, for enhanced pest management, specifically the Spotted-wing Drosophila, near small fruit productions in Medina county.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Medina County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Trap Set 06/16/2025 Trap Removed 07/28/2025 Primary Adjacent Blueberries Crop Adjacent Area 4 acres Production type Commercial small farm U-Pick Management None currently Number of sites 1 Number of traps 6 per site

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

0

0

2.00

3.65

0.76

0.84

7.25

Cumulative GDDs

195

476

1113

1877

2473

2941

2941

STUDY DESIGN Six traps were set throughout a 50-row commercial U-Pick blueberry field. The traps were hung on T-bars within the rows and were checked bi-weekly for Spotted-wing Drosophila (SWD) flies.

Three traps were commercial traps baited with Scentry lure plus 25% apple cider vinegar solution. Three traps were home-made using peanut-butter jars and were baited with only 25% apple cider vinegar solution. Solution was changed biweekly until traps removed.

Traps were set beginning June 16. The grower conducted a final harvest and removed all remaining blueberries on July 28, 2025.

Traps were removed July 28 after blueberry harvesting completed.

48 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS

Harvest was completed right as SWD populations began to peak. No damaged fruit was reported by grower or patrons. The Scentry lure plus vinegar solution caught more SWD earlier than the homemade traps containing only vinegar solution, but catch rates for both trap designs evened out mid-season.

The Scentry lure attracted more fruit flies overall than the vinegar solution traps. The field was irrigated during drought conditions.

SUMMARY •

This was the first-year trapping at this farm, therefore pest pressure cannot be compared yet for previous years.

•

SWD was present, even though harvest window was short.

No damaged fruit was observed or reported by buyers or the grower’s own harvest. Frequent harvesting and narrow harvest window may have contributed to low damage.

•

This first year of data was used to discuss future management options and if the farmer was interested in adopting a spray program in future.

•

SWD reproduction may have been limited by the the thorough removal of all fruit from the field at the end of season.

RESULTS

Homemade SWD trap in blueberry patch

TOOLS OF THE TRADE

PROJECT CONTACT

Scentry traps are useful to detect presence of SWD near crops they may impact. The trap contains a lure that is highly attractive to SWD and 25% apple cider vinegar as a drowning solution. go.osu.edu/swdtrap

Ashley Kulhanek OSU Extension Educator and Assistant Professor, Medina County kulhanek.5@osu.edu

For inquiries about this project, contact

This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 49

IPM Trapping Network: Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Monitoring OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farm

Monitor brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB) activity in a fence row adjacent to an apple orchard.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Greene County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Traps Set 07/29/2025

Traps Removed 09/29/2025 Primary Adjacent Apple Crop Adjacent Area 10 acres Production type Commercial Management Conventional Number of sites 1 Number of traps 2 per site

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

6.12

4.85

4.3

5.44

0.90

1.52

23.13

Cumulative GDDs

259

614

1338

2178

2836

3316

3316

STUDY DESIGN This study aimed to monitor brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB) activity in a fence line adjacent to an apple orchard during the latter half of the growing season. BMSB can severely injure apple fruit mid to late season, potentially affecting marketability.

Two clear sticky panels were attached 4’ high on wooden posts baited with BMSB attractant lures placed 100 feet apart along a fence row of trees and shrubs opposite the apple orchard.

The traps were checked weekly for adult and nymph BMSB; sticky traps were replaced every 2-3 weeks, lures replaced monthly.

“Clean” clear sticky panel trap, before catching any insects

50 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS BMSB adults were caught one week after placing traps in the fence line during the week of August 2-8. Peak stink bug captures occurred late in the season during September 13 - October 3. Trap catches for other weeks varied between 1-5 stink bugs. Traps were removed September 29. The grower reported little stink bug damage on the adjacent apple crop. This was a typical pattern of fall BMSB migration at the end of the season.

SUMMARY •

Sticky panels baited with attractant lures were placed in the fence line were used to detect fall migration and potential damage of BMSB in nearby attractive apple crop.

•

Trap catches were generally low in early and midseason but peaked in late September.

•

Grower reported no significant stink bug injury on apple crop.

Immature BMSB on apple leaf

RESULTS

TOOLS OF THE TRADE The Samurai Wasp (Trissolcus japonicus), and egg parasitoid, was detected in the US around 2014.

While this natural enemy of BMSB was already being evaluated as a biocontrol agent, it seems to have arrived in the U.S. naturally.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Jim Jasinski Professor, OSU Extension jasinski.4@osu.edu This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 51

IPM Trapping Network: Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Monitoring OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farm

Monitor insect pests on Ohio farms, for enhanced pest management, specifically the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug, in apple orchards in Holmes County.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Holmes County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Traps Set 07/01/2025 Traps Removed 09/30/2025 Primary Adjacent Apple Crop Adjacent Area 30 acres Production type Commercial orchard Management Conventional Number of sites 1 farm, 2 apple blocks Number of traps 2 (1 trap per block) per site

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

21.3

Cumulative GDDs

200

493

1140

1892

2455

2922

2922

STUDY DESIGN Sticky panels were placed on wooden stakes at the edge of an apple block. Sticky panels were placed about 4 ft off the ground using binder clips to fix them to the stakes.

A Trece Phercon dual lure was affixed at the top of the sticky panel and changed out the sticky panel every two weeks and the lure every month.

The total trap counts were a combination of adults and nymphs.

BMSB Trap on the edge of an apple block

52 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS Emergence was somewhat varied. Several other stink bug species were present on the trap at various times throughout the trapping, although their counts are not included in the brown marmorated stink bug trap counts.

BMSB Trap showing catch

RESULTS

SUMMARY •

Indicating when the stink bugs were moving out of woodlots and into the orchard gave the grower the opportunity to make management applications

•

Adults and nymphs are attracted to the traps

•

Pressure was on-going into the fall while some varieties of apples were still on the tree

•

This site has had a history of stink bug damaged fruit so this pressure appears to be normal, although slightly lower than in previous years.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Frank Becker OSU Extension Educator, Wayne County becker.587@osu.edu

BMSB feeding damage as seen in cut apple.

This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 53

Long-cane Raspberry Production OBJECTIVE Maximizing yield and profitability through predictable harvests, season extension with high tunnels, reduced labor and input costs, and high-quality berry production using the long-cane raspberry system

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU South Centers OSU Research & Extension Pike County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Potting Date 04/02/2025 Placement Date 04/10/2025 in umbrellas Harvest dates 06/23 - 08/01/2025 Variety Glen Ample Tulameen Management Conventional System Protected culture in an annual system Study type Demonstration Treatments Primocane pruning, cultivars and location Replications 10 Size of trial 2200 ft²

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

6.59

6.09

3.64

6.55

0.13

3.60

26.6

Cumulative GDDs

283

638

1317

2130

2794

3274

3274

STUDY DESIGN The experiment was arranged as a randomized complete block design with tunnel location, cultivar, and primocane-pruning method as factors.

Two high tunnels (also referred to as umbrellas) were used, one located on the east side and the other on the west side. Two raspberry cultivars were evaluated: ‘Tulameen’ and ‘Glen Ample.’

Long cane raspberry trial at OSU South Centers in Piketon, Ohio, highlighting fertilizer injection system.

54 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Two pruning treatments were applied: complete removal of all primocanes to allow only annual fruit production, and retention of two primocanes to develop into floricanes for fruiting in the following year.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS Raspberry plants benefited significantly from cooler temperatures between April to June when they were initially placed in an unheated barn and then moved into high tunnels (umbrellas) in April, compared with plants placed directly into high tunnels in May. The cultivar Tulameen was more productive than Glen Ample. Overall, both cultivars produced higher yields when all primocanes were removed. Additionally, plants grown in the east-side high tunnel had higher yields than those grown in the west-side tunnel.

RESULTS

Long cane raspberry trial plots on June 12 at OSU South Centers in Piketon, Ohio.

SUMMARY •

Tulameen produced the highest overall yields and is the recommended cultivar for long-cane raspberry production in Ohio.

•

Removing all primocanes was beneficial, as it reduced competition and increased yields.

•

Tulameen grown in the east-side tunnel with all primocanes removed was the highest-performing and only profitable treatment.

•

Yield reductions were primarily attributed to two-spotted spider mite infestations, shading, and emitter clogging.

PROJECT CONTACT This project was financed through a grant from the Ohio Department of Agriculture, the State of Ohio, and the United States Department of Agriculture under the provisions of the Specialty Crop Block Grant. This project, “Expanding raspberry production options for acreage expansion, longterm sustainability, risk mitigation, and season extension,” was supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service through grant 23SCBPOHI204. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the USDA.

For inquiries about this project, contact Dr. Gary Gao Professor, OSU Extension gao.2@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 55

Shortening Blueberry Establishment Time with the “Pots in Raised Beds with Drip Irrigation Production Method” OBJECTIVE Optimizing the establishment phase of blueberries by providing them with a more controlled and efficient growing environment through the use of potted plants sunk in raised beds and fertigation (fertilization through drip irrigation) to improve root development, growth, and fertilizer and water management, leading to healthier plants and faster establishment.

OSU South Centers OSU Research & Extension Pike County

WEATHER INFORMATION

STUDY INFORMATION Planting Date 06/18/2025 Harvest Date 07/25/2025 Variety Legacy Management Blueberry bushes in amended soil or substrate of 75% peat moss and 25% coco coir in 10-gallon pots sunk into raised beds and fertigated System Conventional Study type Replicated field study Treatments 4 Plant sizes, potting media and fertigation regimes

Growing Season Weather Summary

Replications 5

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

6.59

6.09

3.64

6.55

0.13

3.60

26.6

Cumulative GDDs

283

638

1317

2130

2794

3274

3274

STUDY DESIGN

Blueberry bushes in 10-gallon containers sunk in the raised beds with a blueberry in 10-gallon containers placed above ground for illustration.

56 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Plant Sizes and Media Types: 1.One-gallon ‘Legacy’ bushes were repotted into 10-gallon containers with amended soil 2.One-gallon ‘Legacy’ bushes were repotted into 10-gallon containers containing a 75% peat moss / 25% coco coir mix.

3.Two-gallon ‘Legacy’ bushes were repotted into 10-gallon containers with a 75% peat moss / 25% coco coir substrate 4.Three-gallon ‘Legacy’ bushes were repotted into 10-gallon containers with a 75% peat moss / 25% coco coir substrate Fertility Regimes: A. Fertigated with Jack’s Classic Acid Special 17-6-6 at 100 ppm (8 oz/gal) plus sulfuric acid.

B. Fertigated with Jack’s Professional Acid Special 21-7-7 at 100 ppm (6.75 oz/gal) plus sulfuric acid.

Randomized complete block of eight treatment combinations of four plant Sizes and soil media types and two fertility regimes (1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A and 4B).

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS Blueberry bushes that originated from one-gallon containers and were grown in amended soil performed poorly overall, regardless of whether they were fertigated with Jack’s Classic Acid Special or Jack’s Professional Acid Special. In contrast, bushes started in 1-, 2-, or 3-gallon containers containing a 75% peat moss and 25% coco coir mix performed well and produced numerous new shoots when fertigated with either fertilizer. Jack’s Classic Acid Special yielded better results for bushes originally grown in 1- or 2-gallon containers, while Jack’s Professional Acid Special performed better for those from 3-gallon containers. Overall, both fertilizers were shown to be effective.

RESULTS

*Please note that total fruit weight, berry number, and average berry weight were affected by the number of flower buds that were on the bushes before treatments were imposed.

*Please note that shoot diameters were not measured but could have made a difference in terms of total vegetative growth.

SUMMARY •

It is not recommended to fill the 10-gallon pots with amended soil. A mix of 75% peat moss and 25% coco coir performed well in our trial and is the recommended substrate. Plants in 2- or 3-gallon containers should be selected over those in 1-gallon containers, as they typically have larger root systems and exhibit stronger growth. Although they cost more, the investment may be justified in the long run. The “Pots in Raised Beds with Drip Irrigation Production Method” (PRBDIPM) showed strong potential in our 2025 trial. However, because this was only a one-year study, additional data will need to be collected in the coming years to confirm these results.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Gary Gao Professor, OSU Extension gao.2@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 57

Pie Pumpkin and Cabbage Production with Crimped Winter Rye Cover Crop OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farm

Determine crop choice between pumpkins and cabbages for fall production using crimped winter ryecovered beds, based on yield.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Franklin County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 07/18/2025 Harvest Date(s) 09/19/2025 – 10/17/2025 Variety Cabbage: ‘Conqueror’ Pumpkin: ‘Cinnamon Girl’ Management Organic fungicides, biological controls, insect netting, and electric fence System Open field, raised beds Study type Complete randomized design experiment Treatments 2 Replications 9 (each raised bed) Size of trial 1,554 ft²

STUDY DESIGN Preparing the crimped winter rye-covered beds: In fall of 2024, the experiment plot was covered with 1-2 layers of thick cardboard, followed by 2-4” mulch and then 2-4” compost. After that, the area was seeded with winter rye and covered with straw. In May 2025, the rye at pollen shedding stage was crimped down by walking and stepping on a flat wooden board. The area was then covered with a tarp until planting.

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEPT

OCT

Total

Precip (in.)

4.55

4.20

3.01

5.85

0.95

1.38

0.73

19.9

Cumulative GDDs

269

629

1356

2213

2896

3477

3777

3777

Planting materials: Cabbages seeds were sown in a peat-based substrate and grown for six weeks before being transplanted into the raised beds (running north-south) with 14” spacing in two rows 18” apart for a total of 30 plants per bed. Pumpkin seeds were directly sown into the raised beds with 26” spacing in one row for a total of 8 plants per bed.

Growing conditions: Drip irrigation was provided to each raise bed with well water using 6” emitter spacing at 0.33 gallons per hour for 6 minutes at 7:50 a.m. and 2:50 p.m. daily from transplanting to harvest.

58 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Cabbage (under cow cover) and pumpkin plants growing in the experimental plot in 2025

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS For fall production using raised beds covered with crimped winter rye, pie pumpkin has been shown to be a better crop choice based on gross yield. It produced higher yield, more counts, and larger size fruit/produce compared to the cabbage in the 2025 season. However, it was possible that shading from the spreading pumpkin plants may have affected cabbage growth, as the inner rows of cabbage were observed to not grow as well compared with the outer rows.

RESULTS Total yield/ bed (lb)

Count/bed

Average fruit size (lb)

Cabbage

33.26 b

18 b

2.03 B

Pumpkin

80.32 a

25 a

3.19 A

Treatment

Treatments with the same letters are not significantly different according to Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)-protected Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) at P ≤ 0.05.

Harvest of cabbages

SUMMARY

Harvest of pumpkins

•

Higher yield: Pumpkin produced significantly greater total yield per bed (80.32 lb) than cabbage (33.26 lb).

•

More fruits: Pumpkin had a higher count (25 fruits) compared to cabbage (18 heads) in each raised bed.

•

Overall performance: Across all yield components, pumpkin outperformed cabbage, making it the more productive crop choice for fall production using crimped winter rye-covered beds.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE

Cover crops can include a wide range of plants grown to protect soil from erosion, suppress weeds, reduce soil compaction/ increase infiltration, provide habitat for pollinators and other beneficial organisms and can be incorperated to enrich fertility and tilth of soil.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Dr. Yiyun Lin, Urban Agriculture Specialist and Assistant Professor, OSU Extension lin.2266@osu.edu Dr. Logan Minter, Field Specialist and Associate Professor, OSU Extension minter.21@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 59

Mulch Variety Trial on Onions OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farm

Examine the impact of mulch variety (wheat straw, leaf litter, and sheep wool) on onion size, weight, and weed control.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Shelby County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 03/12/2025 Harvest Date(s) 07/04/2025 - 07/19/2025 Variety Onions, Alisa Craig Management Low intensity; irrigated System Open field Study type Demonstration Treatments 3 Replications 2 Size of trial 1008 ft²

STUDY DESIGN Each plot was planted in a checkerboard pattern, 6 onions wide and nine onions long, for a total of 54 onions per plot. Each onion was spaced 6 inches apart, and each bed had 54 onions in it, and beds were adjacent to one another.

The onions were planted in the same soil conditions and given equal amounts of fertilizer throughout the growing season. The onion crop was irrigated 6 times throughout the growing season with well water, each plot receiving equal amounts of water. All mulch was applied on 05/01/2025.

60 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Growing Season Weather Summary MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

Total

Precip (in.)

2.45

4.64

3.86

3.01

2.35

16.31

Cumulative GDDs

147

370

688

1365

2152

2152

OBSERVATIONS The wool mulch did not decompose like the straw and leaf litter did. The straw produced many more weeds due to the wheat seeds. Wool and leaves repressed weeds well. The average weights of the plots were not statistically different.

However, the lightest plot was the wool, and it also had the highest percentage of unusable onions. Unusable onions were defined as onions that were too small to sell or those that were rotten. The plots mulched with leaf litter had the lowest rate of unusable onions as well as the highest rate of large onions.

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Fruit

Aquatic

RESULTS Yield Units

Straw mulch

Leaf litter

Wool mulch

Unusable

2.5%

1.75%

15.4%

Small

12.5%

12.75%

6.35%

Medium

47.5%

37%

34.5%

Large

35.5%

48.5%

39.5%

Average Weight per plot:

74.1 lbs.

72.5 lbs.

70.6 lbs.

SUMMARY •

Wool and leaves had best weed suppression, but wool had the most unusable onions (15.4%)

•

All plots amounted to similar total plot weights (70.6 – 74.1 lbs).

•

Leaves had the least unusable onions and the highest percentage of large onions (1.75% and 48.5% respectively.

•

Straw had the highest number of weeds; most were wheat seedlings

•

Wool did not decompose and had to be manually removed.

•

Grower noted a preference for leaf litter, as they received it free from the a local municipality, it decomposes within a year, and has high weed suppressant properties.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Rylee Kay Puthoff OSU Extension Educator, Shelby County puthoff.84@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 61

Northern Ohio Sh2 Sweet Corn Variety Trial OBJECTIVE

NC Ag Research Station

Evaluate new and current SH2 sweet corn varieties to help determine the acceptability of each variety both to the grower and the consumer.

OSU Extension Sandusky County

WEATHER INFORMATION STUDY INFORMATION Planting Date 05/27/2025 Harvest Date(s) Early August 2025 Varieties 27 Management Conventional System Commercial producion practices Study type Variety evaluation, Randomized block Treatments Multiple harvests; variety Replications 4 Size of trial 2.5 acres Soil Type Rimer loamy fine sand

STUDY DESIGN

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

3.45

3.63

3.24

6.25

1.12

1.70

19.4

Cumulative GDDs

207

503

1172

1946

2553

3014

3014

Growers and seed companies suggested varieties to be grown, with a strong preference for inclusion given to new and experimental varieties, for comparison alongside industry standard varieties. The evaluation used four replicated plots, grown under best management practices, to give growers a fair comparison of the different varieties grown on lakebed soils, within a normal Northern Ohio growing season. Plots were planted in 30-inch rows, 30 feet in length. Each variety is planted in a 4-row block, replicated 4 times, using randomized variety location within each replication. The center 2 rows of each plot were harvested for data collection. After germination and stand counts, rows were trimmed to 25 feet.

Plots were thinned to a final stand of 22,500.

Best management practices were utilized prior to and during the trial. On April 23, 2025, the site was disk chiseled using a JD6155M and a Brillion 7 conservation tillage tool. On May 17, 2025, the test area was tilled using a JD 6155M, Landall finisholl and a finish packer. Fertilizer consisting of 400 lbs. 0-0-60, 150 lbs. 11-52-0, 150 lbs. 21-0-0-24 (sulfur/ AMS), 175 lbs. 46-0-0, and 10 lbs. of Boron was spread on May 12 and incorporated lightly. Used 7210 and cart from Andersons cart set for double spread. The plot was planted using a JD 7000 Planter equipped with Almaco cone units on May 27.

Herbicide consisting of 20 oz/acre Dual Magnum, 32oz. AG Saver Glyphosate, 11.2oz, Induce NIS, 11.2 oz. Request and 5.75 oz Justified per acre was applied the same day.. The plots were thinned to a 9” in row spacing on June 20 and 23 The plot was side dressed on 6/12/2025 with 35 gal/acre, 28% UAN and 1 gallon/acre Ultramate LQ 12%. Electric fence was installed around the entire trial in late July to protect against wildlife damage. No fungicide applications were made, but commercial insecticides were used in accordance with label directions.

62 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

Sweet corn plants were evaluated at harvest for the following characteristics, which are summarized in the tables: ease of harvesting ear (snap rating), ear height, stand population, harvested dozens per acres, and marketable dozens per acre.

Immediately following harvest, 5 random marketable ears per variety were evaluated for flags, husk cover, tip fill, number of kernel rows/ear, kernel color, ear length, ear diameter, tenderness, sweetness, and overall flavor.

In determining the ear evaluation scores, a team of 5 individuals, including the principal investigator and 2 members of the research station staff and two student employees each made their individual rankings on the 5 ears for each characteristic, and the final reported value was the combined average individual scores. This process held true for the tenderness, sweetness, and overall flavor scores as well, determined by raw taste testing of the 5 aforementioned individuals.

OBSERVATIONS •

Wet weather delayed planting from mid-May which would be optimal to late May. Abnormal rainfall (over 12 inches) was recorded at the station in June and July. In spite of adverse weather conditions, quality and yield were acceptable for a meaningful and fair evaluation.

•

Smut was a moderate concern this year with nearly half of the varieties displaying a noticeable amount. Smutty ears are reflected in the harvest data as ‘nonmarketable’.

RESULTS

Full Report, including yield and performance data can be found here:

go.osu.edu/25sweetcorn

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Mike Gastier OSU Extension Educator Huron County gastier.3@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 63

Northern Ohio Processing Cabbage Variety Trial OBJECTIVE Evaluate cabbage varieties to predict their suitability for the production of sauerkraut or other cabbage products and their ability to producer large yields of high quality cabbage from a growers perspective.

NC Ag Research Station OSU Extension Sandusky County

WEATHER INFORMATION

STUDY INFORMATION Planting Date 05/27/2025 Harvest Date(s) 08/22-11/21/2025 Varieties 18 Management Conventional System Commercial kraut production practices Study type Variety evaluation, Randomized block Replications 4 Size of trial 1 acre

Growing Season Weather Summary

STUDY DESIGN

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

3.45

3.63

3.24

6.25

1.12

1.70

19.4

Cumulative GDDs

207

503

1172

1946

2553

3014

3014

The trial was to examine general characteristics of the cabbage, including observed maturity, tonnage harvested, internal color of heads, Brix levels, thrips severity, and disease activity at 3 different harvest dates. This trial was intended as an evaluation to establish a baseline for the varieties grown.

Plots were planted in 30” rows and were not on raised beds.

Harvest was judged by cutting heads and examining how many green leaves were on the head. Less than six green leaves indicated timing for the variety to be harvested. Second and third harvests were then approximately seven days and fourteen days later. This section also shows yield data. Charts show total yield, useable yield and may indicate the reason for the cull loss.

The Head Evaluation section gives all the data about each variety. The data is an average of two heads that were evaluated at each harvest. All three harvests are shown, and an average of all harvests is highlighted at the bottom of each variety. Included in this evaluation is the Onion Thrips Severity Rating. This rating examines both the severity of thrip damage and the leaf depth at which it was found. This rating study was developed by Christine Anne Hoepting of Cornell University Extension and there is copy of the chart at the end of the report.

64 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS AND SUMMARY •

Ideal transplant timing would be approximately May 1. The planting date of May 27 illustrates that May was quite wet and delayed transplanting.

However, once the cabbage was transplanted, initial growth was outstanding. This continued through early August when drought conditions took hold. Many (but not all) of the cabbage varieties suffered from the drought. The drought conditions lessened late in the fall which helped some of the latest maturing varieties.

•

Thrip pressure was light this season.

RESULTS Full Report, including yield and performance data can be found here:

go.osu.edu/25cabbage

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Mike Gastier OSU Extension Educator Huron County gastier.3@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 65

Northern Ohio Bell Pepper Variety Trial OBJECTIVE Evaluate new and existing varieties of Bell Peppers based on their marketability, maturity and predicted customer acceptance for fresh market, shipping and processing.

NC Ag Research Station OSU Extension Sandusky County

WEATHER INFORMATION

STUDY INFORMATION Greenhouse 04/09/2025 Seeding Date Transplant Date 06/12/2025 Harvest Date(s) 08/14/2025, 09/02/2025 09/30/2025, 10/20/2025 Variety 10 Management Conventional System Commercial Study type Variety Evaluation; Randomized Block Treatments 10 Replications 4

Growing Season Weather Summary

Size of trial 1 acre Soil Type Kibbie Fine Sandy Loam

STUDY DESIGN

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

4.54

4.46

3.76

4.18

0.46

2.26

19.7

Cumulative GDDs

213

514

1177

1947

2528

3008

3008

The trial examined multiple varieties of Bell peppers. Growers and Seed Companies suggested varieties to be grown, with a strong preference for inclusion given to new and experimental varieties, for comparison alongside industry standard varieties. The evaluation used four replicated plots, grown under best management practices, to give growers a fair comparison of the different varieties grown on lakebed soils, within a normal Northern Ohio pepper growing season.

Plots consisted of 25-foot rows, replicated 4 times, on 5-foot raised beds, with randomized variety location within each replication block. Plots were simulated for a population of 8,712 plants per acre. This was a blind trial and variety locations were unknown to the researchers. For data collection, 7 plants at the center of each row were harvested.

The trial was conducted on Coalwood Fine Sandy Loam soil at the North Central Agricultural Research Station in Fremont, Ohio. Best management practices were utilized prior to and during the trial. Peppers were seeded in the greenhouse on April 9, 2025. On June 12, 2025, plants were transplanted with 12-inch plant spacing and 5-foot row spacing, with 0.7 quarts of 10-34-0 per 50 gallons of transplant water. Insecticide and fungicide applications were made throughout the trial. There was a total of 15 fertilizer applications before transplant. After transplant, there was a total of 11 insecticide and fungicide treatments at approximately 10-day intervals from June 24 through September 19. Complete list of management practices, and dates of activity in the trial are shown below in the log of operations.

For data collection, 7 plants at the center of each row were harvested, with 4 harvests conducted. Timing of harvest was subjectively determined by the researchers based on plant health, weather conditions, and maturity of the crop. Peppers were evaluated at each harvest for yield including quantity and size of fruit, in both marketable and non-marketable categories. Bell peppers were sorted on industry standards for size, with Jumbo fruit being 3.5 inches in diameter or greater, Extra-large fruit being 3.0-3.5 inches, and large fruit being less than 3.0 inches in diameter.

66 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS AND SUMMARY •

Aphids were a moderate concern this year with several varieties showing signs of damage. Damaged ears are marked as unmarketable.

RESULTS Full Report, including yield and performance data can be found here:

go.osu.edu/25peppers

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Pressley Buurma OSU Extension Educator, Seneca County buurma.20@osu.edu Allen Gahler OSU Extension Educator, Sandusky County gahler.2@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 67

Multi-location Evaluation of Tar Spot Development and Yield Impacts on Late-Planted Sweet Corn OBJECTIVE

OARDC Research Stations

Quantify tar spot development and its yield effect on late planted sweet corn, and evaluate differences in disease response and yield performance among six commercial hybrids representing both shipping and fresh market types.

OSU Extension Clark, Huron, Pike Counties

STUDY INFORMATION Planting Date(s) 07/07/2025 Clark, Huron 07/14/2025 Pike Harvest Date(s) 09/18/2025 Clark 10/2/2025 Huron 09/25/2025 Pike Varieties Primus, Octane, Accentuate, Cosmic, 7143, and SV1580SC. Management Conventional Study Type Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) Treatments 6: hybirds 2: fungicides & control, (Clark only) Replications 4 replications per site Size of trial ~0.3 acre pre trial

STUDY DESIGN Field trials at three OSU research stations evaluated tar spot and yield in six sweet corn hybrids. Each plots had four, 30-inch rows (population 24,000 plants per acre) and were assessed weekly (from V12-V15 through harvest) for tar spot.

The Clark County site included fungicide programs of Xyway (FMC) applied at V2 via sidedress at 15.2 oz/A, applied on 15 July, using 20 GPA, or Veltyma (BASF) applied as a foliar spray at VT (80 to 100 percent tassel) at 7.5 oz/A, applied on 25 August, using 15 GPA, 35 psi, 4 mph, 8002 VS nozzle. Huron County and Pike County relied on natural inoculum alone.

Tar spot severity was assessed visually by estimating tar spot stroma density on the ear leaf. All marketable ears within a 5-foot section of either center row were hand-picked, counted, and weighed using a calibrated field scale.

68 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Sweet corn hybrid trial at the Muck Crops Agricultural Research Station (Huron County, OH) in 2025. Plots were arranged in a randomized complete block design on organic muck soil.

Each block consists of four rows per hybrid, with rows 2 and 3 designated for disease assessment and harvest.

OBSERVATIONS Across three Ohio locations in 2025, tar spot severity was negligible at Huron and Pike Counties (Area Under the Disease Progress Curve AUDPC = 0) and mild at Clark County (AUDPC 8.1–9.8), with no significant differences among cultivars. Ear count and yield were not significantly different at Huron and Pike, but Clark County showed significant yield variation (P < 0.05). Cosmic had the highest yield (5.3 lb.), while Accentuate and SV1580SC (4.2-4-3 lb., respectively). Other cultivars fell between 4.2–4.9 lb., with overlapping statistical groups.

Overall, hybrid choice had little impact under low disease pressure, but Cosmic demonstrated better yield resilience under mild tar spot conditions. At Clark County, the fungicide treatment did not have a significant impact on ear count and weight under trial conditions.

Tar stop incidence as observed at Western Agricultural Research Station, Clark County, OH 2025.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

RESULTS

Boxplots show ear weight (lb per ear) for fungicide treatments across six sweet corn cultivars at Western Agricultural Research Station, Clark County, OH 2025. Points represent individual replicates, with size indicating ear count.

SUMMARY •

Tar spot severity was negligible at Huron and Pike Counties and mild at Clark County. Yield differences were significant only at Clark, where Cosmic outperformed other hybrids. Fungicide treatment did not influence ear weight and count at Clark County.

This project was supported in part by donations from Rupp Seed Company, BASF, FMC, Buurma Farms and Wiers Farms.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Dr. Andres Sanabria-Velazquez State Specialist and Assistant Professor OSU Plant Pathology sanabria-velazquez.1@osu.edu

Dr. Logan Minter Field Specialist and Associate Professor OSU Extension minter.21@osu.edu

Jim Jasinski Professor OSU Extension jasinski.4@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 69

Updates for Squash Bug Management OBJECTIVE

NC Ag Research Station

Evaluate how different insecticide products and application frequencies/ thresholds impact marketable yield in squash.

STUDY INFORMATION

OARDC Sandusky County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 06/13/2025 Harvest Date 10/08/2025 Cultivar ‘Betternut 401’ Management Insecticide; Fungicide Study type Replicated experiment Treatments 8 + Untreated Control Replications 5 Size of trial 4500 ft²

STUDY DESIGN Two products (Warrior and Assail) were evaluated in combination with four application frequencies: weekly, threshold 1 (1 adult squash bug per plant), threshold 2 (1 adult or nymph squash bug per plant), and threshold 3 (1 adult, nymph, or squash bug egg mass per plant).

Using a randomized complete block design, each treatment was randomly assigned to a plot within each of the five replications, with an untreated control included in every replication.

Threshold-based applications were determined through weekly scouting beginning in early July.

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEPT

Total

Precip (in.)

3.45

3.63

3.24

6.25

1.12

1.70

19.4

Cumulative GDDs

207

503

1172

1946

2553

3014

3014

For yield assessment, all squash within a 10 square-foot quadrat per plot were harvested, weighed, and graded according to USDA standards.

This work is supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Program, project award no. 2023-67013-39914, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

70 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Squash bug nymphs aggregating on a squash plant.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS Squash bugs are the known vector of the bacteria that cause Cucurbit Yellow Vine Disease (CYVD). Following harvest, plant samples were collected and analyzed for disease. Although no plants tested positive for CYVD this year, 6 of 45 plots tested positive for bacterial wilt, which is vectored by another key pest in this system, cucumber beetles. These results highlight the importance of monitoring and managing all pests in a system, rather than focusing on just one.

SUMMARY •

Product: No product was significantly different regarding marketable yield. However, both products, Warrior and Assail, had marginal significance in comparison to the control (p = 0.07 and 0.06, respectively).

•

Application Frequency: No application frequency was significantly different regarding marketable yield. Thresholds 2 and 3, which account for multiple life stages of squash bugs, produced similar yields to weekly applications.

RESULTS

No product means were significantly different according to Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test at α = 0.05.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Discolored phloem, seen in crown of squash plant, is a common indicator of Cucubit Yellow Vine Decline (CYVD).

CYVD is a relatively new plant disease, but it has spread across the region.

Symptoms to monitor for include yellowing leaves, phloem discoloration, and sudden plant collapse.

No application frequency means were significantly different according to Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test at α = 0.05.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Breh Ruger Graduate Student, OSU Entomology ruger.5@osu.edu Dr. Ashley Leach State Specialist and Assistant Professor OSU Entomology leach.379@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 71

Cover Crops and Compost in High and Low Tunnels: Weed Control and Biomass OBJECTIVE

Waterman ANR Laboratory

Investigate cover crop, green mulch, and compost impacts on cover crop biomass and weed control in vegetable rotation in high and low tunnels.

OSU Student Farm Franklin County

STUDY INFORMATION Planting Date 06/17/2024 melon 05/15/2025 melon 09/17/2024 kale 09/18/2025 kale 06/18/2024 cover/mulch 06/17/25 cover/ mulch Harvest Date 07/21-08/25/2025 melon 12/9/2024 kale 12/8/2025 kale Termination Date 09/10/2024; 09/02/2025 cover crop/ green mulch Melon Cultivar ‘D’Artagnan Charentais Kale Cultivar Winterbor Management Reduced tillage, IPM Study type Split-plot randomized complete block design Treatments 12 Replications 4 Size of trial 1440 ft²

STUDY DESIGN A two-year field trial integrated summer cover crops into cool-season (kale) and warm-season (melon) rotations in high and low tunnels. Three cover crop treatments (cowpeas, buckwheat, mix), two growing methods (cover crops/green mulch), and two compost treatments (compost/none) were tested in a randomized split-plot design with four replications. Summer cover crops were grown in half of high tunnel and low tunnel beds and melons were grown in the other half; green mulch was grown in an adjacent open-field plot. Fall kale was transplanted into terminated cover crop or green mulch residue.

While this is part of a larger trial evaluating several crop and soil parameters, this report focuses on treatment effects on cover crop biomass and weed suppression.

72 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

High tunnel (A) summer season with trellised melon and cover crop, and (B) fall season with kale and cover crop/green mulch residue.

Low tunnel (C) summer with terminated cover crop/green mulch residue and (D) fall season with covered kale and residue.

OBSERVATIONS Cover crop biomass was measured at termination in Sept 2024/2025 to compare dry biomass across green mulch and high/low tunnel systems by species. Aboveground cover crop biomass samples were collected using 1 ft² PVC quadrant in each plot in high and low tunnels and dried at 65 °C for 7-10 days.

Aboveground weed biomass was determined at five sampling timings (July-September during warm season and Nov-December during cool season crop rotation) collected from each 2.5x6’ (low tunnels) and 2.5x5’ (high tunnel) plot and dried at 65 °C for 7-10 days.

Effect of cover crop and green mulch on weed biomass production in high tunnel (HT) and low tunnel (LT) during the 2024 growing season, July to December. Lower weed biomass values indicate better weed control.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

RESULTS

Effect of cover crop species and environment (HT – high tunnel, LT – low tunnel, and OF – open field) on biomass production in 2024 and 2025 growing season.

SUMMARY Cover Crop Biomass • • •

Averaged across the three cover crop species, 2024 season cover crop biomass in high and low tunnels was 998.59 and 1,065.12 g/m², respectively. These values were significantly higher than open field average biomass (812.43 g/m²), indicating tunnel microclimate effects as dominant driver.

Average 2025 high and low tunnel biomass was 1,058.48 and 1,360.90 g/m², respectively, significantly lower than open-field biomass (1,446.20 g/m²) In both years, compost application had no significant effect on cover crop biomass.

Weed Biomass • • • •

Average 2024 season high tunnel weed biomass for cover crop and green mulch was 8.46 and 35.51 g/m², respectively.

In 2024 low tunnels, average weed biomass for cover crop and green mulch was 35.19 and 136.61 g/m², respectively.

Strong weed suppression by cover crops compared to green mulch, especially in low tunnel environment.

In 2024, there was no significant effect of compost application on weed biomass.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE High and low tunnels extend the growing season and protect crops in extreme weather. Sizes, materials, and level of automation can be quite variable.

Research support provided by state and federal funds appropriated to The Ohio State University, College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center as well as the OSU Sustainability Institut , and OSU CFAES 2024 Graduate Access Fellowship

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Amy Hurst, Master’s Student OSU Horticulture and Crop Science hurst.354@osu.edu Dr. Fernanda Krupek Assistant Professor & State Specialist Urban Food Systems OSU Horticulture and Crop Science krupek.1@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 73

Irrigation Strategies of Tomato Under Drip Systems in High Tunnel OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farms

Quantify crop growth, yield response, and water-use efficiency (WUE) of Marbonne tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) grown under different irrigation strategies.

OSU Extension Richland County

STUDY INFORMATION Transplant Date 04/23/2025 Harvest Dates 07/07/2025 – 08/25/2025 Cultivar ‘Marbonne Tomato Management Organic Study type Randomized Complete Block Design Treatments 2 Replications 4 Size of trial ~130 ft²

STUDY DESIGN High tunnel structures - curved metal frames covered with polyethylene plastic - modify the environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, relative humidity, air movement/exchange) in which plants are grown.

Environmental conditions can change rapidly inside a high tunnel depending on weather conditions and ventilation status, affecting soil-plant-water relationships. Just as the environmental conditions, especially air temperature, can be carefully monitored inside high tunnels, so too, soil moisture content can be tracked to maintain optimum plant growth conditions.

This project was conducted in a high tunnel at Urban Farm in Mansfield, Ohio, during summer of 2025. A randomized complete block design with four replications compared two irrigation strategies: farmer-based (business-as-usual, or the standard irrigation routines based on farmer’s specific decision-making process) versus sensor-based (maintenance of soil moisture between field capacity and the point of allowable depletion based on readings from calibrated soil moisture sensors installed at 6” soil depth).

74 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

On-farm treatment plots with farmer-based irrigation versus sensorbased irrigation. Farmer-based irrigation refers to the business-asusual, or the standard irrigation routines based on farmer’s specific decision-making process. Sensor-based irrigation refers to the maintenance of soil moisture between field capacity and the point of allowable depletion based on readings from calibrated soil moisture sensors installed at 6” soil depth.

DATA OBSERVATIONS •

Harvest data: Weekly harvest weight (total and marketable yield).

•

Soil-moisture monitoring: SpecConnect System (6/14 – 9/22 2025) at 6” depth.

•

Total irrigation water usage: flow meters (C700 Assured Automation).

•

Water use efficiency: Crop yield (kg/m²)/ water use (m³).

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

RESULTS

Effect of irrigation strategies on soil volumetric water content measured at 6” soil depth throughout the growing season.

Effect of irrigation strategies on tomato marketable yield. *Plots having different superscripts differ significantly (P<0.05).

Different letters placed next to bars indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between irrigation treatments.

Field view of tomatoes on 07/25/2025. (b) Harvest process. (c) Urban Ag Field Day on 06/25/2025 to discuss project data and demonstration trial results

Supplemental Data

Summary Video

go.osu.edu/httomatoes25

go.osu.edu/htvideo25

SUMMARY •

Sensor-based irrigation increased both yields and water-use efficiency in tomato.

•

Precision irrigation technology demonstrated strong potential to optimize water management in high-tunnel vegetable production systems, enhancing sustainability for small and urban farms in Ohio.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Dr. Fernanda Krupek Assistant Professor & State Specialist Urban Food Systems OSU Horticulture and Crop Science krupek.1@osu.edu

Rommel Munoz Visiting Scholar, Urban Food Innovations Team OSU Horticulture and Crop Science munoz.230@osu.edu

Jim Jasinski Professor OSU Extension jasinski.4@osu.edu

This project was supported by USDA NIFA 2024-70006-43574 & CFAES Immediate Needs Program.

2025 ePLUS Report | 75

Irrigation Strategies of Pepper Under Drip Systems in High Tunnel OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farms

Evaluate the effect of irrigation strategies on bell pepper growth, yield, and water use efficiency (WUE) under high-tunnel production.

OSU Extension Richland County

STUDY INFORMATION Transplant Date 06/13/2025 Harvest Dates 07/07/2025-08/13/2025 Cultivar ‘Capperino’ pepper Management Organic Study type Randomized Complete Block Design Treatments 2 Replications 4 Size of trial ~130 ft²

STUDY DESIGN High tunnel water management, especially in warm-season crops (tomato, pepper, cucumber), is key to ensuring plants are not water-stressed. One approach to irrigation management in high tunnels, regarding soil moisture, is to saturate the soil around the plant’s root system to field capacity. Plants must efficiently uptake water at soil wetness between field capacity and the point of allowable depletion.

This project was conducted in a high tunnel at Urban Farm in Mansfield, Ohio, during the summer of 2025. A randomized complete block design with four replications compared two irrigation strategies: farmer-based (business-as-usual, or the standard irrigation routines based on farmer’s specific decisionmaking process) versus sensor-based (maintenance of soil moisture between field capacity and the point of allowable depletion based on readings from calibrated soil moisture sensors installed at 6” soil depth).

On-farm treatment plots with farmer-based irrigation versus sensorbased irrigation. Farmer-based irrigation refers to the business-asusual, or the standard irrigation routines based on farmer’s specific decision-making process. Sensor-based irrigation refers to the maintenance of soil moisture between field capacity and the point of allowable depletion based on readings from calibrated soil moisture sensors installed at 6” soil depth.

DATA OBSERVATIONS • • • •

76 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Harvest data: Weekly harvest weight (total and marketable yield).

Soil-moisture monitoring: SpecConnect System (6/14 – 9/22 2025) at 6” depth.

Total irrigation water usage: flow meters (C700 Assured Automation).

Water use efficiency: Crop yield (kg/m²)/ water use (m³).

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

RESULTS

Effect of irrigation strategies on soil volumetric water content measured at 6” soil depth throughout the growing season.

Field view of peppers on 07/25/2025. (b) Harvest process. (c) Urban Ag Field Day on June 25, 2025 to discuss project data and demonstration trial results

Supplemental Data

Summary Video

go.osu.edu/htpeppers25

go.osu.edu/htvideo25

Effect of irrigation strategies on bell peppers total yield. *Different letters placed next to bars indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between irrigation treatments.

SUMMARY • • •

Irrigation effect on crop growth parameters (NDVI, canopy coverage, light interception, and chlorophyll index) was measurement-date specific, with lack of consistent pattern.

Sensor-based irrigation increased both yields and water-use efficiency in bell peppers.

Precision irrigation technology demonstrated strong potential to optimize water management in high-tunnel vegetable production systems, enhancing sustainability for small and urban farms in Ohio.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Dr. Fernanda Krupek Assistant Professor & State Specialist Urban Food Systems OSU Horticulture and Crop Science krupek.1@osu.edu

Rommel Munoz Visiting Scholar, Urban Food Innovations Team OSU Horticulture and Crop Science munoz.230@osu.edu

Jim Jasinski Professor OSU Extension jasinski.4@osu.edu

This project was supported by USDA NIFA 2024-70006-43574 & CFAES Immediate Needs Program.

2025 ePLUS Report | 77

Perimeter Trap Cropping for Pumpkin OBJECTIVE Investigate potential effectiveness of using a treated trap crop to help protect pumpkin fields from insect pests.

OARDC Research Stations OSU Extension Pike, Huron, Wayne Counties

STUDY INFORMATION Planting Date 06/30-07/03/20258 Harvest Date(s) 09/10-10/06/2025 Variety Field Trip Management Preventative fungicides and herbicides; insecticides after reaching threshold System Conventional Study type Replicated experiment Treatments 2 Replications 3 Size of trial 0.5 acres

STUDY DESIGN At three OSU research stations, pairs of identical plots of pie pumpkins were planted. Each plot was comprised of eight rows (50 ft long) of pumpkin planted on raised beds with at least 400 ft between plots. Weed and disease management was provided by herbicides and fungicides; consistent within each site.

Pumpkin plot (control, without PTC) in Huron county.

One of the plots at each site was randomly selected to receive a perimeter trap crop (PTC) planting of Blue Hubbard squash which was treated with Belay insecticide as a drench, following direct seeding. Additionally, the PTC plants at all sites were treated on 08/21/2015 with Entrust insecticide mixed with Cidetrak D feeding stimulant to further extend efficacy.

Plots and PTCs were scouted weekly for striped/ spotted cucumber beetle and squash bugs.

Insecticide applications were made to plots exceeding recommended action thresholds using standard conventional practices.

All fruit were harvested and graded according to USDA standards.

78 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Pumpkin plot with PTC of Blue Hubbard in Wayne county.

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Fruit

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS Overall, pest numbers observed through scouting were lower in plots baited with PTCs, thus triggering fewer conventional insecticide sprays to the entirety of the main crop. Plant vigor of PTC plants varied between sites, likely reflecting local climate and soil type. Other closely related varieties of Cucurbita maxima may hold promise for additional yield return from the PTC.

SUMMARY •

Lower pest numbers: scouting of plots revealed lower numbers of cucumber beetles and squash bugs in PTC plots.

•

Fewer Sprays: one less application of insecticides was needed for each main plot based on scouting and thresholds in plots with PTC.

•

Dead Beetles: scouting of PTC itself revealed many dead cucumber beetles on the ground below plants, especially following treatments

•

Less Unmarketable Fruit: losses due to insect feeding and sunscald were much lower in trap crop plots at Pike and Huron sites, but were not statistically different overall.

Blue Hubbard fruit gleaned from PTC could provide additional economic return beyond serving as a pest management tactic.

RESULTS Total Number

Total Weight (lbs)

Marketable Number

Marketable Weight (lbs)

Pumpkins alone (control)

392

1,418

250

972

Pumpkins with treated perimeter of Blue Hubbard

332

1,121

382

1,028

Additional yield of Blue Hubbard

--

--

47-161

360-2,510

Treatment

Insecticide Applications Pike: 1 Wayne: 2 Huron:3 Pike: 0 Wayne:1 Huron:2 Belay, at seeding Entrust on 08/21

Treatment means with the same letter are not statistically different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha=0.05

TOOLS OF THE TRADE

Integrated Pest Management utilizes multiple tools to balance insecticide inputs with environmental protection and economic gains.

Reduced insecticides can potentially offer protection to pollinators, such as Squash bees (Eucera spp.)

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Dr. Logan Minter Field Specialist and Associate Professor OSU Extension minter.21@osu.edu Dr. Ashley Leach State Specialist and Assistant Professor OSU Entomology leach.379@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 79

Aphid Management in Ohio Leafy Greens and Cucurbits: Evaluation of Selective and Broad-Spectrum Insecticides OBJECTIVE Evaluate the performance of selective and broad-spectrum insecticides for aphid suppression in leafy greens and cucurbits, and associated impacts on natural enemy populations.

STUDY INFORMATION

Muck Crops Research Station OARDC Huron County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 09/01/2025 Harvest Date(s) n/a Variety Collards: Top Bunch Summer squash: Reward Management Conventional Study type Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD); insecticide efficacy trial Treatments 6 Replications 4 Size of trial 0.5 acres

STUDY DESIGN Field trials were conducted at the OSU Willard Muck Crops Research Station to compare five insecticides and an untreated control across collard greens and summer squash.

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEPT

Total

Precip (in.)

4.54

4.46

3.76

4.18

0.46

2.26

19.7

Cumulative GDDs

213

514

1177

1947

2528

3028

3028

Treatments were applied weekly over a fiveweek period, and aphid and natural enemy populations were monitored on central plants.

Late-season trials were completed; early-season plots were not included due to poor stands.

Selective products (Beleaf [flonicamid, 2.8 oz/ac], Fulfill [pymetrozine,2.75 oz/ac], and Exirel [cyantraniliprole, 16.4 oz/ac]) were compared with broad-spectrum chemistries (Warrior II, [λ-cyhalothrin,1.92 oz/ac and Actara [thiamethoxm, 3.0 oz/ac]), as well as untreated controls to determine effects on aphid suppression and biological control.

Example of aphid infestation on Zucchini. Note the brown mummies on the leaf.

80 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS Aphid densities and natural enemy populations were counted weekly on leaves and flowers or fruit (if present). Warrior II plots had largest aphid populations, likely due to predator suppression. Selective products, particularly Beleaf, consistently maintained lower aphid densities. Natural enemy abundance followed aphid density trends, with highest biological control activity in plots where aphid levels were also highest (e.g., Warrior II).

Trial results of insecticides to control aphid outbreaks in Collards and Zucchini. Natural enemies were often found in the trial and largely followed aphid outbreaks.

SUMMARY •

Most consistent aphid suppression across both crops was provided by Beleaf.

•

Secondary aphid outbreaks due to reduced natural enemies resulted from Warrior II.

•

Moderate efficacy observed for Fulfill, Exirel, and Actara.

•

Continued monitoring in 2026 will validate multi-year patterns.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Dr. Ashley Leach State Specialist and Assistant Professor OSU Entomology leach.379@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 81

Field Evaluation of Alternative Products for Managing Black Rot of Cabbage OBJECTIVE Evaluate the efficacy of Actigard, Romeo, and Kocide 3000 compared to an untreated control for managing black rot in cabbage under inoculated and uninoculated conditions.

NC Ag Research Station OARDC Sanducky County

WEATHER INFORMATION

STUDY INFORMATION Planting Date(s) 04/16//2025 (seeding) 06/03/2025 (transplant) Harvest Date 09/04/2025 Variety Cabbage ‘Cheers’ Management Conventional System Field production Study type Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) Treatments 4 Replications 7

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized complete block design (RCBD) with seven replications. Cabbage ‘Cheers’ seedlings were transplanted on June 3. Hot-water seed treatment equipment ensured initial pathogen reduction. Four rows were inoculated with Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris on July 7, employing a backpack sprayer. Treatments were applied weekly from July 2 to August 22, using a CO₂-pressurized tractor-mounted sprayer (55 psi, 43.6 gal/A, 3 mph) for all foliar applications. Disease incidence and severity were assessed periodically; yield and dry matter measured at harvest.

Cabbage field trial plots arranged in RCBD, marked with colored flags to indicate different treatments

82 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEPT

Total

Precip (in.)

3.45

3.63

3.24

6.25

1.12

1.70

19.4

Cumulative GDDs

207

503

1172

1946

2553

3014

3014

OBSERVATIONS

Disease pressure was higher in inoculated rows. Actigard and Romeo tended to reduce foliar disease compared to Kocide 3000, but differences were not statistically significant. Market yield and dry matter were unaffected by treatments.

Inoculating plants using a backpack sprayer equipped with a multi-nozzle boom to ensure uniform coverage

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

RESULTS

AUDPC was calculated according to the formula: Σ[(xi+xi –1)/2] × (ti – ti–1) where xi is the rating at each evaluation time and (ti – ti–1) is the time between evaluations.

X Mean area under disease progress curve (AUDPC) values were based on the percentage foliar disease.

Y Mean area under disease progress curve (AUDPC) values were based on incidence of the disease.

Z Means followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different at P<0.05 using Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test.

W

SUMMARY

•

Black rot incidence and severity were significantly higher in inoculated rows.

•

Actigard and Romeo showed numerical reductions in disease but not significant.

•

Market yield ranged from 21.08 to 26.33 t/A; dry matter consistent across treatments.

Symptoms of black rot caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris on cabbage. The first image shows early foliar infection with small dark lesions and water-soaked areas along veins, while the second image displays advanced head rot characterized by dark, decayed tissue and water-soaked regions near the base of the cabbage head.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Dr. Andres Sanabria-Velazquez State Specialist and Assistant Professor OSU Plant Pathology sanabria-velazquez.1@osu.edu

Raven Schaffter Research Assistant OSU Plant Pathology schaffter.8@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 83

Using Season-long Row Covers for Winter Squash ePLUS Collaborating Farms

OBJECTIVE Demonstrate applicability of pest management tactics of using seasonlong row covers in winter squash production.

OSU Extension Athens, Morrow, Pike, and Sandusky

STUDY INFORMATION Planting Date 06/17-07/03/2024 Harvest Date(s) 09/10/2024 – 10/2024 Varieties 8 Management Organic System Plasticulture, irrigation – drip tape, row covers Study type Randomized Complete Block Part of larger Yes replicated study?

Treatments 4 Replications 3-4 Size of trial

1 acre

STUDY DESIGN

Native cucurbit bees, Eucera pruinosa and E. strenua were captured by picking closed flowers and transferring to a plastic bug for counting and removal of errant cucumber beetles.

This study involved replicating plot treatments across four Ohio sites: OSU North Central Ag Research Station, OSU Couth Centers, and two commercial farms, located in Sandusky, Pike, Athens and Morrow counties, respectfully during the 2025 growing season.

Plots at the Sandusky, Pike, and Morrow county sites consisted of three rows of winter squash, each 50 ft long. Each site contained plots which were either covered with lightweight mesh row covers (ProtekNet) supported by 3 ft tall hoops, polypropylene fabric (Remay) row covers supported by 3 ft tall hoops, or left open as controls. Table Ace squash was used at both OSU locations. The Morrow county site utilized a mix of varieties that were distributed evenly at planting across the three treatment plots. At the Athens county site, two plots of each treatment were established, each composed of two rows of Black Futsu squash, 33 ft long. Further, the row middles were seeded with Teff grass, Eragrostis tef, as a weed suppressing cover. All open plots were sprayed with OMRI approved insecticides and fungicides following organic practices.

At flowering, native cucurbit bees, Eucera pruinosa and E. strenua, were captured from nearby cucurbit fields while resting in closed flowers and transferred to a plastic bag. Any bycatch cucumber beetles were destroyed prior to release into each covered plot beneath the row covers. Bees were stocked under each cover at a rate of ~1 bee/ 10 feet of linear row.

All fruit were harvested and graded according to USDA standards. Marketable fruit grown on commercial farms were used for fresh and seed sales.

84 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Row covers worked well to exclude pests.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS Plant growth under the row covers was observed to be quicker and more vigorous, especially in early season.

Squash bugs and cucumber beetles were often observed on the outside of the covers, unable to access the plants.

Pollination by released squash bees under the covers appeared to be very good and evidence of nesting was observed.

Powdery mildew and sunscald generally appeared to have less impact on plants under the covers.

RESULTS Treatments

Marketable #

Marketable Weight (lbs)

Open plots

16

38

Remay with hoops

13

24

ProtekNet withhoops

28

54

All yields are standardized to per 50 feet of linear row. Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.05

SUMMARY •

Row covers: generally worked well to keep pests from entering fields; Teff provided excellent weed suppression.

•

Pollination: appeared very good under covers using released squash bees.

•

Plant growth: and canopy establishment was much quicker under the row covers.

•

Similar or Better Yields: despite spraying of open plots, marketable yields were not distinguishable statistically.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact This research and outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, under agreement number 2023-38640-39573 through the North Central Region SARE program under project number ONC24-155.

Dr. Logan Minter Field Specialist and Associate Professor OSU Extension minter.21@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 85

Season-long Row Covers and Squash Varieties ePLUS Collaborating Farms

OBJECTIVE Investigate and demonstrate the applicability of management tactics of using season-long row covers in winter squash production and impacts by variety

OSU Extension Morrow County

WEATHER INFORMATION

STUDY INFORMATION Planting Date 07/15/2025 Harvest Date(s) 09-07– 10/06/2024 Varieties 4 Management Organic System Plasticulture, irrigation – drip tape, row covers Study type Single Replicate Part of larger Yes replicated study?

Treatments 3 Size of trial 3,000 sq. ft.

Soil type Canfield silt loam

STUDY DESIGN

There were 3 growing beds that received three different 50’ long treatments. One treatment was covered with high hoops and a woven mesh floating row cover, the second treatment was covered with low hoops and traditional Remay cover and the third treatment wasn’t covered. The covered rows had sand bags and old drip tape holding down the row cover.

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

3.91

4.46

1.58

3.18

1.07

1.54

15.7

Cumulative GDDs

220

527

1211

1992

2589

3069

3069

Fifty native cucurbit bees, Eucera pruinosa, were caught on 07/31/2025 in a neighboring pumpkin field and 25 were and released under each row cover treatment to pollinate the squash plants. The purpose of the row cover was to keep squash bugs and cucumber beetles away from the plants without using pesticides.

All marketable fruit were harvested for commercial sales.

86 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Eastern cucurbit bees were hand catured from nearby fields and released under the row covers. Rains impacted crop survival.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS Not all the squash ripened at once, therefore the harvest time extended over a month. The plots looked better than they did in 2024. There were less weeds, and bigger greener healthier plants. There were significant rain events in July and August that caused several of the plants to die. The squash on the plants under the heavier row cover did ripen at a noticeably advanced rate. Powdery mildew and plant decline and die off was observed in August following a heavy rain event. The Powdery mildew did persist the rest of the growing season and was worse under the heavier cloth plot.

Cucumber beetles and squash vine bores were observed under the row covers this year but the pressure was not as bad as in the control plots, and was likely related to installation timing.

Row covers restricted pest access to the crops while teff grass between rows showed excellent supression of weeds.

SUMMARY •

Row covers: lessened pressure from insect pests

•

Teff grass: planted between the rows helped to keep the weed pressure down and there was some powdery mildew on the covered plots.

•

Heavy rains in August appeared to stunt growth and kill some of the plants in the trials.

•

Of the 6 squash varieties planted (Acorn, Delicata hybrid, Butternut, Jarrahdale, Kabocha and Black Hubbard), four survived under the covers and two survived in the control plot.

RESULTS Delicata hybrid

Acorn

Open plots

21

9

0

0

Remay with hoops

22

5

6

1

ProtekNet withhoops

25

8

5

2

Treatments

Butternut Kabocha

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact T

This research and outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, under agreement number 2023-38640-39573 through the North Central Region SARE program under project number ONC24-155.

Carri Jagger Extension Educator, Morrow County jagger.6@osu.edu Dr. Logan Minter Field Specialist and Associate Professor OSU Extension

2025 ePLUS Report | 87

Season-long Row Cover Potential for Melons OSU South Centers

OBJECTIVE

OSU Extension

Investigate and demonstrate the applicability of management tactics of using season-long row covers in muskmelon production.

Pike County

WEATHER INFORMATION STUDY INFORMATION Planting Date 06/26/2025 Harvest Date(s) 08/15-09/15/2025 Variety Athena Management Conventional System Plasticulture, irrigation – drip tape, row covers Study type Randomized complete block Treatments 3 Replications 4 Size of trial 0.25 acre Soil type

Omulga Silt Loam

STUDY DESIGN

Plots consisted of three rows of muskmelon, each 50 ft long which were either covered with lightweight mesh row covers (ProtekNet) supported by 3 ft tall hoops or left open as controls with either conventional or organic insect management. The row middles of conventional pots were treated with preemergent herbicides prior to planting. Row middles of covered and organic treatment plots were seeded with Teff grass, Eragrostis tef, as a weed suppressing cover.

At flowering, 15 native cucurbit bees, Eucera pruinosa, were captured from nearby squash and pumpkin fields while resting in closed flowers and transferred to a plastic bag. Any bycatch cucumber beetles were destroyed prior to release into each covered plot beneath the row covers.

All fruit were harvested and graded according to USDA standards.

88 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

6.59

6.09

3.64

6.55

0.13

3.60

26.6

Cumulative GDDs

283

638

1317

2130

2794

3274

3274

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS

Plant growth under the row covers was observed to be quicker and more vigorous, especially in early season. Cucumber beetles were often observed on the outside of the covers, unable to access the plants. Pollination by released squash bees under the covers appeared to be very good, despite the fact that squash and pumpkin are typically their natural preference for visitation. High heat in late summer appeared to affect fruit quality plants under the covers, but pest pressure was extremely high in open plots, regardless of management.

RESULTS

Vegitative plant growth was lush and accelerated under covers.

Foraging of squash bees could be observed through the covers.

Treatments

Total #

Total Weight (lbs)

Marketable #

Marketable Weight (lbs)

ProtekNet

108 B

469 A

57 A

267 A

Organic Open

122 B

412 A

23 B

83 B

Conventional Open

159 A

555 A

24 B

105 AB

Treatment Means with the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at alpha = 0.05

To learn more, check out this video:

SUMMARY •

Row covers: worked to keep the cucumber beetles out and allow air movement.

•

Pollination: appeared very good under covers using released squash bees.

•

Plant growth and canopy establishment: was much quicker under the row covers.

•

High heat: at critical points likely compromised general flower viability and fruit quality.

Eastern cucurbit bees, Eucera pruinosa, were captured by picking closed flowers and transferring to a plastic bug for counting and removal of errant cucumber beetles.

go.osu.edu/melonbees

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Dr. Logan Minter Field Specialist and Associate Professor OSU Extension minter.21@osu.edu

This research and outreach was supported by USDA National Thom Harker Institute of Food and Agriculture, under agreement number 202338640-39573 through the North Central Region SARE program Research Associate, OSU South Centers harker.7@osu.edu under project number ONC24-155.

2025 ePLUS Report | 89

Statewide Pest Monitoring Network

Monitoring Cucurbit Downy Mildew in Sentinel Plots OBJECTIVE Establish sentinel plots across OSU research fields in Ohio for early pathogen detection and integrate field and diagnostic data into an earlywarning communication system to provide timely alerts for growers

STUDY INFORMATION Planting Date – 06/03/2025 Fremont (Sandusky co.)

Planting Date – 06/03/2025 Willard (Huron co.)

Planting Date – 06/05/2025 Wooster (Wayne co.)

Planting Date – 06/02/2025 Piketon (Pike co.)

OSU Reseach Stations OARDC/OSU Extension Statewide

OBSERVATIONS Fields were scouted weekly, and any leaves showing suspected symptoms were sent to the OSU C. Wayne Ellett Plant and Pest Diagnostic Clinic in Wooster for analysis. Positive cases of downy mildew were confirmed, and mating types (A1/A2) of the pathogen (Pseudoperonospora cubensis) were identified through PCR and sequencing.

SUMMARY •

The first downy mildew (DM) case on cucumber in Ohio was reported on July 15 in Medina County, outside the ePLUS trials.

•

Subsequently confirmed detections were made in Sandusky, Holmes, and Ashland counties by July 24.

STUDY DESIGN Sentinel plots were established at multiple Ohio locations to monitor Cucurbit Downy Mildew (CDM) on selected cultivars: cucumber (Straight Eight), butternut squash (Betternut 900), buttercup squash (Space Station), watermelon (Sangria), cantaloupe (Hale’s Best), pumpkin (Solid Gold), and basil (Martina Genovese). Guard rows used acorn squash(Taybelle).

Plots consisted of replicated layouts (25 ft rows, 2 Deployment of spore traps in sentinel plots for Cucurbit Downy ft plant spacing, 20 ft alleys). Seeds were sown in Mildew monitoring. Field teams installed and evaluated multiple 72-cell trays, transplanted into fertilized beds, and spore-trap models, including volumetric and low-cost rotating-arm managed with targeted fungicides and insecticides. designs, to develop affordable early-detection systems for airborne Weekly scouting began at transplant, focusing on pathogens. These tools support timely disease alerts. early morning inspections for symptoms. Suspect samples were photographed, recorded, and submitted to the diagnostic clinic for confirmation TOOLS OF THE TRADE and molecular analysis.

The C. Wayne Ellett Plant and Pest Diagnostic Clinic provides fee-based Spore traps were essential for early detection of Cucurbit Downy Mildew. Two types were deployed: pest and disease testing. Samples from Burkard volumetric samplers and low-cost rotating- Ohio vegetable and fruit growers in commercial production are analyzed arm traps. These devices captured airborne spores at no charge, funded by the Ohio before visual symptoms appeared, enabling rapid Vegetable and Small Fruit Research confirmation and timely alerts to growers. Their and Development Program, pending integration into sentinel plots proved critical for annual grant approval. Samples can be developing an affordable, scalable early-warning submitted digitally, by mail, or in person. ppdc.osu.edu/home system.

90 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS IN 2025 Detection of Cucurbit Downy Mildew was achieved through a combination of sentinel plot scouting and airborne spore monitoring using Burkard volumetric samplers and low-cost rotating-arm traps.

Microscopy and DNA-based assays confirmed the presence of P. cubensis spores from trap samples and symptomatic leaf tissue. Mating types typically expected were confirmed as A1 for isolates from both cucumber. Extension alerts were issued immediately after confirmation, enabling timely fungicide applications and reducing disease impact across monitored regions. Positive cases of downy mildew were promptly reported on the Cucurbit Downy Mildew Forecast Homepage (https:// cdm.ipmpipe.org) and communicated to growers through Extension educators, blog posts (OSU VegNet, OSU Bygl, and Ohio Veggie Diseases News), and social media.

A

C

B

Cucumber leaves showing early downy mildew symptoms in the field (A), close-up of leaf lower surface with characteristic fungal growth containing the sporangia (B), and microscopic view of pathogen structures including sporangia and sporangiophores (C).

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project contact Andres Sanabria-Velazquez Assistant Professor & State Specialist OSU Plant Pathology sanabria-velazquez.1@osu.edu

Catherine Mwanjisi Graduate Student OSU Plant Pathology, mwanjisi.1@buckeyemail.osu.edu

Dr. Francesca Rotondo Program Director, OSU C.W. Ellett Plant and Pest Diagnostic Clinic rotondo.11@osu.edu

This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 91

IPM Trapping Network: Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Monitoring OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farm

Monitor insect pests on Ohio farms, for enhanced pest management, specifically the Brown Marmorated Stink Bugs in tomatoes, peppers and soybeans in Morrow county.

OSU Extension Morrow County

WEATHER INFORMATION

STUDY INFORMATION Trap Set 07/25/2025

Trap Removed 10/01/2025 Primary Adjacent Tomatoes, Peppers Crop and Soybeans Adjacent Area 6.25 acres Production type Diversified Farm Management Conventional Number of sites 1 farm Number of traps 2 Traps per site

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

3.91

4.46

1.58

3.18

1.07

1.54

15.7

Cumulative GDDs

220

527

1211

1992

2589

3069

3069

STUDY DESIGN Two sticky, clear panel traps and lures were set near the area being studied, there were wild flowers, brushy shrubs and trees.

The traps were set 100 ft apart and 10 ft from the field edge. The sticky traps were changed bi-weekly and lures were changed monthly.

OBSERVATIONS

C. Welty Trap placement along field edge

92 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

There were heavy rain events in July and August totaling 7.4 inches for those months and 2.2 inches in September. Stink bug pressure on the tomatoes and peppers appeared heavier than in 2024 however the trap numbers were similar.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

SUMMARY •

Crops were sprayed with SiPhite (a natural fungicide and bactericide) twice, pyrethrum was used once to control cucumber beetles.

•

Stink bug pressure seemed to increase in the tomatoes and peppers once the soybeans were harvested.

•

Trapping was used to monitor stink bug activity on the farm but did not influence spray intervals.

•

Trapping will take place on the farm again in 2026.

Several species of stink bug can cause damage to vegetable crops, including these BMSB look-alike Brown Stink Bug.

RESULTS

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Carri Jagger Extension Educator, Morrow County jagger.6@osu.edu This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 93

IPM Trapping Network: Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Monitoring OBJECTIVE Monitor insect pests on Ohio farms, for enhanced pest management, specifically the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug, near small fruit and vegetable productions in Portage County.

STUDY INFORMATION

ePLUS Collaborating Farm OSU Extension Portage County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Trap Set 08/14/2025

Trap Removed 10/28/2025 Primary Adjacent Varied vegetable crops Crop Adjacent Area 2 acres Production type Specialty crops farm Management Organic Number of sites 1 Number of traps 1 per site

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

4.86

4.51

1.73

4.57

1.53

1.56

18.8

Cumulative GDDs

195

486

1097

1819

2368

2848

2848

STUDY DESIGN The trap was placed on the north side of the field, approximately 5 feet from the field edge. The trap was hung on the stake and was checked weekly for Brown Marmorated Stink Bugs. The same bait was used for the duration of the season.

OBSERVATIONS No noticeable changes week to week but brown stink bug counts noticeably and suddenly dropped to zero after the first week of October.

Trap placement along field edge

94 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

SUMMARY •

This was the first time monitoring for brown marmorated stink bug in Portage County at this location and the first time formally monitoring for the pest by this farmer.

•

Being an organic operation, they didn’t act on any of the updates. Most years they ignore the brown marmorated stink bugs and if it gets really bad they alternate to a different crop.

•

Anecdotally, the farmer and his crew nothed that they didn’t think the brown marmorated stink bug was any worse this year than in previous years.

Brown Marmorated Stink Bug nymph.

RESULTS

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Seth Kannberg OSU Extension Educator, Portage County kannberg.1@osu.edu This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 95

IPM Trapping Network: Squash Vine Borer Monitoring OBJECTIVE

Western Ag Research Station

Monitoring squash vine borer (SVB) activity in a mixed squash and pumpkin field throughout the growing season.

STUDY INFORMATION

OARDC Clark County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Trap Set 06/11/2025

Trap Removed 08/20/2025 Primary Adjacent Squash and Pumpkin Crop Adjacent Area 3 acres Production type Commercial/ Research Management Conventional Number of sites 1 site Number of traps 1 trap per site

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

5.00

4.45

6.62

4.54

2.27

0.64

23.5

Cumulative GDDs

246

587

1292

2089

2705

3185

3185

STUDY DESIGN This study aimed to monitor squash vine borer (SVB) activity in squash and pumpkin fields throughout the growing season.

One Heliothis trap baited with SVB pheromone lure was used for monitoring SVB moths near the edge of a research squash and pumpkin field in South Charleston, Ohio.

Data were collected weekly throughout the growing season.

Pheromone lures were replaced monthly.

SVB moth resting on leaf

96 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS SVB adults were initially caught July 7 which also corresponded to peak moth flight during the season. A few adults were trapped in late July and early August. A few SVB-damaged plants were observed at the end of the season. This was a typical pattern of SVB emergence throughout the season.

SUMMARY •

The Heliothis trap was placed at the field on time to detect early emerging adults.

•

Peak trap counts were observed in early July.

•

Fewer SVB adults were caught during the season; moth flights ended a few weeks earlier than normal

•

Little damage noticed on pumpkin or squash plants

RESULTS

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Jim Jasinski Professor, OSU Extension jasinski.4@osu.edu This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 97

IPM Trapping Network: Squash Vine Borer Monitoring OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farms

Monitor insect pests on Ohio farms for enhanced pest management, specifically the Squash Vine Borer, near cucurbit production in Columbiana county.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Columbiana County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Trap Set 06/27/2025 Trap Removed 08/30/2025 Primary Pumpkins (multiple Adjacent Crop varieties) Adjacent Area 7.96 acres Production type Commercial Management Conventional Number of sites 1 Number of traps 1 per site

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

4.61

5.30

5.22

3.21

0.71

2.46

21.5

Cumulative GDDs

216

536

1175

1928

2523

3003

3003

STUDY DESIGN The trap was staked on the north side of the field approximately 10 feet from the field edge. Weekly monitoring for squash vine borers took place from June to late August. Trap lures were changed monthly according to recommendation.

OBSERVATIONS

Adult SVB moth

98 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Throughout the observation period, this location experienced varying levels of drought, strengthening to D3 (Extreme Drought) shortly after the trap was removed. Identification of cucumber beetles tended to coincide with higher trap counts of squash vine borer, though both populations appeared to respond as intended to consistently-timed insecticide applications.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

RESULTS

SUMMARY •

2025 was the first year this site served as a squash vine borer monitoring location.

•

Trap counts were utilized in determining chemical and mechanical pest management techniques and directed timing of applications.

•

Because of adequately timed application, impact of SVB was minimal.

Wilting vines, which can be indicative of SVB damage

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Haley Shoemaker Extension Educator, Columbiana and Mahoning Counties shoemaker.306@osu.edu This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 99

IPM Trapping Network: Squash Vine Borer Monitoring OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farms

Monitor squash vine borer (SVB) activity in squash and pumpkin fields throughout the growing season in Clark county.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Greene County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Trap Set 06/11/2025

Trap Removed 09/02/2025 Primary Adjacent sunflower Crop Adjacent Area 5 acres Production type Commercial Management Conventional Number of sites 1 site Number of traps 1 trap per site

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

23.1

Cumulative GDDs

259

614

1338

2178

2836

3316

3316

STUDY DESIGN This study aimed to monitor squash vine borer (SVB) activity in squash and pumpkin fields throughout the growing season.

One Heliothis trap was used for monitoring SVB near the edge of a research squash and pumpkin field in South Charleston, Ohio.

Data were collected weekly throughout the growing season.

Pheromone lures in the traps were replaced monthly.

SVB moth resting on leaf

100 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS SVB adults were initially caught June 16, one week after placing traps in the field. Peak moth flight occurred during July 5-11 and August 16-22. Trap catches for other weeks varied between 0-7 moths / week. Traps were removed September 2. A few SVBdamaged plants were observed at the end of the season. This was a typical pattern of SVB emergence throughout the season.

SUMMARY •

The Heliothis trap was placed out in the field on time to detect early emerging adults.

•

Peak trap counts were observed in mid-July and August.

•

Only a handful of plants sustained borer damage over the growing season.

Wilting vines, which can be indicative of SVB damage

RESULTS

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Jim Jasinski Professor, OSU Extension jasinski.4@osu.edu This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 101

IPM Trapping Network: Squash Vine Borer Monitoring OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farms

Monitor squash vine borer (SVB) activity in squash and pumpkin fields throughout the growing season in Greene county.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Greene County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Trap Set 06/17/2025

Trap Removed 08/22/2025 Primary Adjacent Pumpkin Crop Adjacent Area 1 acre Production type Commercial Management Conventional Number of sites 1 Number of traps 1 per site

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

6.12

4.85

4.3

5.44

0.90

1.52

23.1

Cumulative GDDs

259

614

1338

2178

2836

3316

3316

STUDY DESIGN This study aimed to monitor squash vine borer (SVB) activity in squash and pumpkin fields throughout the growing season.

Heliothis traps were used for monitoring and were strategically placed around a commercial squash and pumpkin field in Xenia, Ohio.

Data were collected weekly throughout the growing season, and pheromone lures in the traps were replaced monthly.

102 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS

Although SVB adults were eventually detected in the vicinity of susceptible crops during the growing season, no SVB-damaged plants were observed.

SUMMARY •

The traps captured very few SVB adults throughout the growing season, with no more than three adults recorded per week.

•

Two peaks in trap counts were observed: the first in mid-June and the second mid-August. Counts remained consistently at zero for the rest of the growing season.

RESULTS

TOOLS OF THE TRADE

PROJECT CONTACT

A sharp knife can be used to expose suspected SVB larvae where piles of yellow frass are noted on stems. On a small scale, larvae can be removed in this manner with the wound being covered by soil to induce rooting.

Marina Miquilini Extension Educator, Greene County miquilini.1@osu.edu

For inquiries about this project, contact

This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 103

IPM Trapping Network: Squash Vine Borer Monitoring OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farms

Monitor insects pests on Ohio farms, for enhanced pest management, specifically the squash vine borer, near a community garden in Miami county, Ohio.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Miami County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Trap Set 07/03/2025 Trap Removed 09/10/2025 Primary squash Adjacent Crop Adjacent Area 96 sq ft Production type Community garden Management (conventional,) Number of sites 1 Number of traps 1 per site

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

23.4

Cumulative GDDs

251

613

1318

2128

2750

3230

3230

STUDY DESIGN The trap was placed at the west edge of the community garden. The Heliothis trap was hung on a stake and checked weekly for squash vine borer moths. The lure was changed monthly beginning in mid-August.

Trap placement in field; vines showing decline

104 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS

By July 22, the squash plants were not in good health. A number of insect feeding damage was observed.

SUMMARY • • •

July 22, the yellow squash vines were shriveled. No produce was harvested.

Zucchini was yellowing but survived in July but by August 13 they were dead.

Plants were removed week of August 15.

RESULTS

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Amanda Bennett Extension Educator and Assistant Professor, Miami County bennett.709@osu.edu This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 105

IPM Trapping Network: Urban Squash Vine Borer Monitoring OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farm

Monitor insect pests on Ohio farms, specifically the squash vine borer in urban gardens in Montgomery County using one trap type (Heliothis)

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Montgomery County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Trap Set 06/11/2025 Trap Removed 08/27/2025 Primary Adja- Squash cent Crop Adjacent Area 100 sq ft Production type Large community urban garden Management organic Number of sites 4 site Number of traps 1 Heliothis trap per site

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

5.22

5.81

10.6

2.59

2.51

1.93

28.7

Cumulative GDDs

276

657

1395

2254

2940

3509

3509

STUDY DESIGN The study was designed to understand the differences in numbers of Squash Vine Borer in four urban gardens across Montgomery County (45417 and 45405) using the same trapping method: Heliothis traps.

All traps were placed at similar locations at the four urban gardens approximately 5-10 feet from a 5’ x 10’ bed of squash plants in the urban gardens. All installations utilized a Shepards hook as the design base.

Heliothis trap set at urban garden.

106 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS The four sites appeared to catch moths at different rates. Garden 3 (45417) was the most sensitive catching 55 moths over the season which was fairly similar to garden number 4 (45405) which caught 51 moths through the season. Both gardens were located in differing zip codes while the other two gardens located in 45417 had 9-19 moths caught during their trapping season. Despite SVB adults being actively caught in the 4 areas of susceptible crop from JuneSeptember, no SVB damaged plants or larvae were found.

SUMMARY

•

Peak trapping occurred between the last week of June and the first week of July

•

SVB adults were trapped at all 4 sites

•

The focus of the trial was exploratory to see if the number of squash vine borers were consistent across the county at similar urban garden spaces in two zip codes: 45417 and 45405 using the Heliothis trap mechanism.

•

The 4 installed traps caught 138 squash vine borers collectively with the highest amount being week 3 at garden number 3.

Heliothis trap set at urban garden.

RESULTS

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Leeoria Willis Extension Educator, Montgomery County willis.615@osu.edu

This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

Sarah Hickey Extension Intern, Montgomery County hickey.340@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 107

IPM Trapping Network: Squash Vine Borer Monitoring OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farm

Monitor insect pests on Ohio farms, for enhanced pest management, specifically the Squash Vine Borer in Morrow county.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Morrow County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Trap Set 06/06/2025 Trap Removed 09/05/2025 Crop Monitored Pumpkins Crop Area 0.75 acres Production type Diversified Farm Management Conventional Number of sites 1 farm monitored Number of traps 1 trap per site

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

3.91

4.46

1.58

3.18

1.07

1.54

15.74

Cumulative GDDs

220

527

1211

1992

2589

3069

3069

STUDY DESIGN A Heliothis trap was placed on North side of the pumpkin patch next to the yard. The trap was checked weekly and the lurer was changed twice during the trapping season. The pumpkins were grown on bare soil with raised rows.

108 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS There were heavy rain events in July and August totaling 7.4 inches for those months and 2.2 inches in September. The pumpkins sat in water for two to three days early in the season which caused a few to die.

Spraying occurred weekly with fungicide and insecticide to control cucumber beetles, squash bugs and diseases until the vines filled the field making it unpassable with the sprayer. Weed control was carried out in the field however there were a few weed escapes in some areas of the field.

RESULTS

SUMMARY •

This was the second year for SVB trapping on this farm and SVB trapping will occur again next season.

•

When scouting each night, before the vines filled the pumpkin patch, squash vine borer pests were observed only a couple of times. Damage from SVB wasn’t noticed at all.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Carri Jagger Extension Educator, Morrow County jagger.6@osu.edu This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 109

IPM Trapping Network: Squash Vine Borer Monitoring OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farms

Monitor insects pests on Ohio farms, for enhanced pest management, specifically the squash vine borer, near on a diverse vegetable farm in Pike county, Ohio.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Pike County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Trap Set 06/09/2025 Trap Removed 10/03/2025 Primary Pumpkins; squash Adjacent Crop Adjacent Area 6 acres

Production type Commercial Management Conventional Number of sites 1 Number of traps 1 per site

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

6.59

6.09

3.64

6.55

0.13

3.60

26.6

Cumulative GDDs

283

638

1317

2130

2794

3274

3274

STUDY DESIGN On June 9, 2025, o Scentry, Heliothis trap was attached to a metal t-post and placed on the eastern side of the pumpkin field. The pheromone trap remained in one spot throughout the growing season.

Trece Pherocon CEW lures were used as bait were replaced once at the midway point of the growing season. Trap captures were monitored weekly, with the exception of the week of July 5, therefore any moths were included in the follwoing week counts.

Adult Squasdh Vine Borer resting on pumpkin leaf

110 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Fruit

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS The trend for later part of the season indicated that the squash vine borer numbers were down. However, squash vine borers were present at the start of the season. It was noticed that after harvest and after dryness of the summer host plants were not as readily available as they were at the start of season.

SUMMARY • • •

July 22, the yellow squash vines were shriveled. No produce was harvested.

Zucchini was yellowing but survived in July but by August 13 they were dead.

Plants were removed week of August 15.

RESULTS 7

Trap Set

Trap Removed

Trap Counts

6 5 4 3 2 1 0

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Amanda Perkins OSU Extension Educator, perkins715@osu.edu

This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

Logan Minter Field Specialist and Associate Professor OSU Extension minter.21@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 111

IPM Trapping Network: Squash Vine Borer Monitoring OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farm

Monitor insect pests on Ohio farms, for enhanced pest management, specifically the Squash Vine Borer, near pumpkin productions in Ross County.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Ross County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Trap Set 07/04/2025

Trap Removed 09/24/2025 Crop Monitored Pumpkins Crop Area 1 acre Production type commercial pumpkin patch Management organic Number of sites 1 monitored Number of traps 1 per site

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

6.59

6.09

3.64

6.55

0.13

3.60

26.6

Cumulative GDDs

283

638

1317

2130

2794

3274

3274

STUDY DESIGN

One Scentry heliothis trap was set for monitoring at the edge of the commercial pumpkin field. The trap was baited with a Pherocon Squash Vine Borer Lure and changed once a month. Trap was checked weekly for the SVB.

Scentry heliothis trap and Pherocon SVB lure set

112 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS Weather in this region was excessively wet in the late spring/early summer. However, this did not delay planting in mid-June. Beginning in late June, there was little to no rain until late September. The lack of rain did not seem to affect yield.

SUMMARY •

This was the first year for trap monitoring for this pest at this site. No comparison can be made to prior years.

•

The threshold was never met for this pest; therefore, no insecticide application was made.

•

The grower would like to continue to monitor for pest populations in the future.

RESULTS

Early pumpkin development

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

Ryan Slaughter Extension Educator, Ross County slaughter.71@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 113

IPM Trapping Network: Squash Vine Borer Monitoring OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farm

Monitor insect pests on Ohio farms, for enhanced pest management, specifically the Squash Vine Borer, near pumpkin fields in Seneca county.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Seneca County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Trap Set 06/02/2025 Trap Removed 08/08/2025 Primary Adja- Pumpkin cent Crop Adjacent Area 5 acres Production type Vegetable and Small Fruit Farm Management Conventional Number of sites 1 Number of traps 1 per site

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

3008

STUDY DESIGN The Scentry “Heliothis” trap was placed on the west side of the field, approximately 5 feet from the field edge. The trap was placed with a t-post stake and was checked weekly for SVB moths. The bait was a pherocon cap and was placed starting June 2 and was changed monthly until the traps were removed on August 8.

Scentry ‘Heliothis’ trap placed in cucurbit field

114 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS Weather in the region started out very wet in the spring and ended in a severe drought by the end of the season. The pumpkins were able to remain healthy throughout the majority growing season, despite the everbearing rainfall/drought stress.

SUMMARY •

The SVB seemed to react better to prevention methods.

As the trapping numbers increased, management methods were deployed and then numbers of SVB decreased.

•

SVB started getting caught in late June and stopped being seen in August, similar to the past years

RESULTS

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Pressley Buurma Extension Educator, Seneca County buurma.20@osu.edu This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 115

IPM Trapping Network: Urban Squash Vine Borer Monitoring OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farm

Monitor insect pests on Ohio farms, for enhanced pest management, specifically the SVB, near diverse urban cropping systems including pumpkin and squash crops in Summit County.

OSU Extension Summit County

WEATHER INFORMATION STUDY INFORMATION Trap Set 06/09/2025 Trap Removed 08/28/2025 Primary Adjacent Pumpkin Crop Adjacent Area 10,000 ft² 2,400 ft² Production type Diverse farms Management Organic Number of sites 2 Number of traps 1 per site

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

4.45

4.26

3.23

1.59

0.49

2.50

16.5

Cumulative GDDs

212

530

1182

1950

2567

3075

3075

STUDY DESIGN

This study aimed to monitor squash vine borer (SVB) activity in squash and pumpkin fields throughout the growing season. Pheromone lures in the traps were replaced monthly. Data were collected weekly throughout the growing season. Heliothis traps were used for monitoring and were placed as follows: Trap 1: This location was in urban farm location where many pumpkins are grown as a traditional crop for the farmers who immigrated from Bhutan and Myanmar. As a large community garden structure, squash and pumpkin are grown every year at this site. Cultivated area at this farm is about 200,000 ft², with each of the about 100 plots having pumpkin/squash. Crop area is estimated to be about 10,000 ft². The plot in which the trap is set in is about 500 ft², all pumpkin.

Setting of Heliothis trap with SVB lure

116 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Trap 2: The farm group uses crop rotation across different urban farm sites (gap years between squash plantings) and encourages beneficial insect populations. Cultivated area is 30,000 ft² area, crop area is about 2,400 ft².

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

SUMMARY •

This was the second year of trapping at the cooperative farming location in Summit County. This was the first year to trap at the Akron location.

•

The number of adult moths captured was well into double digits (threshold) for 6 consecutive weeks from late June to beginning of August.

•

The growers at the cooperative location do not implement any pest management strategies. This is something that our office will need to work with the grower on: continued education on control options that suit their organic growing traditions.

•

The growers at the Akron location do rotate their crops by site, meaning that there are gap years between squash crops.

•

We will continue to monitor and compare these sites and different levels of pest management.

RESULTS

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Maggie Rivera Extension Educator Summit County rivera.482@osu.edu This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 117

IPM Trapping Network: Sweet Corn Pest Monitoring OBJECTIVE

Western Ag Research Station

Monitor Corn Earworm (CEW) activity near a late planted sweet corn field.

OARDC Clark County

STUDY INFORMATION Trap Set 06/11/2025

Trap Removed 09/18/2025

WEATHER INFORMATION

Primary Adjacent Sweet corn Crop Adjacent Area 0.5

Production type Commercial Management Conventional Number of sites 1 site Number of traps 1 trap per site

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

5

4.45

6.62

4.54

2.27

0.64

23.52

Cumulative GDDs

246

587

1292

2089

2705

3185

3185

STUDY DESIGN This study aimed to monitor potentially overwintering but primarily migratory CEW brought into Ohio on northward moving weather fronts known to actively transport CEW moths from southern states. While all plantings of sweet corn (and other vegetable crops) are susceptible to attack from this pest, mid to late planted stands throughout June and July are at the highest risk of infestation due to seasonal weather patterns. Hartstack traps were used in this study with CEW lures being changed every two weeks. Trap catch information from this study will be used to inform growers of the timing and magnitude of the annual infestation so they may better manage and protect their crops.

118 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS

Traps were deployed on schedule and began catching CEW the first week of June 14-20. Consistent double digit catches were seen through most of the season with a peak of 189-195 moths caught per week during August 16-29. The trap was not monitored during June 28-July 4. Trap monitoring resumed for most of September. This trap catch pattern is normal for this pest and is considered a light to moderate infestation compared to other seasons.

SUMMARY

•

A Hartstack trap was used at this site to monitor CEW with lures changed every two weeks; this trap is known to be more sensitive in catching CEW moths compared to a Heliothis trap.

•

CEW moths were caught season long with a peak near late August.

•

Overall captures for this year were considered light to moderate compared to flight activity in previous years.

•

Larval infestation in crop was noticeable, with over 50% of ears infested.

Ear damage from CEW caterpillar

RESULTS

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Pheromone baited traps can be effective tools for timely management of several insect pests.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Jim Jasinski Professor, OSU Extension jasinski.4@osu.edu

www.go.osu.edu/corntrap

This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 119

IPM Trapping Network: Sweet Corn Pest Monitoring OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farm

Monitor corn ear moth to improve pest management in sweet corn fields in Mahoning County, Ohio.

OSU Extension Mahoning County

WEATHER INFORMATION STUDY INFORMATION Trap Set 06/20/2025 Trap Removed 08/22/2025 Primary Adja- Sweet Corn cent Crop (Bolt and Solstice) Adjacent Area 4 acres

Production type Commercial Diversified Hort Crop Management Conventional Number of sites 1 Number of traps 1 per species per site

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

4.61

5.3

5.22

3.21

0.71

2.46

21.51

Cumulative GDDs

216

536

1175

1928

2523

3003

3003

STUDY DESIGN

Traps placed on the northeast side of the field approximately 1 feet away from the field edge. Each was mounted on a 6-foot wooden stake and checked weekly for European corn borer moth or corn earworm moth. The pheromone bait was replaced once per month.

Hercon Luretape CEW and Hercon ECB-NY lures were used in respective traps.

OBSERVATIONS

The highest corn earworm moth captures occurred during the first two weeks of trapping (June 27, 2025, and the week of July 4, 2025), which coincided with a period of high temperatures in Canfield, Ohio, with daily highs reaching into the 80s and 90s.

Trap placement at field edge

120 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

During European corn borer moth monitoring, several issues affected the trap during the first three weeks. In the first week, the lure used was for corn earworm rather than European corn borer. In the second week, the wooden stake holding the trap was broken, leaving the trap on the ground. By the third week, the grower had moved the trap.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

SUMMARY •

•

•

During the first week of trapping, 13 moths were captured, followed by 10 moths in the second week. After this initial period of high activity, trap captures declined sharply, with only one moth per week recorded over the remaining weeks of monitoring.

Because this was the first year of trapping at this location, historical data was not available for comparison. The significant decline in trap counts after week two suggests that management practices such as the use of Coragen was effective in reducing corn earworm activity.

European corn borer activity was monitored using pheromone traps for the first time at this site. Several issues affected the trap during the first three weeks as mentioned. Thus, trap captures remained at zero until the week ending August 1, 2025 (Week 5), when five moths were recorded; all other weeks showed no captures up to harvest. Because this was the first year of trapping at this location, historical data were not available for comparison.

RESULTS

Adult Corn Earworm

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Chevula Motswaledi OSU Extension Educator, Mahoning County motswaledi.1@osu.edu This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 121

IPM Trapping Network: Sweet Corn Pest Monitoring OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farm

Monitor insect pests on Ohio farms, for enhanced pest management, specifically the Corn Earworm, near field corn production in Miami County.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Miami County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Trap Set 07/03/2025

Trap Removed 09/25/2025 Primary Adjacent Sweet Corn Crop Adjacent Area 35 acres

Production type Commercial Management Conventional Number of sites 1 Number of traps 1 per site

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

3230

STUDY DESIGN The trap was placed on the south side of the field, near the field edge. The Heliothis trap was hung on a stake and was checked weekly for corn earworm moths. The lure was changed monthly beginning in mid-August.

122 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS Corn earworm moths were observed over the course of nine weeks. The peak count occurred in late July. No abnormalities to report.

SUMMARY •

This is the first year of observation for this site.

•

The grower chose not to spray the crop.

RESULTS

SVB moth resting on leaf

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Amanda Bennett Extension Educator and Assistant Professor, Miami County bennett.709@osu.edu This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 123

IPM Trapping Network: Sweet Corn Pest Monitoring OBJECTIVE

OSU South Centers

Monitor insect pests on Ohio farms, for enhanced pest management, specifically the corn earworm (CEW) on a mixed vegetable farm in Pike County.

STUDY INFORMATION Trap Set 06/09/2025

OSU Extension/OARDC Pike County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Trap Removed 10/03/2025 Primary Adjacent Sweet Corn Crop Adjacent Area

16 acres; 4 acres

Production type Commercial Management Conventional Number of sites 1 Number of traps 1 per site

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

6.59

6.09

3.64

6.55

0.13

3.60

26.6

Cumulative GDDs

283

638

1317

2130

2794

3274

3274

STUDY DESIGN On June 9, one Scentry, Heliothis trap was attached to a metal t-post and placed on the eastern side of the sweet corn field. Over the course of the season the pheromone trap was moved to allow the producer to harvest the corn. As harvest would take place the pheromone trap would remain on the eastern side of the field. On August 22, the pheromone trap was moved to a different field and remained there through October 3.

Trece Pherocon CEW lures were used as bait were replaced once at the midway point of the growing season. Trap captures were monitored weekly, with the exception of the week of July 5, therefore any moths were included in the following week counts.

Corn earworm moth in trap

124 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Fruit

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS The trend for later part of the season indicated that their corn earworm numbers were down, however about mid-season there was a noticeable rise in corn ear worm moths that were present in the pheromone trap. Pike County did have an extremely wet spring followed by an extremely dry summer.

SUMMARY •

CEW moths were caught season long with the largest peak in early July.

•

Overall captures for this year were considered light, but this was the first monitoring at this site in several years.

•

Larval infestation in nearby crops seemed lower this year compared to the previous year by the grower, but it is uncertain if this was due to better management or natural factors.

RESULTS 12

Trap Set

Trap Removed

Trap Counts

10 8 6 4 2 0

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Amanda Perkins OSU Extension Educator, perkins715@osu.edu

This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

Logan Minter Field Specialist and Associate Professor OSU Extension minter.21@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 125

IPM Trapping Network: Sweet Corn Pest Monitoring OBJECTIVE Monitor insect pests on Ohio farms, for enhanced pest management, specifically the European Corn Borer (ECB) and Corn Earworm (CEW), near diversified horticultural crop productions in Wayne County.

STUDY INFORMATION

ePLUS Collaborating Farm OSU Extension Wayne County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Trap Set 07/01/2025

Trap Removed 09/26/2025 Primary Adjacent Sweet Corn Crop Adjacent Area 20 acres

Production type Commercial Diversified Hort Crop Management Conventional Number of sites 2 Number of traps 3 traps, 1 for each lure/ per site species

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

21.3

Cumulative GDDs

200

493

1140

1892

2455

2922

2922

STUDY DESIGN Heliothis traps were placed in grassy areas nearby any silking and tasseling sweet corn. Lures were placed in the traps for the respective pests, and traps were checked weekly until the end of sweet corn harvest. The CEW was placed as the center most trap, while the ECB traps were placed at least 100 feet away from each other, on either side of the CEW trap.

Adult European Corn Borer

126 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS Large animal and bird feeding destroyed some of the early sweet corn, which may have affected the patch’s attractiveness.

Drought conditions were experienced for much of the duration of the trapping period.

SUMMARY

•

Although some flight consistency was seen, as compared to years past, there was not nearly the intensity or duration of flights as previously experienced in this area.

•

Grower utilized trap data to make timely pest management decisions and improve application timing for optimal efficacy and efficiency.

RESULTS

CEW

ECB

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

Frank Becker OSU Extension Educator, Wayne County becker.587@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 127

Garlic Variety Trial OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farm

Compare the germination rates, bulb sizes, and yield of three soft neck and 14 hard neck garlic sub-types, evaluating their performance across key growth characteristics.

OSU Extension Perry County

WEATHER INFORMATION

STUDY INFORMATION Planting Date 10/30/2024 Harvest Date(s) 07/05/2025 Varieties 3 Soft Neck and 14 Hard Neck sub-types Management Conventional Fertilization and no insecticides or fungicides

WEATHER INFORMATION

System Mulched lightly in fall with additional mulch in the Spring Study type Single replicate Treatments 17 Replications ~25 cloves planted for each variety

Growing Season Weather Summary

Size of trial 400 ft²

Total

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR APR

MAY

JUN

Total

Precip (in)

1.75

2.22

4.09

1.51

3.66

4.81

4.41

1.19

23.6

Cumulative GDDs

91

135

147

217

362

657

1180

2080

4869

Soil type Wellston silt loam

STUDY DESIGN

Garlic cloves from each variety were planted directly from harvested heads, without sorting by size. Soil fertility was maintained at pH 7.0, with 206 ppm phosphorus and 50 ppm potash. Nitrogen was applied at 0.5 lb per 100 sq ft before planting and again in late April. All scapes were removed to standardize growth.

The trial evaluated germination, yield, and bulb characteristics across soft neck and hard neck sub-types under consistent fertility and mulching practices.

Measurements were taken after drying and cleaning to ensure uniform comparison of bulb size and weight.

OBSERVATIONS Several varieties produced double heads, contributing to higher germination rates.

Maturity varied among sub-types, with drought conditions leading to an earlierthan-usual harvest. Despite environmental stress, no insect or disease issues were observed. Differences in bulb size and yield highlighted varietal adaptability under the given soil and fertility conditions.

128 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Drying garlic in shaded wellventilated area.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

SUMMARY

•

Germination Rates: Varied widely, from 37% (German White) to 100% (Asian Tempest, Spanish Roja, Xian).

•

Large Bulbs: Romanian Red (2.08 oz) and Xian (2.06 oz) produced the largest bulbs.

•

Small Bulbs: Ajo Roja (0.39 oz) yielded the smallest bulbs, best suited in warmer climates.

•

Trend: Larger cloves generally resulted in higher germination and bigger bulbs, while smaller cloves showed reduced success.

RESULTS Variety

Germination Rate %

Yield (Average Bulb weight, oz)

Yield (Bulb weight range, oz)

Average bulb size (in)

Silver White*

60

0.83

0.20 – 2.30

1.37

Polish White*

86.8

1.52

0.20 – 2.3

1.86

Inchelium Red

85.0

1.32

0.60 – 2.45

1.80

Persian Star

1000.0

0.67

0.30 – 1.020

1.40

Purple Glazer

85.2

1.45

0.50 – 2.20

1.91

Music

76.2

1.06

0.50 – 2.20

1.56

Georgia Fire

90.0

0.83

0.30 – 1.40

1.52

German White

37.0

1.08

0.20 – 2.80

1.53

German Red

73.5

1.15

0.40 – 2.00

1.53

Spanish Roja

100.0

0.87

0.40 – 1.90

1.60

Blanak

92.6

1.31

0.30 – 2.20

1.75

Xian

100.0

1.42

0.90 – 2.30

2.06

Chinese Purple

72.0

0.70

0.40 – 1.10

1.55

Thai Fire

82.0

0.82

0.30 – 1.70

1.50

Ajo Roja

83.3

0.39

0.20 – 0.60

1.13

Romanian Red

91.7

2.06

1.80 – 2.60

2.08

Asian Tempest

100.0

1.73

0.60 – 2.90

1.99

*Soft neck varieties

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact

Average garlic bulbs weights.

Ted Wiseman, PhD OSU Extension Educator and Assistant Professor, Perry County wiseman.15@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 129

Peanut Variety Trial OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Farm

Evaluate performance of three cultivars of peanut in southern Ohio based on yield quantity and quality

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Extension Ross County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 06/05/2025 Harvest Date 11/15/2025 Roasting Date 12/30/2025 Varieties 3 Management Conventional herbicide; no supplemental fertility, insecticides or fungicides System Bare soil Study type Randomized Complete Block Design Treatments 3 Replications 4 Size of trial 240 ft² Soil type Coolville Silt Loam

STUDY DESIGN

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

6.59

6.09

3.64

6.55

0.13

3.60

26.6

Cumulative GDDs

283

638

1317

2130

2794

3274

3274

The study aimed to assess the performance of three varieties of peanut with relatively short maturity dates to evaluate suitability in southern Ohio.

Seed peanuts were direct seeded into warm soil once conditions were dry enough (the original target planting date was about two weeks prior, but heavy rains caused delay). Soil preparation included discing and deep tillage. Seeds were spaced at 6” in row and soil was slightly hilled to achieve a final planting depth of 2 inches.

Three rows were created with 12” between row spacing. The rows were divided into four sections, each 15’ long to serve as replicated block. Each variety was randomly planted in a single row within the block. Weed management was achieved mechanically and no pesticides were applied. To extend growing season, polyspun row covers supported by 18” wire hoops were installed on 10/18/2025 when frost was imminent.

Peanuts were harvested by hand digging, plants were topped, and hung from twine in a well ventilated high tunnel where they were allowed to dry for 45 days. Any legumes dislodged from peduncles during the digging process were placed in mesh bags and allowed to dry in the same manner.

130 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Early season vegetative growth; Photo 06/18/2025

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

Once dry, peanuts were removed from peduncles and dry weight was recorded prior to roasting. Legumes were briskly washed and patted dry and immediately placed on metallic baking sheets in a residential oven set to 350º F for 20 minutes, before being removed to cool and we weighed. No salt or additives were added prior to roasting and data collection.

OBSERVATIONS Peanuts grew generally well through the growing season, even during periods of high heat and drought. Germination and plant vigor appeared stronger from Scronce’s Deep Black and Tennessee Red Valencia than Bailey II Virginia, which was also reflected in yield. Rodent (vole) damage was noted across all varieties, especially in the outer row closest to taller foliage and weeds. The number of dislodged legumes also appeared greater from the Bailey II Virginia plants, which will be quantified in future trials.

RESULTS Variety

Dry Yield (g)

Roasted Yield (g)

Scronce’s Deep Black

180

158 A

Tennessee Red Valencia

122

107 A

Bailey II Virginia

23.1

20.3 B

Late season vegetative growth under row covers ; Photo: 11/08/2025

SUMMARY •

Germination Rates: Varied along with plant vigor. Additional evaluations are needed to generalize further.

•

Row covers: worked well and kept plants green for nearly a month after frost, including holding up to a significant snowfall event.

•

Larger Yields: Total yield by weight was statistically high for the Scronce’s Deep Black and Tennessee Red Valencia than the Bailey II Virginia.

•

Trend: The two higher yielding varieties are those which are reported to have shorter maturity times. This appears to be important in Ohio climate.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Polyspun row covers are a cultural method to extend growing season for long-day crops. A trade off is expense, however, they can be reused multiple seasons and across different crops within season for frost protection and pest exclusion.

Peanuts drying while hung in a high tunnel; Photo: 12/13/2025

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Dr. Logan Minter Field Specialist and Associate Professor OSU Extension minter.21@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 131

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 05/26/2025 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

20.1

Cumulative GDDs

230

542

1219

1999

2579

3059

3059

STUDY DESIGN This study was a randomzied 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.

132 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Scale set up next to seed and seed treatment used.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

No visual differences between the plots was observed. Extremely heavy weed pressure was present throughout the field.

•

Aquatic

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 OSU Extension Educator, Union County dellinger.6@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 133

Biologicals- Sunflower 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 06/14/2025 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

16.2

Cumulative GDDs

205

532

1203

1964

2567

3047

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.

134 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

A view of the sunflower field during harvest.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

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 assiana 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 OSU Extension Educator, Henry County leininger.17@osu.edu Eric Richer Associate Professor and Field Specialist OSU Extension richer.5@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 135

Biologicals- Sunflower 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

20.1

Cumulative GDDs

230

542

1219

1999

2579

3059

3059

STUDY DESIGN This study was a randomzied 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.

136 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Planting in June 2025.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

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.

•

Aquatic

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

1027 a

Seed Treatment

7.6

1073 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 OSU Extension Educator, Union County dellinger.6@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 137

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

20.1

Cumulative GDDs

230

542

1219

1999

2579

3059

3059

STUDY DESIGN This study was a randomzied block trial consisting of open pollinated seed (Peredovik) and hybrid seed (Hornet). Planting dates were separated by approximately two weeks to prevent cross-polllination. 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.

138 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS

SUMMARY

Visual observations noted much more uniformity in plant size and height in the hybrid seed plots. Seed head uniformity was noticably 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 OSU Extension Educator, Union County dellinger.6@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 139

Under the Sustainable Radar: Tracking Nutrient Losses OBJECTIVE Track and quantify water quality and pathogen signatures from inlet to outlet within specialty crop farms located in climate-vulnerable regions of Ohio. The ultimate goal being to improve and encourage environmental sustainability within these crop systems.

ePLUS Collaborating Farms OSU Extension Franklin and Deleware County

STUDY DESIGN Water samples were collected biweekly from August to October 2025, which represented the period of full growing season for the targeted operations. Samples were collected from the water source location, throughout the stages of production, and at the system’s water outlet. We analyzed the water samples for total nutrients (total nitrogen [TN], and total phosphorus [TP]) and total suspended solids (TSS). Two specialty crop farms were targeted, Farm 1 had large water harvesting and recycling systems and Farm 2 sourced water from groundwater wells.

STUDY INFORMATION Sampling Period August-October 2025

SYSTEM DETAILS Farm 1 utilized a circular system with a rainwater basin as inital source and a return pit (cistern pit) as final outlet. Farm 2 used a pass-through system from inital groundwater welss (2) to a hose after filter.

Sampling Biweekly Frequency Farms Sampled 2 Farm A Crop Mums Farm B Crop Seasonal flowers

OBSERVATIONS Results suggested significant differences and shifts in water quality throughout the production in Farms 1 and 2 . Farm 1 exhibited high (124 mg/L +) median concentrations of TN from Floor to RP, while fertilizer was added to Tanks 1 and 5 and distributed to Floor and Drip Irrigation systems, the amount of nutrient detect in the floor was relatively the same at the Return pit, indicating significant nutrient losses. Farm 2 exhibited much lower concentrations of TN when compared to Farm 1, however Farm 2 has a notable TN spike at GW2_AI (1.05 mg/L). GW1 has a lower TN value than GW1_PH (0.38 mg/L), suggesting TN loss from this source. GW2_AF has lower TN concentration when compared to GW2, indicating that the filter is effective at removing TN. Notably, TN concentrations in initial sources for both farms are high.

TP trends in farm 1 were similar to TN trends, with high (8.28 mg/L+) concentrations from Floor to RP. At farm 2, TP is leaving the system in higher concentrations when compared to initial water sources (Table 2), indicating introduction of TP to the environment from both systems at Farm. Farm 1 had little to no TSS concentration until the Floor, which exhibited a high concentration when compared to the rest of the system (43.8mg/L). Additionally, TSS concentrations are higher in T5 and RP when compared to initial water sources. For Farm 2, TSS concentrations are higher in both outlets when compared to both inlets, indicating introduction of sediment to the environment from both systems at Farm 2.

140 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

RESULTS

GW2 hose after filter Total Nitrogen (TN), Total Phosphorus (TP), and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentrations per farm and sampling location ordered from inlet to outlet across the production system.

Supplemental Data

SUMMARY •

Water samples were collected at different stages from two specialty crop farm systems, from initial to final water sources.

•

Samples were analyzed for water quality metrics, including total nutrients and TSS.

•

Preliminary results suggested increasing nutrients (TP, TN) and TSS concentration through all systems, with exception to TN in the GW2 system from Farm #2

•

Observed trends suggest that water source type and system process may influence total nutrient concentrations and TSS within the specialty crops system.

go.osu.edu/H2OqualNutri25

PROJECT CONTACTS

Report Submitted by

For inquiries about this project, contact

Layla Ramsey-Sapp, Research Technician OSU Food, Ag, Biological Engineering ramsey.577@osu.edu

Dr. Lorrayne Miralha, Assistant Professor Dr. Yu Ma, Assitant Professor OSU Horticultre and Crop Science OSU Food, Ag, Biological Engineering ma.2578@osu.edu miralha.1@osu.edu Deeksa Kasirajan, Undergraduate Research Please reach out to the contacts if interested in participating in this study.

Assistant/ Student OSU Food, Ag, Biological Engineering kasirajan.2@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 141

Under the Sustainable Radar: Tracking Metal Concentrations and Solubility OBJECTIVE Track dissolved metals (Mn, Fe) and pH from water inlet to outlet in specialty crop systems in Ohio to inform farmers about metals and acidification issues for the economic and environmental sustainability of these systems

STUDY DESIGN Water samples were collected biweekly from August to October 2025, which represented the period of full growing season for the targeted operations. Samples were collected from the water source location, throughout the stages of production, and at the system’s water outlet.. Water quality metrics measured include dissolved metals and pH. Dissolved metals measured were Mn (Manganese) and Fe (Iron). Two specialty crop farms were targeted, Farm 1 had large water harvesting and recycling systems, and Farm 2 sourced water from groundwater wells.

ePLUS Collaborating Farms OSU Extension Franklin and Deleware County

SYSTEM DETAILS Farm 1 utilized a circular system with a rainwater basin as inital source and a return pit (cistern pit) as final outlet. Farm 2 used a pass-through system from inital groundwater welss (2) to a hose after filter.

OBSERVATIONS At Farm 1, Mn decreased by 0.010mg/L from DB to T1, increased by 0.07 mg/L from T1 to AP, and increased again from AP to Floor by 0.04 mg/L. Mn levels increased significantly from T5 (0.06 mg/l) to Floor (1.2 mg/l), indicating increased metal mobilization in the Floor of the operation. Over the sampling period, Mn showed peaks in early August at the floor and RP and generally trended down towards end of October. At Farm 2, Mn concentrations increased by 0.03 mg/L from GW1 to GW1_AI, then decreased by 0.03 mg/L from GW1_AI to GW1_PH. Median Mn concentrations increased slightly by 0.02 mg/L from GW2 to GW2_AI, but there was a large increase in variability. The highest overall Mn concentrations were at GW1_PH, and peak Mn concentrations were observed at GW2_AI . Mn decreased slightly by 0.02 mg/L from GW2_AI to GW2_AF. Overall, Mn tended to rise after acid injection as decreases in pH influences metal solubility. Over the sampling period, Mn at GW1, GW1_PH, and GW2_AF generally trended downward, while GW2_AI showed the highest values during mid-August. Figure 1 illustrates the variability of Mn levels per sampling location.

At farm 1, Fe concentration decreased by 0.2 mg/ from DB to T1, but significantly increased from T1 to AP by 0.8 mg/L. From AP to T5 and Floor, Fe concentrations decreased by ~0.35 mg/L (Table 1), with larger variation in Floor relative to other points in production (Figure 1). Fe concentrations decreased from T5 to RP by 0.15 mg/L, with a decrease in variation (Figure 1). At farm 2, Fe median concentrations from GW1 to GW1_AI were similar but decreased at GW1_PH. Fe concentrations found in GW1 suggests a metal issue in the groundwater source, likely associated with geology or other factors Fe levels were below detection at GW2, increased again at GW2_AI, and remained elevated at GW2_AF. Over time, Fe increased across sampling points, indicating the importance of this water quality monitoring program.

Levels of pH remained mostly stable, with the lowest median pH being 6.98 at AP. Notably, dissolved metal concentrations mirror pH values, specifically in T5 where there is a wide range of both pH and Mn concentration, and highest overall concentration of Fe. Additionally, median Mn and Fe concentrations remained higher in RP when compared to initial water sources, where concentrations were ~0.06mg/L and ~0.45 mg/L higher respectively. At farm 2, pH decreased at both GW1_AI and GW2_AI following acid injection, showed higher variability at GW1_PH, and remained relatively stable at other sources. Some differences in concentrations of metals could be due to infrastructure (acidic conditions may influence metal corrosive behavior) or differences in water sources.

142 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

RESULTS

GW2 hose after filter Dissolved Metals (Manganese [Mn], Iron [Fe]) concentrations and pH levels per farm and sampling location ordered from inlet to outlet across the production system.

Supplemental Data

SUMMARY • • •

•

Water samples were collected at different stages from two specialty crop farm systems, from initial to final water sources.

Samples were analyzed for water quality metrics, including dissolved metals (Mn, Fe) and pH. Preliminary results show that metal concentrations generally increased through the systems, with notable peaks at certain points (e.g., floor and recycling pit at Farm 1, GW2_AI at Farm 2). pH remained relatively stable, with minor variation likely associated with acid injection or fertilizer addition.

Observed trends suggest that water source type and system processes influence metal concentrations and variability within the farm systems.

go.osu.edu/H2Oqualmetals25

PROJECT CONTACTS

Report Submitted by

For inquiries about this project, contact

Layla Ramsey-Sapp, Research Technician OSU Food, Ag, Biological Engineering ramsey.577@osu.edu

Dr. Lorrayne Miralha, Assistant Professor Dr. Yu Ma, Assitant Professor OSU Horticultre and Crop Science OSU Food, Ag, Biological Engineering ma.2578@osu.edu miralha.1@osu.edu Deeksa Kasirajan, Undergraduate Research Please reach out to the contacts if interested in participating in this study.

Assistant/ Student OSU Food, Ag, Biological Engineering kasirajan.2@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 143

Irrigation Scheduling and Nutrient Management in Cutflower Production OBJECTIVE Evaluate the effect of different irrigation scheduling and fertilizer sources on snapdragon cutflower growth, total and marketable yield, and stem quality.

STUDY INFORMATION Planting Date 07/22/2025 Harvest Dates 09/08/2025-10/22/2025 Cultivar ‘Rocket Golden’ Snapdragon Management Raised beds, open field Study type Split-plot, Randomized Complete Block Design Treatments 3 irrigation x 3 fertility Replications 4 Size of trial 1280 ft²

STUDY DESIGN

Horticulture Unit 1 CFAES Wooster Campus Wayne County Treatments: IS1 (Irrigation Scheduling 1): Systematic irrigation - 0.1 inch of water was applied daily from transplanting to harvest, IS2 (Irrigation Scheduling 2): Crop Water Demand - 0.15 inches of water was applied daily during establishment period (0-20 days after transplanting) and 0.30 inches daily once the crop was established (21 days after transplanting until harvest), IS3 (Irrigation Scheduling 3): Soil Water Status - water was applied daily if the soil moisture sensor (0-6 inches) indicates 18% VWC or below. Irrigation will run until soil moisture values indicate 23% VWC. All irrigation scheduling accounted for prior rainfall conditions monitored through an on-site weather station.

NM1 (Nutrient Management 1): Compost only, NM2 (Nutrient Management 2): Compost + Fertigation with Water Soluble Fertilizer (WSF), NM3 (Nutrient Management 3): Control with no additional nutrient input. Compost treatments consisted of processing material from dairy, solid with bedding produced at OSU Wooster compost facility. Nutrient rate: 80 kg/ha of N.

(A) Watchdog weather station Field trial was conducted at Hort Unit 1 CFAES coupled with Wooster Campus, during 2025 growing soil sensors. (B) season. Three irrigation schedules and three Galcon Bluetooth nutrient management regimes were tested irrigation valves in snapdragon cutflower using split-plot for irrigation randomized complete block design with four automation. (C) replications. Each plot consisted of 24 plants Trial field view. spaced at 6 x 6 inches. Landscape fabric (D) Snapdragon was used between beds and plots; the entire harvest. field was weeded once every two weeks.

Data collection included SPAD reading (nondestructive measurement of leaf chlorophyll content), stem number, marketable stem grades (first for 46-60 cm stem length, extra for 61-75 DATA OBSERVATIONS cm stem length, and fancy for 76-90 cm stem • SPAD: Leaf chrolophyll content was measured using at LEAF length), and stem calipers.

Chrophyll meter. Readings were taken from the fully expanded uppermost leaves of each plant per plot and the average was Snapdragon seeds were sown in 64-plug recorded. trays using Promix soilless media covered • Marketable stems: Marketable stems per plot were counted at with a thin layer of Vermiculite and grown in multiple harvest dates based on the commercial quality standards. a greenhouse until transplanting. Transplants Stems that were straight, healthy, and free from visible defects or were established and pinched for branching. diseases were classified as marketable.

Hortnova netting (white lightweight • Unmarketable stems: Unmarketable stems were those exhibiting polypropylene, 6” mesh) was horizontally deformities, pest or disease damage, or poor visual quality. The total suspended above plants. Pests and diseases number of such stems per plot was recorded at the time of harvest. were monitored throughout the growing • Stem diameter: Stem diameter was measured using a digital caliper season; no pesticide application was conducted at a standardized position near the base of the main stem based on crop monitoring and scouting.

144 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Home & Woodland Ornamental Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Consumer

Aquatic

RESULTS

Effect of nutrient management (A) and irrigation management (B) on marketable stem category of Snapdragon. IS1= Systematic irrigation, IS2= Crop Water Demand, IS3= Soil Water Status. NM1= Compost only, NM2= Compost only + Water Soluble Fertilizer, NM3= Control (No additional Nutrient input. Marketable stems (≥46 cm stem length, straight with no curvature, properly developed raceme, and no visual damage) - ‘First’ category (46-60 cm stem length), ‘Extra’ (61-75 cm stem length), ‘Fancy’ (76-90 cm stem length). *Plots having different superscripts differ significantly (P<0.05).

SUMMARY •

•

•

Both irrigation scheduling and nutrient management had a significant effect on SPAD measurement. Average SPAD readings taken on 09/02/2025 for irrigation scheduling based on soil water status was significantly lower than systematic or crop water demand irrigation. Earlier sampling dates (08/05 & 08/19) showed no significant differences among nutrient treatments, indicating similar nutrient performance early in the season. At the final sampling date (09/02/2025), NM2 (compost only + water soluble fertilizer) showed significantly higher SPAD values than NM1 (Compost-only) and NM3 (control treatment), suggesting improved nitrogen status or chlorophyll retention under NM2.

Marketable stem counts differed among the irrigation treatments. Irrigation scheduling based on soil water status (IS3) produced the highest total number of marketable stems; closely followed by IS2, and IS1 in that order. Across all harvest times, the greater amount of total stem number under IS3 was mainly due to higher production of first-grade stems, with additional contributions coming from extra-grade and fancy stems. The differences in total marketable stem numbers attributed to irrigation scheduling were observed mainly during the first three harvest dates.

Both irrigation scheduling and nutrient management had a significant effect on stem caliper measurements. The average stem caliper was highest in IS3 treatment and NM2 treatment respectively.

Supplemental Data

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Dr. Fernanda Krupek Assistant Professor & State Specialist Urban Food Systems OSU Horticulture and Crop Science krupek.1@osu.edu

Israel Okpunyi Acham Master Student OSU Horticulture and Crop Science Urban Food Innovations Team acham.1@buckeyemail.osu.edu

This project was supported by CFAES Immediate Needs Program.

go.osu.edu/cutflower25

2025 ePLUS Report | 145

Herbaceous Cultivar Trial Chadwick Arboretum and Learning Gardens

OBJECTIVE Observe the performance of new and recently introduced cultivars under the environmental conditions of central Ohio.

STUDY INFORMATION

OSU Columbus Campus Franklin County

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 05/20/2025 Evaluation Dates Until after heavy freeze, fall 2025 Varieties Assorted System Raised beds; in ground Management Conventional fertilizer Study Area 10,000 ft²

STUDY DESIGN The plants were started in the greenhouse at the Ohio State University campus in the winter. They were planted in ground plots and in containers on May 23, 2025. There were six plants of each variety in a block.

A 14-14-14 slow-release fertilizer was incorporated into the soil at planting, with one additional application of fertilizer. Trials were irrigated as needed, and containers were watered regularly. Mulch was applied after planting. Hand weeding was completed as needed. The plants were deadheaded and pruned as needed during the growing season.

146 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

5.96

4.44

2.09

2.44

1.60

2.49

19.0

Cumulative GDDs

291

849

1547

2331

3082

3702

3702

Fruit

Other Home & Woodland Ornamental Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Consumer FULL REPORT RESULTS

SUMMARY •

Aquatic

The top 10 performers overall were Petunia Supertunia Vista Bubblegum®, Cleome hybrid Senorita Rosalita®, Vinca Pacifica SPetuniP Red Halo, Dahlia Venti™ Fireburst, Lantana camara Luscious® Basket Tangeglow, Lantana camara Luscious® Royale Red Zone™, Begonia bonariensis Surefire® Rose, Vinca Pacifica XP Pink, Petchoa SuperCal Blue-eyed Rose, and Coleus ColorBlaze Royale Pineapple Brandy.

Read full report and see evaluation tables, here:

go.osu.edu/25cvChadwick

Petunia Vista Bubblegum® was the top performer in the Cultivar Trials at Chadwick Arboretum and Learning Gardens in Columbus; photo taken July 2025

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Pamela Bennett, Extension Educator and Professor, Clark County bennett.27@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 147

Herbaceous Cultivar Trial ePLUS Collaborating Site

OBJECTIVE

OSU Extension Clark County

Observe the performance of new and recently introduced cultivars under the environmental conditions of central Ohio.

STUDY INFORMATION

WEATHER INFORMATION

Planting Date 05/20/2025 Evaluation Dates Until after heavy freeze, fall 2025 Varieties Assorted System Raised beds; in ground Management Conventional fertilizer Study Area 10,000 ft²

STUDY DESIGN The plants were started in the greenhouse at the Ohio State University campus in the winter. They were planted in ground plots and in containers on May 20, 2025. There were six plants of each variety in a block.

A 14-14-14 slow-release fertilizer was incorporated into the soil at planting; no additional application of fertilizer was made.

Trials were irrigated as needed, and containers were watered regularly. No mulch was used.

Hand weeding was completed as needed.

Treflan (e.g., trifluralin) was incorporated between the plants and rows six weeks after planting. The plants were deadheaded and pruned as needed during the growing season.

148 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Growing Season Weather Summary APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Total

Precip (in.)

5.96

4.44

2.09

2.44

1.60

2.49

19.0

Cumulative GDDs

291

849

1547

2331

3082

3702

3702

Fruit

Other Home & Woodland Ornamental Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Consumer

SUMMARY •

The top 10 performers overall were Cleome hybrid Senorita Rosalita®, Coleus ColorBlaze® Royale Pineapple Brandy, Impatiens X hybrida SunPatiens®, Compact Pink Flash, Ageratum Monarch Delight, Impatiens X hybrida SunPatiens® Compact Classic White, Lantana camara Luscious® Tangeglow, Petunia Supertunia Mini Vista® Yellow, Petunia Supertunia Vista® Bubblegum®, Dahlia Venti™ FireBurst, Petchoa SuperCal Blue-eyed Rose, and Coleus ColorBlaze® Wicked Witch™.

Aquatic

FULL REPORT RESULTS Read full report and see evaluation tables, here:

go.osu.edu/25Snyder

Cleome Senorita Rosalita photo from July, 2025, was the top performer in the Snyder Park Gardens & Arboretum Cultivar Trials in Springfield, Ohio

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Pamela Bennett, Extension Educator and Professor, Clark County bennett.27@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 149

Urban Ticks: Not just in the woods Ticks and the diseases that they vector to livestock, companion animals, and humans are not only a public health risk, but a potential cause of economic loss to producers.

The speed of tick and tick-borne disease in Ohio has been rapid, with us going from one tick of medical importance to humans, companion animals, and livestock 20 years ago to five now. There are a couple of myths that need to be dispelled: •

Myth #1: Ticks prefer to live in the woods. Actually, while some species of ticks prefer the woods, there are tick species that prefer and open habitat like pasture, meadow, public park, and backyard lawn grass.

•

Myth #2: Ticks are only active in the summer. Actually, while ticks are most active from April – September, we have tick activity all 12 months of the year and in fact, have positive cases of Lyme disease diagnosed in Ohio every month of the year.

We have seen an increase in urban tick encounters over the past 8 years with a higher likelihood of encountering a tick in an urban area during the colder months of the year.

The American Dog Tick has been present in Ohio for decades. This tick is the primary vector for Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever. This tick prefers a more open habitat such as park ground, lawn grass, pasture, and meadow so are commonly encountered in urban environments.

For more information on tick safety, check out The BITE SITE:

go.osu.edu/BITE The map at the left shows the distribution of the Deer Tick by county. In nearly every urban county in Ohio. On the right, the map shows the times of peak activity of the three life stages of the Deer Tick. Note the period of increased activity of the adult stage of the tick deep into winter stressing the need for tick awareness all year long.

Source: Ohio Department of Health, https://odh.ohio.gov/know-our-programs/zoonotic-disease-program/diseases/tickborne-diseases

150 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

Prevention of tick bites is critical. Here are some ways to stay tick safe: •

Wear permethrin treated clothing when outside in tick habitat. This can be purchased from an outfitter, or the clothing can be treated with permethrin labelled for use on fabric. Remember to read, understand, and follow the label on the permethrin product. The label is the law.

•

Apply a repellent labelled for control of ticks topically to your skin, following the label usage of the product.

•

Do frequent tick checks to remove ticks before they can bite and attach.

•

Familiarize yourself with the correct removal method of a tick. Use tweezers or a tick tool to remove a tick completely.

After removing the tick, store it in hand sanitizer in a zipped plastic bag, wash the area, wash your hands, and contact your county Extension office or public health official for identification guidance.

•

If you are bitten, contact your health provider for guidance on medical treatment.

•

Work with your veterinarian to keep your companion animals tick safe.

For tick pathogen testing, check out the new OSU testing laboratory:

The Gulf Coast Tick is a relative newcomer to Ohio, having only been established in the state for a few years. It vectors disease to humans, cattle, and dogs. It prefers a more open habitat similar to the American Dog Tick. It has become established in Franklin and Hamilton Counties.

buckeyeticktest/osu.edu

Summary:

In summary, we can encounter a tick in any habitat at any time of the year in Ohio, including in urban environments.

Franklin County is the largest county by population in Ohio and while it is urban, all five ticks of medical consequence, Deer Ticks, American Dog Ticks, Lone Star ticks, and Longhorned Ticks have been found there.

The Longhorned tick is a true invasive tick that has only been recently discovered in Ohio in 28 counties, including Franklin County.

It can reproduce via parthenogenesis meaning the female does not need to mate with a male to reproduce.

Research is currently underway to evaluate this tick’s ability to vector disease in the United States.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project contact Dr. Tim McDermott Extension Educator and Assistant Professor, Franklin Co. mcdermott.15@osu.edu This outreach was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

2025 ePLUS Report | 151

Local Food Market Price Report OBJECTIVE Systematically gather data about the pricing of a variety of local food products in Ross County.

ePLUS Collaborating Sites OSU Extension Ross County

STUDY DESIGN & OBSERVATIONS Data collected from the Chillicothe Farmers Market in Ross County. Data was collected twice a month from June to October. Overall, there was little to no price changes across the season.

Most producers were small scale operations while a few were larger scale to commercial operations. A few producers were organic, but most were conventional growers. All producers had adequate labelling, information and pricing with all products.

This market allowed for SNAP benefits and had a sponsor that doubled the value of SNAP dollars. The market allowed non-food items like live plants but did not allow arts and crafts.

The information collected with this protocol will help develop a more robust understanding of local food markets to better inform producers’ business and marketing decisions. Potential uses of data include investigating the price of local foods by region or rural, suburban, or urban context and developing pricing reports for use by producers, business service providers, and policy makers.

Price data are reported for fresh produce, fresh/processed farm items, and for animal products (meat, eggs, etc.).

152 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

SEASONAL PRICE SUMMARY

For Local Market Price Report, Check Out:

go.osu.edu/RossMkt25

PROJECT CONTACT

PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT

For inquiries about this project, contact

Christie Welch, Direct Food & Agricultural Marketing Specialist, OSU Couth Centers

Ryan Slaughter OSU Extension Educator, Ross County slaughter.71@osu.edu

Hannah Scott, JD, Program Director, CFAES Center for Cooperatives Dr. Logan Minter, Field Specialist & Associate Professor, OSU Extension

2025 ePLUS Report | 153

CSA Modeling: Through In-depth Interviews and Consumer Market Survey OBJECTIVE Provide information on CSA models and analyze consumer market survey data to inform CSA programs on small-scale and urban farms.

STUDY INFORMATION Timeframe 09/26/2025-10/23/2025 Study Type Interview; Survey Interviews 5 CSA Operators Survey 109 respondants States OH, MI, PA, DE

STUDY DESIGN Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs allow farms to offer consumers produce “shares” on a subscription basis, typically requiring prepayment. This pay-inadvance model aims to build farm resiliency by providing farmers with upfront financial stability and sharing the risks of the growing season with consumers, such as weather shocks and price swings. Determining the logistics of starting a CSA from scratch comes with a variety of challenges.

ePLUS Collaborating Sites OSU Extension Franklin County

STUDY INFORMATION & OBSERVATIONS

Phase 1: Collected and summarized data on active CSA operations, including a commercial farm example and student farms at Michigan State University, Penn State University, University of Delaware and Methodist Theological School in Ohio, through in-depth interviews with farm operators. Main information collected included farm size, active CSA weekly and total shares, shareholders, delivery method, farming practices, funding and labor sources, and community engagement events.

Phase 2: Designed and deployed a market survey through an online questionnaire to understand consumer needs, preferences, and willingness-to-pay related to CSA. Survey’s target audience included faculty, staff, and students from OSU’s Columbus campus. A total of 109 responses were received.

To better understand CSA implementation, this project compiled data on CSA models run by both commercial and student farms, including land-grant universities, to provide best practice recommendations for implementation.

While the specific objectives of this study utilized The Ohio State University (OSU) Student Farm as the main case study, the data summarized in this report can help inform the CSA-related decision-making process among specialty crop farmers across the state.

Figure 1. Farm and CSA-related characteristics collected from in-depth interviews with operators

More details on the full project report can be found in The OSU Knowledge Bank.

kb.osu.edu/home

154 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Figure 2. Market survey respondents’ primary OSU affiliation. Number of survey respondents (n) = 109.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Figure 3. Summary of market survey respondents’ willingness to travel for CSA pick-up (a), preferred season for CSA purchase (b), willingness to pay for weekly CSA box (c), preferred frequency of CSA boxes (d), and preferred communication regarding CSA information (e). Number of survey respondents (n) = 109.

SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS • • • • • • •

Aquatic

Figure 4. Average produce preferences of survey respondents (1-10 scale, with 1 being least preferred and 10 being most preferred). Number of survey respondents (n) = 109.

Interviews with five selected farm operators indicated a variety of farm sizes, ranging from 0.75 to 3 acres, and active number of weekly CSA shares ranging from 15-24 (Figure 1).

Produce pick-up was the main CSA delivery method reported by interview participants, with the commercial farm offering home delivery (Figure 1).

Labor and funding sources were farm specific. While commercial farms relied primarily on CSA profits as the main funding source, student-farms had a diversity of funding streams, from CSA profits to donations to institutional funding (Figure 1).

Market survey deployed throughout OSU (Columbus campus) indicated that 69% of respondents were students, 17% were faculty, 8% alumni, and 6% staff (Figure 2).

Market survey indicated that 39% of respondents were willing to travel 3 miles for a CSA pickup location, the majority (64% of respondents) were interested in biweekly CSA shares, and email was the most preferred (49% of respondents) delivery method for CSA information sharing (Figures 3a, 3d and 3e).

Market survey also indicated that summer (37% of respondents) and fall (28% of respondents) were the preferred times for CSA purchase, and the willingness to pay for the majority (74%) of respondents ranged from $20-30/week (Figures 3b and 3c).

On a 1-10 scale (1 least preferred and 10 most preferred), survey responses indicated that carrots, broccoli, sugar snap peas, garlic, and onion were the most preferred items in CSA shares (Figure 4).

PROJECT CONTACTS

PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT

For inquiries about this project, contact

Zayd Barakat, Ryan Donahue, Sarah Hoak, Tyler Kahl, and Kunj Pandya OSU Undergraduate Students

Annika Anderson Dr. Fernanda Krupek Student Farm Production Coordinator Assistant Professor & State Specialist OSU Horticulture and Crop Science Urban Food Systems anderson.4111@osu.edu OSU Horticulture and Crop Science krupek.1@osu.edu

This project was made possible through Environment and Natural Resources (ENR) capstone course ENR 4567: Assessing Sustainability: Project Experience, instructed by Drs. Greg Hitzhusen and Tim Jaquet.

2025 ePLUS Report | 155

Engaging Youth in Agricultural Entrepreneurship OBJECTIVE Provide Vinton County youth with the chance to develop and manage a school farm, learn about agricultural practices, and provide fresh produce to the school cafeteria.

ePLUS Collaborating Sites OSU Extension Vinton County

PROCESS Youth were engaged in every step of the process from starting seeds, caring for seedlings, creating a garden design, working within a budget, preparing a garden area, building raised beds, installing irrigation, maintaining plant health, and harvesting plants throughout the growing season.

One of the main challenges when implementing school farms is the absence of teachers and students in the summer. By partnering with the school for this project, OSU Extension staff were able to maintain the school farm during summer break. This was greatly aided by the installation of weed barrier, mulch, and a Bluetooth controlled irrigation system which greatly reduced the time commitment. We would recommend these steps for anyone trying to implement a project like this.

Students were able to harvest two crops of green beans, pumpkins, sweet corn, various peppers, and 75+ pints of cherry tomatoes to enjoy themselves, share with community partners, and supplement school lunches.

Students planting seeds.

Students harvesting bush beans.

156 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

FUTURE DIRECTIONS •

Students will consult with school cafeteria staff to see what all can be grown to supplement school lunches.

•

Students will create a plan to keep track of their harvest and calculate a profit estimate for each growing season.

•

OSU Extension and Vinton County Middle School staff will incorporate more STEM learning from the classroom into the farm area.

Mid-summer garden growth with irrigation system on display.

Students displaying their harvest.

PROJECT CONTACTS For inquiries about this project, contact Jessica Burns Tracey Perry Jean Anne Myers OSU Extension Educator, Vinton County OSU Extension Educator, Vinton County OSU Program Assistant, Vinton County burns.1097@osu.edu perry.2544@osu.edu myers.2390@osu.edu This project was funded by the Ben Stinner Endowment Fund for Healthy Agroecosystems and Sustainable Communities

2025 ePLUS Report | 157

Pawpaw processing OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Sites

Evaluate pawpaw fruit processing methods in terms of level of difficulty, equipment requirements, and time commitment, while placing special emphasis on pulp yields.

STUDY DESIGN

OSU Extension Fayette County

OBSERVATIONS

Demand for pawpaw pulp is growing among consumers, home cooks, and value-added food producers, but there remains little guidance on the most effective and efficient methods for processing the fruit into usable pulp. Unlike more common fruits, pawpaws present distinctive challenges during processing due to their large seeds, soft flesh, and sticky texture.

To address this gap, we compared four different approaches to home processing: (1) mesh bag extraction, (2) hand sieving, (3) Roma Sauce Master (Norpro), and (4) KitchenAid stand mixer paired with a salad spinner.

Mesh Produce Bag

This initial test aims to provide evidencebased recommendations for selecting the most efficient and accessible techniques.

Each method was tested on a similar amount of fruit with initial weights between 2,2722,328g. Batches were randomized to minimize impact of pulp-to-seed ratio, level of ripeness, bruising/ other damage, or inedible portions.

Future testing to increase replication of results is planned for the 2026 fall season. and to test other methods for increasing small to medium scale pawpaw processing.

Stainless Steel Garden Sieve & Soil Sifter Tool

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Dr. Logan Minter Field Specialist and Associate Professor OSU Extension minter.21@osu.edu

158 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Sauce Master with pumpkin screen

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

Stand Mixer and Salad Spinner

RESULTS

Pawpaw fruit prior to processing

SUMMARY •

Significant opportunity to educate consumers on pawpaw food safety, ripeness, and methods that minimize seed chipping. Processing as a key topic or demonstration for future education events identified.

•

Limitations: included quantity of fruit available for testing, equipment, and labor/ time constraints given short season window

•

Trade-offs: noted between time and ease of processing and quality of product.

2025 ePLUS Report | 159

Home Garden Myth Buster: Weed Killer OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Sites

Compare homemade weed killer and commercial herbicides for home use

OSU Extension Morrow County

STUDY INFORMATION Spray Date 06/16/2025 @ 9:10 am 07/23/2025 @ 5:42 pm Observation 06/16/2025 – 07/30/2025 Dates Weather at 06/16 Sunny, 68˚ F application Wind: 4 mph 07/23 Sunny, 86˚ F Wind: mph System Marginal areas

OBSERVATIONS The plots were checked a week later and they showed a visible difference. A month later, plots sprayed with the alternative products could not be distinguished from the background.

Following the late application, next to the original plots, and by the next day you could see signs of death. It was 86 degrees for the second application of spray, therefore better kill was anticipated.

However, a month post application, the locations of alternative product application were not longer visually distinguishable.

Study Type Replicated Treatments 5 Replications 6 (2 blocks of 3) Size of trial 30 sq ft

STUDY DESIGN This study was designed in response to frequent questions by home gardeners, spurred by information from the internet. This trial was conducted on tall fescue, clover, and Canada Thistle. It had been previously mowed and had about 6-8 inches of re-growth.Two rounds (blocks) of replicated application were conducted.

Five 1 ft² test plots were selected for application of either the homemade mixture (1 gallon vinegar, 1 cup salt, 1 tablespoon dawn dishsoap), Harris Vinegar Grass & Weed Killer (a.i. Acetic Acid 20%), Round Up easy spray (a.i. Triclopyr, triethylamine salt 0.122%, Fluazifop-P-butyl 0.097%, Diquat dibromide 0.073%), Spruce Weed &Grass Killer (a.i. Sodium Lauryl Sulfate 6.50%, cornmint oil 4.85%, geraniol 1.00%), or left untreated as a control.

Photographs were taken and Microsoft Copilot was used to analyze the percentage of green vs. brown foliage. Pictures were cropped so that each plot sprayed showed just the sprayed areas. Copilot was asked to give a manual visual estimate of the percentage of green vs. brown foliage of each picture (3 pictures for each replication).

160 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Plot showing distinct dead foliage 8 days post early application

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

RESULTS

Means of % dead vegetation were not statisically distinguishable within application date (p= 0.29), but date of application showed significant differencesas a block effect (p= 0.02).

SUMMARY •

Roundup was the only herbicide that provided lasting results this year; others offered suppression for a short time but then re-growth occurred.

•

The Morrow county site 7.7” of rain from June 1st – July 31st. The wet weather could have contributed to the lack of control from the alternative herbicides.

•

This experiment builds on a study done 2024, and the results were much different than they were previously.

•

Further evaluation will be conduicted in 2026, with and intent to use a tripod to make sure that the camera is the same distance off the ground for each picture taken, and carefully framed to ensure consistency in evaluation.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE Microsoft Copilot was used to analyze the percentage of green grass vs. brown foliage. Artifical Inteligence (AI) technology is an emergig way to streamline and standardize assessment of information in an objective manner.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Carri Jagger Extension Educator, Morrow County jagger.6@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 161

Ohio Home Garden Trials: Parsley OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Sites

Evaluate the performance of parsley varieties under real-world gardening conditions using methods commonly practiced by Ohio gardeners.

OSU Extension Statewide

STUDY INFORMATION Planting Date 05/15/2025 – 09/15/2025 Harvest Date(s) 07/30/2025 – 10/31/2025 Varieties Gigante d’ Italia Italian Dark Green Management Conventional and organic Fertilizer None, Conventional, compost alone, compost and organic Pesticides Conventional, organic, none Growing System Bare ground, Garden soil in raised beds, Soilless mix in raised beds, Containers Study type Replicated by site Treatments 2 Replications 54 Size of trial 540 sq ft

STUDY DESIGN Gardeners across Ohio participated in a voluntary study comparing two varieties of a vegetable in side-by-side trials. Participants selected from ten vegetable trials, one flower trial, and one herb trial, growing the varieties using their usual methods rather than controlled experimental practices. At the end of the growing season, gardeners submitted evaluation forms detailing performance and their gardening methods. This self-selected approach provided practical insights into how varieties perform under diverse, real-world conditions, reflecting the typical practices of home gardeners rather than standardized protocols.

162 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Residents in 25 Ohio counties participated in this trial.

The counties indicated in red had at least one participant.

OBSERVATIONS A total of 54 gardeners from 25 Ohio counties participated, selecting 54 variety trials for evaluation. Of these, 24 gardeners completed full or partial evaluations, reflecting a 56% full or partial failure rate.

Gardening experience ranged from 1 to 84 years.

Raised beds with garden soil followed by Traditional bare ground gardens were the most common gardening method used.

Regarding soil amendments, 21% of participants used no fertilizer, while 50% used compost alone or combined with organic fertilizers, highlighting a preference for organic practices among the majority of participants

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

SUMMARY •

Gardeners rated the two parsley varieties similarly for several key traits, with a majority rating Gigante d ’Italia and Italian Dark Green equally on germination, plant health, yield, and plant attractiveness; the only trait showing a clear preference was taste, where Italian Dark Green was rated higher.

•

Italian Dark Green received a significantly higher mean overall performance rating (5.0 out of 5) compared with Gigante d ‘Italia (4.0 out of 5).

•

Nearly all respondents indicated they would recommend the varieties to other Ohio gardeners, with 92% recommending Gigante d ‘Italia and 100% recommending Italian Dark Green.

Gigante d’ Italia and Italian Dark Green parsley

EVALUATION TRAITS

PROJECT CONTACT

JOIN IN THE 2026 TRIALS

For inquiries about this project, contact

Be a citizen scientist and contribute to our vegetable trials for Ohio. We are looking for people excited about growing vegetables in their home gardens and then letting us know what they think.

Youth and adults are welcomed to participate.

Ed Brown Extension Educator, Athens County brown.6000@osu.edu

go.osu.edu/ohioveggies

2025 ePLUS Report | 163

Ohio Home Garden Trials: Peppers OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Sites

Evaluate the performance of pepper varieties under real-world gardening conditions using methods commonly practiced by Ohio gardeners.

OSU Extension Statewide

STUDY INFORMATION Transplant Date 05/15/2025 – 09/15/2025 Harvest Date(s) 07/30/2025 – 10/31/2025 Varieties Lemon Delite Sweetie Orange Management Conventional and organic Fertilizer None, Conventional, compost alone, compost and organic Pesticides Conventional, organic, none Growing System Bare ground, Garden soil in raised beds, Soilless mix in raised beds, Containers Study type Replicated by site Treatments 2 Replications 58 Size of trial 2280 sq ft

STUDY DESIGN Gardeners across Ohio participated in a voluntary study comparing two varieties of a vegetable in side-by-side trials. Participants selected from ten vegetable trials, one flower trial, and one herb trial, growing the varieties using their usual methods rather than controlled experimental practices. At the end of the growing season, gardeners submitted evaluation forms detailing performance and their gardening methods. This self-selected approach provided practical insights into how varieties perform under diverse, real-world conditions, reflecting the typical practices of home gardeners rather than standardized protocols.

Residents in 30 Ohio counties participated in this trial.

The counties indicated in red had at least one participant.

OBSERVATIONS

A total of 58 gardeners from 30 Ohio counties participated, selecting 58 variety trials for evaluation. Of these, 20 gardeners completed full or partial evaluations, reflecting a 65% full or partial failure rate. Gardening experience ranged from 1 to 84 years.

Raised beds with garden soil followed by traditional bare ground gardens were the most common gardening method used.

Regarding soil amendments, 21% of participants used no fertilizer, while 53% used compost alone or combined with organic fertilizers, highlighting a preference for organic practices among the majority of participants

SUMMARY •

• •

164 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Gardeners rated the two pepper varieties similarly for most traits, with a majority either equally dividing their preference or finding no difference between Lemon Delite and Sweetie Orange in germination rate, plant health, days to first fruit, yield, attractiveness of fruits, and taste.

Both Lemon Delite and Sweetie Orange received identical mean overall performance ratings of 3.0 out of 5.

A majority of respondents indicated they would recommend the varieties to other Ohio gardeners, with 75% recommending Lemon Delite and 80% recommending Sweetie Orange.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Lemon Delight

Aquatic

Sweetie Orange

EVALUATION TRAITS

PROJECT CONTACT

JOIN IN THE 2026 TRIALS

For inquiries about this project, contact

Be a citizen scientist and contribute to our vegetable trials for Ohio. We are looking for people excited about growing vegetables in their home gardens and then letting us know what they think.

Youth and adults are welcomed to participate.

Ed Brown Extension Educator, Athens County brown.6000@osu.edu

go.osu.edu/ohioveggies

2025 ePLUS Report | 165

Ohio Home Garden Trials: Cucumbers OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Sites

Evaluate the performance of cucumber varieties under real-world gardening conditions using methods commonly practiced by Ohio gardeners.

OSU Extension Statewide

STUDY INFORMATION Planting Date 05/15/2025 – 09/15/2025 Harvest Date(s) 07/30/2025 – 10/31/2025 Varieties Darlingtron Raceway Management Conventional and organic Fertilizer None, Conventional, compost alone, compost and organic Pesticides Conventional, organic, none Growing System Bare ground, Garden soil in raised beds, Soilless mix in raised beds, Containers Study type Replicated by site Treatments 2 Replications 52 Size of trial 1040 sq ft

STUDY DESIGN Gardeners across Ohio participated in a voluntary study comparing two varieties of a vegetable in side-by-side trials. Participants selected from ten vegetable trials, one flower trial, and one herb trial, growing the varieties using their usual methods rather than controlled experimental practices. At the end of the growing season, gardeners submitted evaluation forms detailing performance and their gardening methods. This self-selected approach provided practical insights into how varieties perform under diverse, real-world conditions, reflecting the typical practices of home gardeners rather than standardized protocols.

166 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Residents in 24 Ohio counties participated in this trial.

The counties indicated in red had at least one participant.

OBSERVATIONS

A total of 52 gardeners from 24 Ohio counties participated, selecting 52 variety trials for evaluation. Of these, 23 gardeners completed full or partial evaluations, reflecting a 56% full or partial failure rate.

Gardening experience ranged from 1 to 84 years.

Raised beds with garden soil followed by Traditional bare ground gardens were the most common gardening method used.

Regarding soil amendments, 26% of participants used no fertilizer, while 61% used compost alone or combined with organic fertilizers, highlighting a preference for organic practices among the majority of participants

SUMMARY • • • •

Gardeners rated both varieties equally for germination and plant health.

Raceway was preferred for earliness of production, whereas Darlington received higher ratings for yield and taste.

Both Darlington and Raceway earned identical mean overall performance ratings of 4.0 out of 5.0.

A large majority of respondents indicated they would recommend the varieties to other Ohio gardeners, with 96% recommending Darlington and 87% recommending Raceway.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Darlington cucumbers

Aquatic

Raceway cucumbers

EVALUATION TRAITS

PROJECT CONTACT

JOIN IN THE 2026 TRIALS

For inquiries about this project, contact

Be a citizen scientist and contribute to our vegetable trials for Ohio. We are looking for people excited about growing vegetables in their home gardens and then letting us know what they think.

Youth and adults are welcomed to participate.

Ed Brown Extension Educator, Athens County brown.6000@osu.edu

go.osu.edu/ohioveggies

2025 ePLUS Report | 167

Ohio Home Garden Trials: Lettuce OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Sites

Ealuate the performance of lettuce varieties under real-world gardening conditions using methods commonly practiced by Ohio gardeners.

OSU Extension Statewide

STUDY INFORMATION Planting Date 04/01/2025 – 09/15/2025 Harvest Date(s) 06/01/2025 – 10/31/2025 Varieties Black Seeded Simpson New Red Fire Management Conventional and organic Fertilizer None, Conventional, compost alone, compost and organic Pesticides Conventional, organic, none Growing System Bare ground, Garden soil in raised beds, Soilless mix in raised beds, Containers Study type Replicated by site Residents in 28 Ohio counties participated in this trial.

The counties indicated in red had at least one participant.

Treatments 2 Replications 60 Size of trial 600 sq ft

STUDY DESIGN Gardeners across Ohio participated in a voluntary study comparing two varieties of a vegetable in side-by-side trials. Participants selected from ten vegetable trials, one flower trial, and one herb trial, growing the varieties using their usual methods rather than controlled experimental practices. At the end of the growing season, gardeners submitted evaluation forms detailing performance and their gardening methods. This self-selected approach provided practical insights into how varieties perform under diverse, real-world conditions, reflecting the typical practices of home gardeners rather than standardized protocols.

168 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

OBSERVATIONS A total of 60 gardeners from 28 Ohio counties participated, selecting 60 variety trials for evaluation. Of these, 27 gardeners completed full or partial evaluations, reflecting a 55% full or partial failure rate.

Gardening experience ranged from 1 to 84 years. Traditional bare ground gardens followed by raised beds with garden soil were the most common gardening method. Regarding soil amendments, 23% of participants used no fertilizer, while 54% used compost alone or combined with organic fertilizers, highlighting a preference for organic practices among the majority of participants

SUMMARY • • • •

For germination and plant health, gardener preferences were nearly evenly divided between Black Seeded Simpson and New Red Fire.

New Red Fire was rated higher for yield, leaf attractiveness, and taste, whereas Black Seeded Simpson was preferred for earliness of production.

Both Black Seeded Simpson and New Red Fire received identical mean overall performance ratings of 4.0 out of 5.

A majority of respondents indicated they would recommend the varieties to other Ohio gardeners, with 79% recommending Black Seeded Simpson and 95% recommending New Red Fire.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

New Red Fire lettuce

Black Seeded Simpson lettuce

EVALUATION TRAITS

PROJECT CONTACT

JOIN IN THE 2026 TRIALS

For inquiries about this project, contact

Be a citizen scientist and contribute to our vegetable trials for Ohio. We are looking for people excited about growing vegetables in their home gardens and then letting us know what they think.

Youth and adults are welcomed to participate.

Ed Brown Extension Educator, Athens County brown.6000@osu.edu

go.osu.edu/ohioveggies

2025 ePLUS Report | 169

Ohio Home Garden Trials: Tomatoes OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Sites

Evaluate the performance of tomato varieties under real-world gardening conditions using methods commonly practiced by Ohio gardeners.

OSU Extension Statewide

STUDY INFORMATION Transplant Date 05/15/2025 – 09/15/2025 Harvest Date(s) 07/30/2025 – 10/31/2025 Varieties Ruby Crush Tidy Treats Management Conventional and organic Fertilizer None, Conventional, compost alone, compost and organic Pesticides Conventional, organic, none Growing System Bare ground, Garden soil in raised beds, Soilless mix in raised beds, Containers Study type Replicated by site Treatments 2 Replications 56 Size of trial 2240 sq ft

STUDY DESIGN Gardeners across Ohio participated in a voluntary study comparing two varieties of a vegetable in side-by-side trials. Participants selected from ten vegetable trials, one flower trial, and one herb trial, growing the varieties using their usual methods rather than controlled experimental practices. At the end of the growing season, gardeners submitted evaluation forms detailing performance and their gardening methods. This self-selected approach provided practical insights into how varieties perform under diverse, real-world conditions, reflecting the typical practices of home gardeners rather than standardized protocols.

170 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Residents in 28 Ohio counties participated in this trial.

The counties indicated in red had at least one participant.

OBSERVATIONS A total of 56 gardeners from 28 Ohio counties participated, selecting 56 variety trials for evaluation. Of these, 20 gardeners completed full or partial evaluations, reflecting a 80% full or partial failure rate. Gardening experience ranged from 1 to 84 years.

Raised beds with garden soil followed by Traditional bare ground gardens were the most common gardening method used.

Regarding soil amendments, 15% of participants used no fertilizer, while 55% used compost alone or combined with organic fertilizers, highlighting a preference for organic practices among the majority of participants.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

SUMMARY •

Germination and plant health were rated nearly equally between Ruby Crush and Tidy Treats.

•

Preferences for earliness of first harvest and total yield were almost evenly divided among gardeners.

•

Ruby Crush was clearly preferred for fruit attractiveness and taste.

•

Both Ruby Crush and Tidy Treats received identical mean overall performance ratings of 4.0 out of 5.

•

Respondents were highly likely to recommend the varieties to other Ohio gardeners, with 100% recommending Ruby Crush and 85% recommending Tidy Treats.

Tidy treat (left) and Ruby Crush (right) tomatoes

EVALUATION TRAITS

PROJECT CONTACT

JOIN IN THE 2026 TRIALS

For inquiries about this project, contact

Be a citizen scientist and contribute to our vegetable trials for Ohio. We are looking for people excited about growing vegetables in their home gardens and then letting us know what they think.

Youth and adults are welcomed to participate.

Ed Brown Extension Educator, Athens County brown.6000@osu.edu

go.osu.edu/ohioveggies

2025 ePLUS Report | 171

Ohio Home Garden Trials: Spinach OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Sites

Evaluate the performance of spinach varieties under real-world gardening conditions using methods commonly practiced by Ohio gardeners.

OSU Extension Statewide

STUDY INFORMATION Transplant Date 04/012025 – 09/15/2025 Harvest Date(s) 06/01/2025 – 10/31/2025 Varieties Kolibri Red Tabby Management Conventional and organic Fertilizer None, Conventional, compost alone, compost and organic Pesticides Conventional, organic, none Growing System Bare ground, Garden soil in raised beds, Soilless mix in raised beds, Containers Study type Replicated by site

Residents in 27 Ohio counties participated in this trial.

The counties indicated in red had at least one participant.

Treatments 2 Replications 59

OBSERVATIONS

Size of trial 590 sq ft

A total of 59 gardeners from 27 Ohio counties participated, selecting 59 variety trials for evaluation. Of these, 28 gardeners completed full or partial evaluations, reflecting a 53% full or partial failure rate. Gardening experience ranged from 1 to 84 years. Raised beds with garden soil followed by Traditional bare ground gardens were the most common gardening method used. Regarding soil amendments, 39% of participants used no fertilizer, while 46% used compost alone or combined with organic fertilizers, highlighting a preference for organic practices among the majority of participants.

STUDY DESIGN Gardeners across Ohio participated in a voluntary study comparing two varieties of a vegetable in side-by-side trials. Participants selected from ten vegetable trials, one flower trial, and one herb trial, growing the varieties using their usual methods rather than controlled experimental practices. At the end of the growing season, gardeners submitted evaluation forms detailing performance and their gardening methods. This self-selected approach provided practical insights into how varieties perform under diverse, real-world conditions, reflecting the typical practices of home gardeners rather than standardized protocols.

172 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

SUMMARY •

• • •

For germination, plant health, and earliness of production, responses were evenly balanced: approximately half of the gardeners rated Kolibri and Red Tabby equally, while the remaining respondents were evenly split in their preference for one variety over the other.

Red Tabby was rated higher for fruit attractiveness, whereas Kolibri received higher ratings for taste.

Both Kolibri and Red Tabby earned identical mean overall performance ratings of 4.0 out of 5.

A large majority of respondents indicated they would recommend the varieties to other Ohio gardeners, with 89% recommending Kolibri and 75% recommending Red Tabby.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Red Tabby spinach

Aquatic

Kolibri spinach

EVALUATION TRAITS

PROJECT CONTACT

JOIN IN THE 2026 TRIALS

For inquiries about this project, contact

Be a citizen scientist and contribute to our vegetable trials for Ohio. We are looking for people excited about growing vegetables in their home gardens and then letting us know what they think.

Youth and adults are welcomed to participate.

Ed Brown Extension Educator, Athens County brown.6000@osu.edu

go.osu.edu/ohioveggies

2025 ePLUS Report | 173

Ohio Home Garden Trials: Summer Squash OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Sites

Evaluate the performance of summer squash varieties under real-world gardening conditions using methods commonly practiced by Ohio gardeners.

OSU Extension Statewide

STUDY INFORMATION Transplant Date 05/15/2025 – 09/15/2025 Harvest Date(s) 07/302025 – 10/31/2025 Varieties Goldprize Basima Management Conventional and organic Fertilizer None, Conventional, compost alone, compost and organic Pesticides Conventional, organic, none Growing System Bare ground, Garden soil in raised beds, Soilless mix in raised beds, Containers Study type Replicated by site

Residents in 17 Ohio counties participated in this trial.

The counties indicated in red had at least one participant.

Treatments 2 Replications 26

OBSERVATIONS

Size of trial 1040 sq ft

A total of 26 gardeners from 17 Ohio counties participated, selecting 26 variety trials for evaluation. Of these, 14 gardeners completed full or partial evaluations, reflecting a 46% full or partial failure rate. Gardening experience ranged from 1 to 84 years.

STUDY DESIGN Gardeners across Ohio participated in a voluntary study comparing two varieties of a vegetable in side-by-side trials. Participants selected from ten vegetable trials, one flower trial, and one herb trial, growing the varieties using their usual methods rather than controlled experimental practices. At the end of the growing season, gardeners submitted evaluation forms detailing performance and their gardening methods. This self-selected approach provided practical insights into how varieties perform under diverse, real-world conditions, reflecting the typical practices of home gardeners rather than standardized protocols.

174 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Raised beds with garden soil followed by traditional bare ground gardens were the most common gardening method used. Regarding soil amendments, 21% of participants used no fertilizer, while 64% used compost alone or combined with organic fertilizers, highlighting a preference for organic practices among the majority of participants.

SUMMARY • • • •

Gardeners rated Basima and Goldprize equally with respect to germination.

Basima outperformed Goldprize in early production, yield, fruit attractiveness, and taste.

Basima received a higher mean overall performance rating (4.0 out of 5) than Goldprize (3.0 out of 5).

A strong majority of respondents indicated they would recommend the varieties to other Ohio gardeners, with 79% recommending Goldprize and 93% recommending Basima.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Basima summer squash

Aquatic

Goldprize summer squash

EVALUATION TRAITS

PROJECT CONTACT

JOIN IN THE 2026 TRIALS

For inquiries about this project, contact

Be a citizen scientist and contribute to our vegetable trials for Ohio. We are looking for people excited about growing vegetables in their home gardens and then letting us know what they think.

Youth and adults are welcomed to participate.

Ed Brown Extension Educator, Athens County brown.6000@osu.edu

go.osu.edu/ohioveggies

2025 ePLUS Report | 175

Ohio Home Garden Trials: Beets OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Sites

Evaluate the performance of beet varieties under real-world gardening conditions using methods commonly practiced by Ohio gardeners.

OSU Extension Statewide

STUDY INFORMATION Transplant Date 04/01/2025 – 09/15/2025 Harvest Date(s) 06/01/2025 – 10/31/2025 Varieties Cylindra Lutz Green Leaf Management Conventional and organic Fertilizer None, Conventional, compost alone, compost and organic Pesticides Conventional, organic, none Growing System Bare ground, Garden soil in raised beds, Soilless mix in raised beds, Containers Study type Replicated by site

Residents in 23 Ohio counties participated in this trial.

The counties indicated in red had at least one participant.

Treatments 2 Replications 49 Size of trial 980 sq ft

STUDY DESIGN Gardeners across Ohio participated in a voluntary study comparing two varieties of a vegetable in side-by-side trials. Participants selected from ten vegetable trials, one flower trial, and one herb trial, growing the varieties using their usual methods rather than controlled experimental practices. At the end of the growing season, gardeners submitted evaluation forms detailing performance and their gardening methods. This self-selected approach provided practical insights into how varieties perform under diverse, real-world conditions, reflecting the typical practices of home gardeners rather than standardized protocols.

176 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

OBSERVATIONS A total of 49 gardeners from 23 Ohio counties participated, selecting 49 variety trials for evaluation. Of these, 19 gardeners completed full or partial evaluations, reflecting a 62% full or partial failure rate.

Gardening experience ranged from 1 to 84 years.

Traditional bare ground gardens followed by raised beds with garden soil were the most common gardening method. Regarding soil amendments, 22% of participants used no fertilizer, while 65% used compost alone or combined with organic fertilizers, highlighting a preference for organic practices among the majority of participants.

SUMMARY • • • •

For most evaluated traits, gardeners were nearly evenly divided, with approximately equal numbers rating Lutz Green Leaf and Cylindra the same or rating Lutz Green Leaf superior.

Cylindra demonstrated modest advantages in earliness (days to harvest) and total yield.

Lutz Green Leaf received a higher mean overall performance rating (4.0 out of 5) than Cylindra (3.0 out of 5).

A majority of respondents indicated they would recommend the varieties to other Ohio gardeners, with 84% recommending Lutz Green Leaf and 68% recommending Cylindra.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Cylindra and Lutz Green Leaf beets

Aquatic

Cylindra beet

EVALUATION TRAITS

PROJECT CONTACT

JOIN IN THE 2026 TRIALS

For inquiries about this project, contact

Be a citizen scientist and contribute to our vegetable trials for Ohio. We are looking for people excited about growing vegetables in their home gardens and then letting us know what they think.

Youth and adults are welcomed to participate.

Ed Brown Extension Educator, Athens County brown.6000@osu.edu

go.osu.edu/ohioveggies

2025 ePLUS Report | 177

Ohio Home Garden Trials: Zinnias OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Sites

Evaluate the performance of zinnia varieties under real-world gardening conditions using methods commonly practiced by Ohio gardeners.

OSU Extension Statewide

STUDY INFORMATION Transplant Date 05/15/2025 – 09/15/2025 Harvest Date(s) 07/30/2025 – 10/31/2025 Varieties Cactus Flowering Mix Oklahoma Mix Management Conventional and organic Fertilizer None, Conventional, compost alone, compost and organic Pesticides Conventional, organic, none Growing System Bare ground, Garden soil in raised beds, Soilless mix in raised beds, Containers Study type Replicated by site

Residents in 38 Ohio counties participated in this trial.

The counties indicated in red had at least one participant.

Treatments 2 Replications 109

OBSERVATIONS

Size of trial 1090 sq ft

A total of 109 gardeners from 38 Ohio counties participated, selecting 109 variety trials for evaluation. Of these, 54 gardeners completed full or partial evaluations, reflecting a 50% full or partial failure rate. Gardening experience ranged from 1 to 84 years.

STUDY DESIGN Gardeners across Ohio participated in a voluntary study comparing two varieties of a vegetable in side-by-side trials. Participants selected from ten vegetable trials, one flower trial, and one herb trial, growing the varieties using their usual methods rather than controlled experimental practices. At the end of the growing season, gardeners submitted evaluation forms detailing performance and their gardening methods. This self-selected approach provided practical insights into how varieties perform under diverse, real-world conditions, reflecting the typical practices of home gardeners rather than standardized protocols.

178 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Raised beds with garden soil followed by traditional bare ground gardens were the most common gardening method used. Regarding soil amendments, 38% of participants used no fertilizer, while 48% used compost alone or combined with organic fertilizers, highlighting a preference for organic practices among the majority of participants.

SUMMARY • • •

Gardeners rated Oklahoma Mix higher than or equal to Cactus Flowering Mix across all evaluated traits, with a majority favoring Oklahoma Mix on most attributes.

Oklahoma Mix received a significantly higher mean overall performance rating (5.0 out of 5.0) compared with Cactus Flowering Mix (4.0 out of 5.0).

A large majority of respondents indicated they would recommend the mixtures to other Ohio gardeners, with 87% recommending Cactus Flowering Mix and 91% recommending Oklahoma Mix.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Cactus Flowering Mix Zinnias

Aquatic

Oklahoma Mix Zinnias

EVALUATION TRAITS

PROJECT CONTACT

JOIN IN THE 2026 TRIALS

For inquiries about this project, contact

Be a citizen scientist and contribute to our vegetable trials for Ohio. We are looking for people excited about growing vegetables in their home gardens and then letting us know what they think.

Youth and adults are welcomed to participate.

Ed Brown Extension Educator, Athens County brown.6000@osu.edu

go.osu.edu/ohioveggies

2025 ePLUS Report | 179

Ohio Home Garden Trials: Carrots OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Sites

Evaluate the performance of carrot varieties under real-world gardening conditions using methods commonly practiced by Ohio gardeners.

OSU Extension Statewide

STUDY INFORMATION Planting Date 04/01/2025 – 09/15/2025 Harvest Date(s) 06/01/2025 – 10/31/2025 Varieties Bengala Gold Nugget Management Conventional and organic Fertilizer None, Conventional, compost alone, compost and organic Pesticides Conventional, organic, none Growing System Bare ground, Garden soil in raised beds, Soilless mix in raised beds, Containers Study type Replicated by site Treatments 2 Replications 58 Size of trial 580 sq ft

STUDY DESIGN Gardeners across Ohio participated in a voluntary study comparing two varieties of a vegetable in side-by-side trials. Participants selected from ten vegetable trials, one flower trial, and one herb trial, growing the varieties using their usual methods rather than controlled experimental practices. At the end of the growing season, gardeners submitted evaluation forms detailing performance and their gardening methods. This self-selected approach provided practical insights into how varieties perform under diverse, real-world conditions, reflecting the typical practices of home gardeners rather than standardized protocols.

180 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Residents in 28 Ohio counties participated in this trial. The counties indicated in red had at least one participant.

OBSERVATIONS A total of 58 gardeners from 28 Ohio counties participated, selecting 58 variety trials for evaluation. Of these, 27 gardeners completed full or partial evaluations, reflecting a 53% full or partial failure rate.

Gardening experience ranged from 1 to 84 years.

Raised beds with garden soil followed by traditional bare ground gardens were the most common gardening method used.

Regarding soil amendments, 22% of participants used no fertilizer, while 52% used compost alone or combined with organic fertilizers, highlighting a preference for organic practices among the majority of participants

SUMMARY • • • •

For germination and plant health, the majority of gardeners rated Bengala and Gold Nugget equally.

Bengala received higher ratings than Gold Nugget for earliness of production, total yield, root attractiveness, and taste.

Both Bengala and Gold Nugget earned identical mean overall performance ratings of 4.0 out of 5.

Nearly all respondents indicated they would recommend Bengala to other Ohio gardeners (100%), while 78% would recommend Gold Nugget

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Bengala Carrots

Aquatic

Gold Nugget Carrots

EVALUATION TRAITS

PROJECT CONTACT

JOIN IN THE 2026 TRIALS

For inquiries about this project, contact

Be a citizen scientist and contribute to our vegetable trials for Ohio. We are looking for people excited about growing vegetables in their home gardens and then letting us know what they think.

Youth and adults are welcomed to participate.

Ed Brown Extension Educator, Athens County brown.6000@osu.edu

go.osu.edu/ohioveggies

2025 ePLUS Report | 181

Ohio Home Garden Trials: Peas OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Sites

Evaluate the performance of pea varieties under real-world gardening conditions using methods commonly practiced by Ohio gardeners.

OSU Extension Statewide

STUDY INFORMATION Planting Date 04/01/2025 – 09/15/2025 Harvest Date(s) 06/01/2025 – 10/31/2025 Varieties Cascadia Sugar Sprint Management Conventional and organic Fertilizer None, Conventional, compost alone, compost and organic Pesticides Conventional, organic, none Growing System Bare ground, Garden soil in raised beds, Soilless mix in raised beds, Containers Study type Replicated by site Treatments 2 Replications 48 Size of trial 480 sq ft

STUDY DESIGN Gardeners across Ohio participated in a voluntary study comparing two varieties of a vegetable in side-by-side trials. Participants selected from ten vegetable trials, one flower trial, and one herb trial, growing the varieties using their usual methods rather than controlled experimental practices. At the end of the growing season, gardeners submitted evaluation forms detailing performance and their gardening methods. This self-selected approach provided practical insights into how varieties perform under diverse, real-world conditions, reflecting the typical practices of home gardeners rather than standardized protocols.

182 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Residents in 23 Ohio counties participated in this trial.

The counties indicated in red had at least one participant.

OBSERVATIONS

A total of 48 gardeners from 23 Ohio counties participated, selecting 48 variety trials for evaluation. Of these, 17 gardeners completed full or partial evaluations, reflecting a 65% full or partial failure rate. Gardening experience ranged from 1 to 84 years. Raised beds with garden soil followed by Traditional bare ground gardens were the most common gardening method used. Regarding soil amendments, 24% of participants used no fertilizer, while 59% used compost alone or combined with organic fertilizers, highlighting a preference for organic practices among the majority of participants

SUMMARY • •

•

Gardeners rated the two snap pea varieties similarly for overall performance, with both Cascadia and Sugar Sprint receiving a mean overall rating of 4.0 out of 5.

For plant health specifically, gardeners were evenly split: approximately half preferred Cascadia, half preferred Sugar Sprint, and the remainder rated them equally; for all other evaluated traits, Sugar Sprint was rated higher than or equal to Cascadia.

A majority of respondents indicated they would recommend the varieties to other Ohio gardeners, with 76% recommending Cascadia and 88% recommending Sugar Sprint.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

Cascadia peas

Sugar Sprint peas

EVALUATION TRAITS

PROJECT CONTACT

JOIN IN THE 2026 TRIALS

For inquiries about this project, contact

Be a citizen scientist and contribute to our vegetable trials for Ohio. We are looking for people excited about growing vegetables in their home gardens and then letting us know what they think.

Youth and adults are welcomed to participate.

Ed Brown Extension Educator, Athens County brown.6000@osu.edu

go.osu.edu/ohioveggies

2025 ePLUS Report | 183

Ohio Home Garden Trials: Green Beans OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Sites

Evaluate the performance of green bean varieties under real-world gardening conditions using methods commonly practiced by Ohio gardeners.

OSU Extension Statewide

STUDY INFORMATION Planting Date 05/15/2025 – 09/15/2025 Harvest Date(s) 07/30/2025 – 10/31/2025 Varieties Topcrop Sybaris Management Conventional and organic Fertilizer None, Conventional, compost alone, compost and organic Pesticides Conventional, organic, none Growing System Bare ground, Garden soil in raised beds, Soilless mix in raised beds, Containers Study type Replicated by site

Residents in 30 Ohio counties participated in this trial.

The counties indicated in red had at least one participant.

Treatments 2 Replications 65 Size of trial 650 sq ft

STUDY DESIGN Gardeners across Ohio participated in a voluntary study comparing two varieties of a vegetable in side-by-side trials. Participants selected from ten vegetable trials, one flower trial, and one herb trial, growing the varieties using their usual methods rather than controlled experimental practices. At the end of the growing season, gardeners submitted evaluation forms detailing performance and their gardening methods. This self-selected approach provided practical insights into how varieties perform under diverse, real-world conditions, reflecting the typical practices of home gardeners rather than standardized protocols.

184 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

OBSERVATIONS

A total of 65 gardeners from 30 Ohio counties participated, selecting 65 variety trials for evaluation. Of these, 17 gardeners completed full or partial evaluations, reflecting a 57% full or partial failure rate.

Gardening experience ranged from 1 to 84 years.

Raised beds with garden soil followed by Traditional bare ground gardens were the most common gardening method used.

Regarding soil amendments, 18% of participants used no fertilizer, while 68% used compost alone or combined with organic fertilizers, highlighting a preference for organic practices among the majority of participants.

SUMMARY • • •

Germination rates were rated similarly between Topcrop and Sybaris, but Sybaris received higher ratings for plant health, earliness of production, yield, plant attractiveness, and taste.

Sybaris earned a higher mean overall performance rating (4.0 out of 5) than Topcrop (3.0 out of 5).

A majority of respondents indicated they would recommend the varieties to other Ohio gardeners, with 64% recommending Topcrop and 86% recommending Sybaris.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Sybaris green beans

Aquatic

Topcrop green beans

EVALUATION TRAITS

PROJECT CONTACT

JOIN IN THE 2026 TRIALS

For inquiries about this project, contact

Be a citizen scientist and contribute to our vegetable trials for Ohio. We are looking for people excited about growing vegetables in their home gardens and then letting us know what they think.

Youth and adults are welcomed to participate.

Ed Brown Extension Educator, Athens County brown.6000@osu.edu

go.osu.edu/ohioveggies

2025 ePLUS Report | 185

Ohio Home Garden Trials: Crazy Beans OBJECTIVE

ePLUS Collaborating Sites

Evaluate the performance of crazy bean varieties under real-world gardening conditions using methods commonly practiced by Ohio gardeners.

OSU Extension Statewide

STUDY INFORMATION Planting Date 05/15/2025 – 09/15/2025 Harvest Date(s) 07/30/2025 – 10/31/2025 Varieties Dragon’s Tongue Python Management Conventional and organic Fertilizer None, Conventional, compost alone, compost and organic Pesticides Conventional, organic, none Growing System Bare ground, Garden soil in raised beds, Soilless mix in raised beds, Containers Study type Replicated by site

Residents in 24 Ohio counties participated in this trial.

The counties indicated in red had at least one participant.

Treatments 2 Replications 37 Size of trial 370 sq ft

STUDY DESIGN Gardeners across Ohio participated in a voluntary study comparing two varieties of a vegetable in side-by-side trials. Participants selected from ten vegetable trials, one flower trial, and one herb trial, growing the varieties using their usual methods rather than controlled experimental practices. At the end of the growing season, gardeners submitted evaluation forms detailing performance and their gardening methods. This self-selected approach provided practical insights into how varieties perform under diverse, real-world conditions, reflecting the typical practices of home gardeners rather than standardized protocols.

186 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

OBSERVATIONS

A total of 37 gardeners from 24 Ohio counties participated, selecting 37 variety trials for evaluation. Of these, 7 gardeners completed full or partial evaluations, reflecting a 81% full or partial failure rate. Gardening experience ranged from 1 to 5 years.

Raised beds with garden soil followed by traditional bare ground gardens were the most common gardening method used.

Regarding soil amendments, 72% used compost alone or combined with organic fertilizers, highlighting a preference for organic practices among the majority of participants

SUMMARY • • •

Gardeners rated Python higher than or equal to Dragon’s Tongue across all evaluated traits, with a majority favoring Python on most attributes.

Python received a significantly higher mean overall performance rating (5.0 out of 5) compared with Dragon’s Tongue (4.0 out of 5).

All respondents indicated they would recommend both varieties to other Ohio gardeners (100% for Dragon’s Tongue and 100% for Python).

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Dragon’s Tongue crazy beans

Aquatic

Python crazy beans

EVALUATION TRAITS

PROJECT CONTACT

JOIN IN THE 2026 TRIALS

For inquiries about this project, contact

Be a citizen scientist and contribute to our vegetable trials for Ohio. We are looking for people excited about growing vegetables in their home gardens and then letting us know what they think.

Youth and adults are welcomed to participate.

Ed Brown Extension Educator, Athens County brown.6000@osu.edu

go.osu.edu/ohioveggies

2025 ePLUS Report | 187

Heat Treatment of Acorns to Reduce Weevil Damage and Improve Oak Restoration OBJECTIVE Evaluate the effectiveness of hot water treatments as a method to reduce damage caused by acorn weevils (Curculio sp.) and increase germination rates in chinkapin oak (Quercus muehlenbergii).

Chadwick Arboretum OSU Columbus Campus Franklin County

STUDY INFORMATION Planting Date 10/16/2023 Sampling Date 05/24/2025 Species Quercus muehlenbergii Treatments 5 Replications 5 replicated blocks (45 acorns of each treatment) Size of trial 1,125 acorns in total Statistical tests Using R, survival data was analyzed as a binary response using a generalized linear mixed-effects model with a binomial error distribution.

STUDY DESIGN Acorns of Chinkapin oak (Quercus muehlenbergii) were collected from twenty parent trees from multiple sites across central Ohio and treated in a Fisher ThermoScientificTM water bath at 48°C for 0 (control), 10, 20, 30, or 40 minutes. After treatment, acorns were planted in D60L Deepots™ with Miracle-Gro All-Purpose Potting soil in October 2023. Forty-five acorns per treatment were assigned to each of five randomized blocks (n=1125). All pots were placed within a predation-proof cage and mulched for insulation. Pots were weeded and watered as needed with the mulch removed in spring 2024. Survival data was collected in May 2024 and expressed as % survival with associated standard error (SE) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Adult weevil drilling into acorn to deposit egg.

OBSERVATIONS Survival was lower around the outside of the cage. This is likely due to acorns being more exposed to cold temperatures compared to pots further inside the cage. The randomized nature of trial should avoid bias, but this information could be useful to growers.

Oak seedlings in cage in May 2024.

188 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Fruit

Aquatic

RESULTS • •

Based on our model, the predicted survival for untreated acorns (control) was 53% (SE 5%, 95% CI 43-64%).

A treatment length of 20 minutes was estimated to increase survival to 71% (SE 5%, 95% CI 61-79%) compared to control (p<0.05).

A treatment length of 40 minutes was estimated to decrease survival to 27% (SE 4%, 95% CI 19-36%) compared to control (p<0.001).

The estimated survival of treatment lengths of 10 and 30 minutes did not statistically differ from control.

• •

Estimated Survival Probability (± SE)

Estimated Probability of Survival by Length of Treatment 0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0min (Control)

10min

20min

30min

40min

Length of Treatment Weevil larvae inside acorn causing damage.

SUMMARY

• • •

Appropriate hot-water treatments of chinkapin oak acorns before planting can increase germination rates as measured after one growing season.

This could help to improve germination in direct seeding and greenhouse growing applications for forestry and restoration.

A 20-minute treatment at 48°C can increase germination for chinkapin oak acorns while treatment lengths beyond 30 minutes decrease germination compared to the control.

PROJECT CONTACTS Report submitted by: Samuel Stachler Dr. Jo Peacock Undergraduate Student Assistant Professor OSU School of Environment and Natural Resources OSU School of Environment and Natural Resources stachler.35@osu.edu peacock.104@osu.edu Research support provided by state and federal funds appropriated to The Ohio State University, College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences.

2025 ePLUS Report | 189

Cost-Benefit Analysis of On-Farm Mushroom Spawn Production OBJECTIVE Analyze whether on-farm spawn production is a sustainable alternative to commercial spawn for log-grown mushrooms and a viable method to introduce new mushroom strains for local market sales.

ePLUS Collaborating Farms OSU Extension Licking and Athens Counties

STUDY INFORMATION

Inoculation 04/15/2025 - 05/15/2025 Dates

Harvest Date(s) 09/12/2025- 11/28/2025 Variety (Strains) PoHu Oyster strain (Field & Forest, Peshtigo, WI); Pleurotus ostreatus local strain cultivated at Forest Fungi, Athens, OH

Management Log production System Agroforestry/Forest Farming Study type Preliminary experimental Treatments: 2 Replications 15 bolts of PoHu control,14 bolts of local treatment; 4 totems per spawn type

STUDY DESIGN This preliminary study compares on-farm and commercial mushroom spawn production at two Ohio forest farms located in Newark and Athens. Each farm set up a basic spawn lab, inoculated logs with both locally produced and commercial spawn, and monitored yield, costs, and viability. The farm in Licking County utilized crib stacked bolts, while the farm in Athens county employed totem style logs.

Data collected included startup and recurring costs, labor, and mushroom yields to evaluate costeffectiveness and production viability. The project also began assessing the potential to introduce new Illustration of how spawn is produced from a mushroom, which mushroom strains for local sale, although more research is then grown on various substrates for mushroom production. is needed since only one local strain was tested.

This work is supported in part by an Ohio State Paul C. And Edna H. Warner Endowment Fund for Sustainable Agriculture Interdisciplinary Grant Program for On-Farm Research 2025.

190 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Fruit

Aquatic

OBSERVATIONS Observations in Licking county confirmed mushroom production on both treatments. Fruiting began in PoHu inoculated logs mid-September, while logs inoculated with local spawn fruited early November. As of November 29, logs continue to show signs of continued production. Conditions during the spawn run were dry, leading to delays in pinning in both treatments.

Observations in Athens county also confirmed production on both treatments. Fruiting began in PoHu totems on October 1st and continued over the next month. Totems inoculated with local spawn fruited mid-November. Dry conditions were also reported from summer through fall at both locations.

RESULTS Treatment (units)

% of Logs Producing Mushrooms

Total Mushrooms Produced as of 11/28/25

PoHu Oyster from Field & Forest (Licking Co farm)

100%

4.0 lbs (63.7 oz)

5 years - $1,950 7 years - $2,730 10 years - $3,900*

Locally Grown Oyster Spawn (Licking Co farm)

100%

4.7 lbs (75.7 oz)

5 years - $2,520 7 years - $2,668 10 years - $2,890

PoHu Oyster from Field & Forest (Athens Co farm)

100%

4.2 lbs (67.7 oz)

5 years – $2,400 7 years – $3,360 10 years – $4,800**

Locally Grown Spawn (Athens Co farm)

100%

3.5 lbs (56.5 oz)

5 years - $2,520 7 years - $2,668 10 years - $2,890

Estimated Total Costs Over 5, 7, & 10 Years

*based on 20, 5.5 bags of spawn used per year ** based on 25, 5.5 bags of spawn used per year

SUMMARY •

The local strain provided by Forest Fungi was viable in logs and totems, but local spawn yields were initally lower than the commercial PoHu spawn, although this may have been influenced by dry weather and weed fungi.

•

Fruiting continued into late November, so final yields are pending.

•

Producing spawn on-farm rather than purchasing from a supplier was projected to cost less after 6–7 years based on historical purchases of spawn used by the participating farms.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE

Crib stack of tulip poplar with PoHu treatment fruiting (below). Totem of tulip poplar producing oyster mushrooms (right).

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Erika Lyon Extension Educator, Jefferson and Harrison Counties lyon.194@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 191

Scenic River Designation Criteria Analysis for Scioto Brush Creek and South Fork Watersheds OBJECTIVE Perform land use and road segment analysis to assess if the Scioto Brush Creek and South Fork Watersheds meet the Scenic River Designation Criteria in Ohio

STUDY DESIGN

eFields Collaborating Site OSU Extension Scioto County

RESULTS

We performed geospatial analysis to assess 3 of the 6 criteria for scenic river designation established by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). The 3 criteria analyzed are as follows: Criteria 2: Roads are permissible within 300 feet of the river but may not comprise more than 10% of the length of the Wild River segment. Limited access highway crossings are permitted but no more than one crossing per 15 miles of river. Other bridge crossings are permitted, but no more than an average of two bridges per 5 miles of river. No more than an average of two residential dwellings are permitted within 300 feet of the river per mile of river length.

We used road segment data from the Ohio Department of Transportation. We buffer analysis to count how many road segments we had within 300 ft from the stream as well as how long they were.

Criteria 4: No commercial or industrial development is permitted within 300 feet of the stream or within the visual corridor, whichever is less. No more than 5% of the river’s watershed may be covered with impervious surfaces upstream of the Wild River segment.

We used the National Land Cover Database to assess the percentage of low, medium, and high developed areas within the watershed.

Criteria 5: The area adjacent to at least 75% of the stream length, considering both banks, shall be in native forest or wetland, outward from the river to a depth of 300 feet or greater.

In addition, 50% of the remaining corridor shall be in native forest or wetland outward from the river to a depth of 120 feet or greater.

We used the National Land Cover Database to assess the percentage of forest and wetland areas within 300 and 120 ft of the river and within the watershed.

192 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Scioto Brush Creek: Does not meet Criteria 2. The roads within 300 feet of the Scenic River segment are 27.4% of the proposed Scenic River segment length. Specifically, we found that a total of 57 road segments intersected the 300 feet buffer from the stream (Figure 1).

The total road length within 300 ft was 18.82 km, while the scenic stream segment length is 68.59 km. Because the percentage is very close to the 25% recommended, we recommend an exception to Criteria 2.

South Fork: Does not meet Criteria 2. The roads within 300 feet of the Scenic River segment are 45.4% of the proposed Scenic River segment length. Specifically, we found that a total of 16 road segments intersected the 300 feet buffer from the stream (Figure 1).

The total road length within 300 ft was 10.21 km, while the scenic stream segment length is 22.51 km.

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

Scioto Brush Creek & South Fork: Meets Criteria 4. Figure 2 illustrates the overall land use percentage category for the entire watershed.

Some commercial buildings occur within 300 feet of the proposed Scenic River segment, but most of the development is of low intensity.

The most populated area is the upstream portion of the watershed in the first 10 miles of the river segment. Approximately 6.7% of the Scioto Brush Creek’s adjacent and upstream watershed has impervious surfaces. Approximately 5.2% of the South Fork’s adjacent and upstream watershed has impervious surfaces (Figure 2). Therefore, development in the watershed does not exceed the 10% recommended.

Scioto Brush Creek: Meets Criteria 5. Approximately 61.7% of the shoreline is in a natural condition within at least 300 feet of Scioto Brush Creek and 76.8% of the corridor is in native forest or wetland outward from the river to a depth of 120 feet or greater (Figure 2 – bottom).

South Fork: Meets Criteria 5. Approximately 43.2% of the shoreline is in a natural condition within at least 300 feet of South Fork, and 57.9% of the corridor is in native forest or wetland outward from the river to a depth of 120 feet or greater (Figure 2 – bottom).

To view the full report on Scioto Brush Creek, check out:

To view a video about the designation from the Governor’s office, Check out:

go.osu.edu/SciotoBC

go.osu.edu/sbcdesignation

SUMMARY This analysis was pivotal for the Scioto Brush Creek designation as Ohio’s 17th State Scenic River, officially approved by Governor Mike DeWine on November 19, 2025.

Stakeholders can contact the project lead for more information or analytical support.

PROJECT CONTACTS Original Report Developed by

For inquiries about this project, contact

Layla Ramsey, Research Technician/ Undergraduate Student OSU Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering

Dr. Lorrayne Miralha Assistant Professor of Watershed Modeling and Data Analytics OSU Food, Ag, Biological Engineering miralha.1@osu.edu

Alessandra Bertucci MS Student, OSU Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering Jalen Smith MS Student, OSU Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering

2025 ePLUS Report | 193

Aquaculture and Aquaponics Bi-products Towards Sustainable Agriculture OBJECTIVE Evaluate fish sludge generated in an in-pond raceway system and in an aquaponics facility as potential fertilizer.

eFields Collaborating Farm OSU Extension Clermont County

STUDY INFORMATION Started field 04/01/2025 monitoring Finished field 11/21/2025 monitoring Total numbers of 234-days days System In-pond Raceway System (IPRS); Aquaponics facility Study type Demonstration

STUDY DESIGN Fish sludge was collected at two locations, an aquaculture facility (floating in-pond raceway system, IPRS) in a reclaimed limestone quarry in Miami County, and from an aquaponics facility in Clermont County. During 67-days of the production cycle water temperature and pH was monitored using automatic data loggers (HOBO MX2501 pH and temperature data loggers) with parameters taken every hour. Fish sludge was sent for chemical analysis.

Pump for extracting fish sludge from the floating In-Pond Raceway System (IPRS).

194 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

RAS System for culturing tilapia at the aquaponics farm

Deep water culture units at the aquaponics farm

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Fruit

Aquatic

RESULTS

WATER QUALITY OBSERVATIONS

Chemical analysis of samples collected in Aquaculture and Aquaponics facilities.

go.osu.edu/fishwaste25

SUMMARY •

The aquaculture facility is an outdoor floating IPRS that has minimal control on the external environment, while the aquaponics facility is an indoor recirculating aquaculture system that is coupled with a hydroponics system. The water quality monitoring occurred on the fish culture units.

•

For the period in which the water quality was monitored it was observed that the pH in the aquaponics facility dropped from 6.98 up to 5.55; the opposite behavior was observed in the aquaculture facility where pH started at 8.22 and after 20-days jumped to 9.05, and then 20-days later dropped to an average of 8.72. The difference in pH may have impacted the biological activity occurred on the fish sludge and consequently the composition of macro and micronutrients observed in the collected samples.

•

Temperature: the aquaculture facility was about 2.0-2.7º C warmer than the aquaponics facility during the first 50days of the monitored period, and that trend was reversed during the last 14 days of the monitored period with the aquaculture facility being in average 0.8 ºC colder. Temperature also affects the biological activity on the fish sludge.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact

This work is supported in part by an Ohio State Paul C. And Edna H. Warner Endowment Fund for Sustainable Agriculture Interdisciplinary Grant Program for On-Farm Research 2025.

Dr. Herbert Quintero Program Director for Aquaculture OSU Extension quinterofonseca.1@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 195

Production of Largemouth Bass in a Floating In-pond Raceway System OBJECTIVE Evaluate Largemouth Bass (LMB) production using a floating, in-pond raceway system (IPRS), in a spring-fed pond.

eFields Collaborating Farm OSU Extension Miami County

STUDY INFORMATION Stocking Dates 05/03/2024 Harvest Date(s) 09/02/2025 Total production 487-days cycle Species Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) Management Feed: 16,753 lb.

System In-pond Raceway System (IPRS) Study type Demonstration Size of IPRS 214 m³ (56,500 gallons) Stocking density 3.6 kg/m³ Harvest density 9.0 kg/m³

STUDY DESIGN A total of 10,058 feed-trained largemouth bass LMB fingerlings with an individual average weight of 76.2± 19.8 g (CV=26.0%) were stocked on May 3, 2024, in one floating in-pond raceway system (IPRS). The IPRS is in a spring-fed pond derived from a reclaimed limestone quarry in Miami County.

Feed consumption and water quality parameters including water temperature, water pH, and dissolved oxygen were recorded daily. Other water quality parameters such as ammonia, nitrite, hardness, alkalinity, and chloride have been measured monthly.

Fish weight and lengths were recorded regularly to evaluate growth response in the culture system. The floating IPRS draws water from deep in the pond using airlift pumps to circulate in the culture unit. Removal of solid waste produced by organisms was done on a weekly basis.

196 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Harvesting largemouth bass in a floating in pond raceway system

WATER QUALITY OBSERVATIONS

go.osu.edu/LBM25

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

RESULTS

SUMMARY •

The production cycle was 487 days, with a total production of 1925.5 kg, with fish weighting in average 628 ± 99 g.

•

Unfortunately, prior to harvest, a mortality event related to human error occurred on April 19, 2025 (day 352) which accounted for an estimate of 4,780 fish, with an individual average weight of 396 g, for a total of 1,893 kg, that affected yield and FCR of the pilot study.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Dr. Herbert Quintero Program Director for Aquaculture OSU Extension quinterofonseca.1@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 197

Production of Redear Sunfish in a Floating In-pond Raceway System: A Pilot Study OBJECTIVE Evaluate Redear sunfish production in a floating in-pond raceway system (IPRS), in a spring-fed pond.

eFields Collaborating Farm OSU Extension Miami County

STUDY INFORMATION Stocking Dates 05/05/2025 Harvest Date(s) n/a Total production Over 180-days cycle Species Redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus) Management Fed manufactured feed System In-pond Raceway System (IPRS) Study type Demonstration Size of IPRS 214 m³ (56,500 gallons) Stocking density 0.45 kg/m3 Harvest density n/a

STUDY DESIGN

Sampling redear sunfish in a floating in pond raceway system

A total of 40,000 redear sunfish fingerlings with an individual average weight of 2.4 ±1.1g (CV=47.4%) were stocked on May 5, 2025, in one floating in-pond raceway system (IPRS).

The IPRS is in a spring-fed pond derived from a reclaimed limestone quarry in Miami County.

Feed consumption, and water quality parameters including water temperature, water pH, and dissolved oxygen were recorded daily. Other water quality parameters such as ammonia, nitrite, hardness, alkalinity, and chloride have been measured monthly.

Fish weight and lengths were recorded regularly to evaluate growth response in the culture system. The floating IPRS draws water from deep in the pond using airlift pumps to circulate in the culture unit. Removal of solid waste produced by organisms was done on a weekly basis.

Water quality (Temperature, ºC and water pH) in floating IPRS

198 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

RESULTS

Redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus) weight – length relationship

Redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus) growth curve

Sampling and measuring redear sunfish

SUMMARY •

The production cycle has been over 190-days. The fingerlings were feed trained at the start of this production cycle but the fish size was not homogeneous at stocking, and those differences have been extended over the production cycle with fish ranging from 5.1 g to 204 g. The fish will be maintained over winter in the IPRS. The intended market for this fish is pond stocking.

PROJECT CONTACT For inquiries about this project, contact Dr. Herbert Quintero Program Director for Aquaculture OSU Extension quinterofonseca.1@osu.edu

2025 ePLUS Report | 199

Acknowledgements Research Collaborators and Supporters Aaron Guggenheimer Acme Farm Market Adventure Central Aiden Shepherd Akron Cooperative Farms Allison Davis- Mid Ohio Food Collective Arnold Gomez Bailey Miller Balmy Heights Orchard Bauman Orchard Beth Rigsby Bob Filbrun Bob Shaw Brad & Sherrie Breitenbach Bruce Hanzel- The Fremont Company Buurma Farms Cameron Way- Way Farms Carlos Perez Chillicothe Farmers Market Chris Zoller Dane Peck David Civittolo David Ernst & Family Emily Moore Eric Barrett Ethan Cordle Five Rivers Metroparks Frank Thayer Geig’s Orchard Grant Satterfield HannahClark Ian Kaplan Jaelyn Palmer James Sanko Jamie and Krista Arthur - Little Miami Farms Janell Baran- Blue Owl Hollow Jennifer Dunn Jenny McKillips Jewel Dalton Jill Alexander Jim McCracken

Joshua Peachey Josh Lewis Julie Fox Kelsey Helphenstine Ken Scaife Kirk Manson- Hemloch Aquaculture Krissi Oliver- Hemloch Aquaculture Lauren Breitenbach- Bee-Leaf Sustainable Produce Let’s Grow Akron Lindsay Klaunig- Trouvaille Farm Lindsay White Mariah Warner Martin McAllister- Friends of Scioto Brush Creek Matt Herbruck- Birdsong Farm Matthew and Luticia Minter Maurer’s Michael McGraw- Roothouse Aquaponics Mid-Ohio Food Collective Moreland Fruit Farm Nancy Lamb Natalie Constancio Nathan Mast Nathaniel Cox-Thurmond Ohio State Student Farm Ohio Till Farmstead Ohio Till Farmstead OSU Boyd Polar and Climate Research Center OSU Vegetable Production Systems Lab OSU Waterman Farm, Controlled Environment Agriculture Research Center, Ornamental Plant Germplasm Center & Howlett Greenhouse Staff Paul O’Bryant Quinn Baltisberger- Mid Ohio Food Collective

200 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Richardson’s Farm Rittman Orchard Samuel Swarey Scenic Ridge Fruit Farm Shelly Manson- Hemloch Aquaculture Soulshine Earth - Andy Gedeon Steve Hirsch- Hirsch Fruit Farm Stiner Summitt Sunny Slope Orchard Teresa Beyler - Blue J Blueberry Farm Teresa Funk Thomas Harker The Foodbank, Inc. Unity Garden Urban Food Innovations Team Valerie Libbey- Libbey Farms Vinton Conty Middle School Walter Bonham Wayne Lewis Wiers Farms

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

2025 ePLUS Report | 201

Acknowledgements ePLUS Study and Production Support The production and publication of ePLUS has been made possible through the following support:

USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Ohio Extension Implimentation Program Award: 2024-70006-43574

USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, under agreement number 2023-38640-39573 through the North Central Region SARE program under project number ONC24-155

Additional Support for Studies Reported in ePLUS

Ben Stinner Endowment Fund for Healthy Agroecosystems and Sustainable Communities

USDA is an equal opportunity employer and service provider. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

202 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

Industry Partners

No endorcement from the Ohio State University for products shown is intended or implied.

2025 ePLUS Report | 203

eFields is a program at The Ohio State University dedicated to advancing production agriculture through the use of field-scale research.

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!

Counties that participated in eFields in 2025.

Growers:

Industry Representatives:

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).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!

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!

204 | Ohio State Digital Ag Program

Fruit

Other Vegetable Specialty Ornamental Home & Woodland Consumer

Aquatic

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!

2025 ePLUS Report | 205

ePLUS is an Ohio State program dedicated to advancing production horticulture and wise use of natural resources through on-location research. The program utilizes modern technologies and information to conduct applied, cooperative research with an educational and demonstration component used to help growers, managers, and advisors understand how new practices and techniques can improve farm, forest, and garden sustainability. ePLUS is dedicated to delivering timely and relevant, data-driven, actionable information to Ohio farmers and communities.

CONTACT US

ePLUS Ohio State University South Centers 1864 Shyville Road Piketon, Ohio 45662

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.