|
Newsletter | Past Issues
August,
2006
In This
Issue:
Farm
Management, Marketing & Economic Events at 2006
FSR
Wages
and Benefits for Farm Employees
Focus
on Retirement Planning
Fertilizer
Containment Deadline Nearing
Designing
Effective Pay-For Performance Systems for Employees
and Suppliers (Part 3)
What's
Up With Wheat?
Best
Management Safety Practices for the Farm
Do
you have a question that you would like to ask the Ohio
AG Manager Team? If so, click here to email your
question.
Farm
Management, Marketing and Economic Events at the 2006
Farm Science Review
Barry Ward &
Stan Ernst, OSU Extension and the Department of Agricultural,
Environmental, Development Economics
Even
though new equipment and machinery dominate the Farm
Science Review each year, economics and the bottom line
always play the major role in your decision making.
The Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development
Economics together with Ohio State University Extension
will offer several new activities, exhibits, presentations
and opportunities to interact with Agricultural Economists,
Farm Management Specialists and Extension Educators
at this year's Farm Science Review, September 19th through
the 21st at the Molly Caren Agricultural Center.
Input
Cost Increases Focus of Display
Knowing
your input costs and how to manage them are a big part
of farm profitability. Examining fuel and fertilizer
costs and their impact on the bottom line is the focus
of an exhibit in the Francine Firebaugh Building at
this year's Review. OSU Extension Enterprise Budgets
will be highlighted and 5 year cost increases will be
illustrated along with detailed breakdowns for fuel,
fertilizer and land costs. Newly updated “Ohio Farm
Custom Rates – 2006” will also be on display along with
a comparison of the 2002 and 2006 rates. “Ohio Cropland
Values and Cash Rental Rates 2005-06” will also be a
part of the exhibit and be available as a handout.
The
exhibit will also feature the Ohio Ag Manager
Newsletter that is published to provide Ohio
's famers and agribusiness managers the latest and best
management and marketing information. The Ohio Ag Manager
is a free monthly electronic newsletter available to
everyone via listserv or web. The goal of the Ohio Ag
Manager Team is to provide agricultural businesses with
timely management information dedicated to improving
efficiency and profitability. Focal issue areas discussed
in the monthly electronic newsletter include financial,
labor, legal and risk management as well as marketing
and human resource development. Current and past newsletters
along with subscription information can be found at
the Ohio Ag Manager website at:
http://ohioagmanager.osu.edu/
Farm
Business Office in the Firebaugh Building
The
Farm Business Office at the Farm Science Review is located
in the Francine Firebaugh Building and will give Review
goers the opportunity to interact one-on-one with Ohio
State University Farm Management Specialists, Agricultural
Economists, and Extension Educators.
Review
goers can seek advice on various farm business and management
topics including estate planning, farm transferal planning,
retirement planning, farm record keeping and analysis,
tax management, risk management, human resources management,
budgeting, farmland rental and/or purchase issues and
more.
Data
Shed at Farm Science Review
How
much more will you pay to buy farm inputs locally? Why
are you at the Review? How much does your hired help
make? Do you care where your food comes from? You might
get asked these kinds of questions at the 2006 Farm
Science Review. Researchers from the Department of Agricultural,
Environmental, and Development Economics will be popping
up in various locations on the grounds to ask you a
couple quick questions. Your answers will help plan
research and extension projects and the next Farm Science
Review. You might even be invited into the “Data Shed”
at the Ohio Farmer Building , corner of Friday and Kottman,
to do a quick experiment to find out what your decisions
are worth to the ag economy.
Energy
& Bio-Fuels: Economic & Policy Issues Defining
Agriculture
10-11
a.m. Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Tobin
Building , Molly Caren Center
Hosted
by OSU Agricultural, Environmental & Development
Economics
This
annual Farm Science Review discussion gives policymakers,
farmers, and industry leaders tools for understanding
and analyzing the future of agriculture in Ohio . This
year's discussion is about Energy and Biofuels – what
needs there are and the true economics behind ongoing
policy discussion. Brent Sohngen will moderate this
year's panel of economists from Ohio State and Purdue
University .
Question
the Authorities
Live
interviews of Ohio State 's authorities on current economic,
business and policy issues. OSU's Department of Agricultural,
Environmental, and Development Economics sponsors this
series of short interviews on the stage beside the Leaper
Antique Building in Alumni Park on Friday Avenue. Stan
Ernst leads the discussion, then opens things up for
audience questions – your chance to question the authorities.
Each
day of the Review, you'll hear about timely topics –
everything from current market behavior, marketing and
economic performance, to welfare reform, trade policy
and the impact of new technology on farms. Join the
host in trying to stump the authorities with your toughest
questions. This projected schedule is subject to change.
Check the signboard along Friday Ave for daily lineups.
Tuesday,
September 19
8:00
Early Bird Outlook: Grain Markets & Energy – Matt
Roberts & Stan Ernst
11:15
Farm Bill Update – Carl Zulauf (OSU AED Economics)
11:30
Methamphetamines: Fighting a Rural Scourge – Karen Zotz
(Purdue Extension)
11:45
How to Get Paid for Water Quality – Brent Sohngen (OSU
AED Economics)
12:00
QUESTION THE AUTHORITIES: THE GAME (audience competes
for prizes)
12:15
Increases in Direct Market Opportunities – Julie Fox
(OSU South Centers)
12:30
Cropland Values & Rents – Barry Ward (OSU AED Economics)
12:45
The Cost of Safety – Dee Jepsen (OSU Ag Health &
Safety Program)
1:00
Transferring the Farm to the Next Generation – Don Breece
(OSU Extension)
1:15
Renewable Energy Ideas – Fred Hitzhusen (OSU AED Economics)
1:40
Grain Market Outlook – Matt Roberts (OSU AED Economics)
2:00
Wanna Be A Buckeye? (student opportunities) – Kelly
Koren (OSU)
2:15
Healthy People, Healthy Communities – Karen Zotz (Purdue
Extension)
2:40
Energy Outlook – Matt Roberts
3:00
Fertilizer, Fuel & Custom Rates – Barry Ward (OSU
AED Economics)
3:15
Kid Labor/Cheap Labor – Dee Jepsen (OSU Ag Health &
Safety Program)
Wednesday,
September 20
8:00
Early Bird Outlook: Grain Markets & Energy – Matt
Roberts & Stan Ernst 9:45
Wanna Be A Buckeye? (student opportunities) – Kelly
Koren (OSU)
10:00
“Zoning”
is not a 4-letter word – Peggy Kirk Hall (OSU AED
Economics)
10:15
Livestock Outlook – Brian Roe (OSU AED Economics)
10:40
Who Will Work for Me? – Dave Boulay (OSU South Centers)
11:00
What Ohioans Think of Agriculture – Jeff Sharp (OSU
Rural Sociology)
11:15
Livestock Outlook – Brian Roe (OSU AED Economics)
11:30
Cropland Values & Rents – Barry Ward (OSU AED Economics)
11:45
Energy Outlook – Matt Roberts (OSU AED Economics)
12:00
QUESTION THE AUTHORITIES: THE GAME (audience competes
for prizes)
12:15
Grain Market Outlook – Matt Roberts (OSU AED Economics)
12:40
Finding
& Motivating Good Workers – Dave Boulay (OSU South
Centers)1:00
Is Rural Retail Dead? – Leslie Stoel (OSU Consumer Science)
1:20
Transferring the Farm to the Next Generation – Don Breece
(OSU Extension)
1:40
Fertilizer, Fuels & Custom Rates – Barry Ward (OSU
AED Economics)
2:00
The Cost of Safety – Dee Jepsen (OSU Ag Health &
Safety Program)
2:15
Why is Free Trade So Misunderstood? – Stan Thompson
(OSU AED Economics)
2:40
Neighbor Issues -- Fences & drainage – Peggy Kirk
Hall (OSU AED Economics)
3:00
Aquaculture Opportunities – Laura Tiu (OSU South Centers)
3:15
Green Industry Economics – Jim Chatfield (OSU Extension/Horticulture)
Thursday,
September 21
9:45
Wanna Be A Buckeye? (student opportunities) – Kelly
Koren (OSU)
10:00
Budgeting for New Enterprises – Barry Ward (OSU AED
Economics)
10:15
Transferring the Farm to the Next Generation – Don Breece
(OSU Extension)
10:40
Farmland Protection Priorities – Jill Clark (AED Economics)
11:00
Grain Market Outlook – Matt Roberts (OSU AED Economics)
11:15
Green Industry Economics – Jim Chatfield (OSU Extension/Horticulture)
11:30
Fertilizer & Fuels Outlook – Barry Ward (OSU AED
Economics)
11:45
Energy Outlook – Matt Roberts (OSU AED Economics)
12:00
QUESTION THE AUTHORITIES: THE GAME (audience competes
for prizes)
12:15
Grain Market Outlook – Matt Roberts (OSU AED Economics)
12:45
Cropland Values & Rents – Barry Ward (OSU AED Economics)
1:00
The Cost of Safety – Dee Jepsen (OSU Ag Health &
Safety Program)
1:15
Transferring the Farm to the Next Generation – Don Breece
(OSU Extension)
1:40
Farm Custom Rates – Barry Ward (OSU AED Economics)
2:00
Kid Labor/Cheap Labor – Dee Jepsen (OSU Ag Health &
Safety Program)
2:15
TBA
Return
to Top
Wages
and Benefits for Farm Employees
Donald
J. Breece, Farm Management Specialist, OSU Extension
Center at Lima
William Edwards, Extension Farm
Management Specialist at Iowa State, completed a survey
of Iowa farms about wages and benefits. Here is
the link for the full report:
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/wholefarm/html/c1-60.html
"More than 20,000 people make their living each year
as full-time employees on Iowa farms. The level and
type of wages and benefits they receive vary widely.
Both farmers and employees want to be informed about
how farm labor is compensated. To assist them, Iowa
State University and the USDA, National Agricultural
Statistics Service, Iowa Field Office conducted a survey
of Iowa farmers who employ one or more persons full-time."
The results "describe 168 farm employees who worked
at least 1,600 hours on the same farm in 2005, and were
not related to the farm operator. Five percent of the
employees sampled were female, and only 1 percent were
born outside of the United States. The average employee
had 15 years of experience working on a farm, 9 of which
were with the present employer."
"Most employers and employees think first about cash
wages or salary. Based on the information obtained in
the survey, the average cash wage paid to all employees
was $28,256 per year, before deductions for taxes. However,
this amount made up only 81 percent of their total compensation
(Figure 1). Besides wages, employees also received compensation
in the form of fringe benefits and bonuses. The average
value of all benefits received was $5,374 per employee.
In addition, an average of $1,010 was paid to each employee
as a cash bonus or incentive payment. The average value
of all forms of compensation was $34,640, and varied
from a low of $12,920 to a high of $70,300."
This average represented a 3.3% annual increase since
1997.
Ohio Farm Report , including Corn Belt Labor information,
may be found at the Ohio Ag Statistics web site:
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Ohio/Publications/Farm_Report_Releases/SM0406.pdf
Return
to Top
Focus
on Retirement Planning
Donald
J. Breece, Farm Management Specialist, OSU Extension
Center at Lima
Focus
on Retirement Planning
Here is a story line that farmers should consider, and
make every attempt to avoid:
• A 70 year old couple is still milking cows,
but need additional labor support.
• However, there are not enough cows to justify
full time hired labor.
• The couple had raised & educated a family.
The children moved away and have families, plus careers,
of their own.
• Though they were able to cash flow the farm,
even through the lean times, they never really had (or
reported for income tax) much of a profit, therefore….
• are receiving very low social security payments.
• After capital gains are paid on a sale of assets,
a considerable mortgage must be paid-off! They will
not be able to afford to move to town.
• Now, they are using “zero percent”
credit card offers to fill-in shortfalls of cash.
Unfortunately, it represents a mirror into the future
for many current farmers, that are not looking ahead
for the day that they too must retire? A sobering thought,
also to be considered, is the effect of inflation on
future demands for living expenses. Use the "rule
of 72" whereby an interest (or inflation) rate
is divided into 72 to find when money will double. If
we assume an average of 4% inflation, the family living
cash requirements will double in 18 years. Is that possible?
Look at recent history, in 1975 the average family living
costs for a family of four was about $12,000 per year;
in 1980, about $15,000; in 1990 about $27,000; in 2000
$38,000; and today over $42,000. If history is any indicator,
we may see annual family living requirements of $80-90,000
in less than 20 years! In retirement, financial planners
indicate that most couples will need about 80% of that
figure in retirement.
People are also living longer. Today, it is not uncommon
to find family farms not only supporting working operators,
but helping to fund living costs of not just one, but
two generations living in retirement. If a farm business
is to continue beyond the current generation of operators,
what is the plan for funding retirement without breaking
the business? Look at these life expectancy facts:
•An 85 year old man can expect to live another
6 years to 91
•An 85 year old woman can expect to live another
7 years to 92
•The chance to outlive resources increase with
age
•It is projected that in 2050 the average life
expectancy will be about 89! (77 in 2000, 70 in 1960)
Farms in the midwest, using the computer program FINPACK,
report the following information about personal retirement
savings (FINBIN Data, CFFM, University of Minnesota).
This data is from 3227 farms, averaged for years 2001-2005:
Stocks & Bonds $ 9,266
Other Current Assents $ 3,730
Cash Value of Life Insur. $ 8,924
Retirement Accounts $ 25,065
Other Intermediate Assets $ 6,231
Total $ 53,216
In the past, farmers retired with a land base, mostly
paid-off. How many current operators can afford to own
enough land to fund retirement? Trends indicate that
an increasing amount of land farmed is not owned by
the farm operator. In Ohio, more that 50% of farmland
is leased, and that percentage is growing.
These are some of the options farmers use to fund retirement:
• Land and/or Machinery Rent
• Find Employment to include Health Care Benefits
• Savings and Dividends
• Social Security
• Life Insurance
• Retirement Plans ( many have income tax advantages
during working years)
• Selling Assets
• Deferred Compensation Agreements
The keys to an adequately funded retirement is early
planning and an active execution of that plan. Certified
financial planners are helpful in this regard. A web
site at OSU Extension also has useful information: http://extension.osu.edu/home_family_and_youth/financial_securty.php
Return
to Top
Fertilizer
Containment Deadline Nearing
Gene McCluer, OSU Extension Educator, Hardin
County
Prior to 2002, farmers who stored liquid fertilizer
were not subject to commercial facility regulations.
With more producers installing their own bulk storage
facilities, there is an increased need for environmentally
responsible and economically reasonable containment
requirements. All on-farm fertilizer storage tanks with
5000 gallon capacity or more in place before January
2002 must have secondary containment dikes by January
1, 2007. Farmers who build new fertilizer storage
facilities over 5,000 gallons, or make additions to
their current storage tanks that increase total capacity
greater than 5,000 gallons, and store bulk fertilizers
for more than 30 days, must adhere to the Ohio Department
of Agricultures storage regulations immediately.
The ODA regulations for the above facilities require
the dikes and surface area to be constructed of materials
compatible with the liquids they are to contain. The
dike must be capable of withstanding a liquid
discharge; and restrict vertical and horizontal liquid
movement to no more than thirty-five hundredths of an
inch per day. Most secondary containment facilities
in place have been built with either concrete or of
treated wood or steel walls with an non permeable liner.
The containment dike must hold 10% more volume than
the largest tank located within the containment area.
Any storage tank over 15 feet tall should be placed
at least 4 feet from the inside base of the dike, to
prevent leakage outside the area. Special attention
must be given to the strength of the containment areas
floor, due to the extensive weight of large vertical
tanks filled with liquid fertilize.
Owners
of bulk fertilizer storage facilities must perform regular
inspections, maintenance, and keep records. These
records should be kept on-site for a period of five
years, and be available for inspection by the Department
of Agriculture, upon their request. The three types
of records required include a record of all repairs
and maintenance work performed on each tank or the containment
area, weekly inventory records of liquid levels for
each permanent tank in the facility, and a record of
any accidental discharge outside of the dike.
The latter includes the date and time of the discharge,
type of bulk fertilizer, the amount of discharge, the
action taken to recover the discharge, and the method
of disposal of any recovered discharge. All spills outside
of the containment area should be reported to both the
National Response Center (1-800-424-8802) and the Ohio
Environmental Protection agency of emergency management
(1-800-282-9378).
Every
owner of a bulk fertilizer tank should have a written
response plan to cover accidental discharges. This plan
should be kept near the storage facility and be available
for inspection by the Department of Agriculture. The
plan should include the identity and telephone number
of the persons or agencies who should be contacted in
the event of an emergency, and a map of the physical
layout of the storage facility, including the identification
of each type fertilizer stored at the facility.
For more information see OSU Extension fact sheet, AEX-594-04,
New Requirements for On-Farm, Storage of Bulk Fertilizers
. It is available at the OSU Extension
office or online or at: http://ohioline.osu.edu/aexfact/0594_2.html
.
Return
to Top
Designing
Effective Pay-For Performance Systems for Employees
& Suppliers-Part 3
Steven
Wu, Assistant Professor, AED Economics, The Ohio State
University
In
last month's article, I assumed that the incentive designer
can easily measure performance and design incentives
around these performance measures. For example, it is
quite straightforward to determine how many windshields
an installer at Safelite installs per day. It is also
straightforward to trace a poor installation back to
the original installer. However, in other cases, performance
measurement is not so easy. For example, how does one
objectively measure someone's creativity, degree of
cooperation, ability to adapt and be flexible, etc.?
In addition, even if something is easy to measure, is
it verifiable by a third party? If so, then a pay-for-performance
plan would be legally enforceable, which can also impact
the effectiveness of the plan. In general, I want to
discuss three broad classes of performance measures:
1.
Those that are objectively measured by a third party.
2.
Those that are objectively measured but not disclosed
to third parties (reduced transparency).
3.
Those that are subjectively measured.
By
“objectively” measured, I mean that it is possible to
measure performance with little ambiguity. For instance,
one can easily count number of windshield's, measure
the ton of tomatoes in a shipment, count the number
of dead chickens in a flock, etc. However, this does
not mean that one cannot manipulate outcomes that can
be objectively measured. By “subjective” measurement,
I mean that it is almost impossible to measure performance
without ambiguity and subjectivity. For example, one's
degree of “cooperation” with peers is difficult to measure
using an objective scale. Instead, one must rely on
opinions of co-workers and supervisors.
Here
are some specific examples:
- In the California processing
tomato industry, processors write incentive contracts
with growers. Some growers are paid bonuses based
on performance measures such as sugar content. A third
party, known as the Processing Tomato Advisory Board
measures these outcomes.
- Feed conversion ratio
and mortality rates in hog or broiler contracts are
generally measured by the processor. Hence, these
can be objectively measured but they are not necessarily
verified by a third party.
- Subjective measures
– cooperativeness, flexibility, motivation, good attitude,
able to meet deadlines (rise to the occasion), and
leadership.
Why
is the type of performance measure important? Because
it can dramatically impact the effectiveness and credibility
of the incentive plan. Transparent, objectively measured
performance can result in pay plans and agreements that
are legally enforceable and have more credibility. Employees
can be fairly certain that they will earn what they
are promised when objective, verifiable criteria are
used. Incentive plans built around these criteria tend
to do “what they are supposed to do” and provide strong
incentives to perform, without much room for manipulation
and controversy. It is also easy to construct piece
rates around these types of performance measures. In
general, it is much easier to measure performance related
to mechanistic or routine tasks such as picking apples,
and data entry, and much more difficult to measure performance
for tasks that require creativity, subtlety, and judgment.
Outcomes
that can be objectively measured but are not undertaken
by third parties can also be used for effective pay-for-performance
plans. However, there is greater scope for controversy
here and both parties have to develop a reputation for
honesty and integrity to avoid conflicts. For example,
there is great controversy in chicken broiler contracting
because chicken farmers sometimes allege that integrators
weigh birds and determine feed conversion ratios without
making the performance data available to growers. These
types of controversies undermine the incentive effects
of the pay-for-performance plan because growers are
not sure that they will be justly rewarded even when
they deliver good birds or improve feed conversion.
In fact, some states are considering creating legislation
that mandates that integrators release performance data
to any grower who wants them and provides growers with
the right to be present at the time quality performance
is measured. In contrast, these types of controversies
rarely arise in the California processing tomato industry
because a third party measures and verifies performance.
Finally,
subjective performance measures tend to be the least
reliable. However, they are subject to many perception
errors (e.g. downgrading a person's entire performance
portfolio on the basis of one error or vice versa, overrating
everybody, etc.), and political influence. If there
is perceived bias in subjective performance evaluations,
employees might rebel and consider the system too unfair
or political so they may “game” the system. This undermines
credibility and may even create a culture of mistrust
that can be counterproductive. In addition, Baker, Jensen
and Murphy report data showing that most people tend
to overrate their own performance which can make supervisors
reluctant to provide poor performance ratings to avoid
conflict. Thus, these performance measures may contain
less useful information about performance because there
could be “performance inflation.”
While
subjective performance measures have some pitfalls,
they are useful for capturing outcomes that are difficult
to measure objectively. Basing performance only on objective
measures might be short sighted and incomplete. For
those of you who follow football, think of Peyton Manning
versus Joe Montana. Peyton Manning has better objective
performance numbers (e.g. QB rating, TD passes thrown
per season), but Joe Montana is known for his “subjective”
attributes such as leadership and performance under
pressure. It would not be difficult to imagine that
many people would rather have Joe Montana rather than
Peyton Manning at the QB position for an important game.
For
subjective performance measures to be used effectively,
there has to be a reasonable degree of trust between
the boss and the employee, and there must not be so
much performance inflation that the measures have little
useful information content to distinguish “good” from
“bad” performance. There are, however, variously methods
developed by human resources professionals to improve
the quality of subjective evaluations, but an adequate
coverage of these methods would be beyond the scope
of this article. For people who work in these areas,
I would recommend consulting a good textbook such as
the one by Milkovich and Newman (see reference section).
The
bottom line is that, when considering pay-for-performance
plans, employers should devote some resources toward
the performance measurement system to ensure that the
incentive system is credible. This is particularly crucial
if significant bonuses or penalties are based on subjective
measures.
References:
Baker,
George P., Michael C. Jensen, and Kevin J. Murphy. “Compensation
and Incentives: Practices vs. Theory.” Journal of
Finance 3(1988):593-616.
Milkovich,
George T. and Jerry M. Newman Compensation ,
6 th Edition. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 1999
Return
to Top
What's
Up with Wheat?
Matt
Roberts, Assistant Professor,
OSU Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics
I've had many questions recently about the wheat market.
Most of the questions have been about convergence, or
lack thereof, in the July CBOT wheat futures market.
Before we answer that question, let's review some futures
basics. A futures market is a market in the price of
a good for
delivery at some time and location in the future. Because
prices vary over time and space, there is typically
a difference between the price of the good 'here and
now' and 'there and then.' We call this difference 'basis.'
One of the tenets of futures markets is that
the cash and futures prices
should converge, i.e. the basis should go to zero, at
the delivery point as the futures contract approaches
expiration.
Read the rest at
http://aede.osu.edu/people/roberts.628/extension/newsletter/n06.pdf
Return
to Top
Best
Management Safety Practices for the Farm
Dee
Jepson, Program Director, Agricultural Safety and Health
for OSU Extension
The USDA has eleased an agricultural security publication.
This document includes checklists for agricultural operations
with crops, chemicals, livestock, poultry, and dairy.
It emphasizes the importance of security awareness,
emergency planning, and general security issues.
These issues could also be called Best Management Safety
Practices for the farm, in that they address all the
old safety awareness tips like:
- keep chemicals in original containers and in a locked
facility
- have an emergency operation plan
- post emergency phone numbers for fire, police, veterinarians,
etc.
- maintain an inventory of fuel (diesel, gas, propane,
acetylene, kerosene)
- properly train employees how to operate equipment/react
in an emergency
To obtain a copy of the Pre-Harvest Safety Security
Guide, producers can download them from the USDA Homeland
Security Office webpage at: http://www.usda.gov/homelandsecurity/
Return
to Top
Readers
can subscribe electronically to this newsletter by sending
an e-mail message to: ohioagmanager-on@ag.osu.edu.
A successful subscription message will receive by an
automatic reply from the listserv. Contact your local
Ohio State University Extension Office or e-mail dmarrison@ag.osu.edu
if you have problems subscribing.
Ohio
Ag Manager Team Leaders: Chris
Bruynis & David Marrison
Web
Page Managers: David Marrison & Andy Kleinschmidt
Information
presented above and where trade names are used, they
are supplied with the understanding that no discrimination
is intended and no endorsement by Ohio State University
Extension is implied.
All
educational programs conducted by Ohio State University
Extension are available to clientele on a nondiscriminatory
basis without regard to race, color, creed, religion,
sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age, disability
or Vietnam-era veteran status.
Issued
in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of
May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Keith L. Smith, Director,
Ohio State University Extension.
link
TDD
# 1 (800) 589-8292 (Ohio only) or (614) 292-1868
|
