Determining an Equitable Crop Share
Lease
AgLease101.org
Should a crop-share arrangement be used?
Advantages
• For operator, lower operating capital requirements
• Shared management
• Crop sales, input purchases may be timed for tax
purposes
• Risks shared
• Landowner can establish material participation
AgLease101.org
2
Should a crop-share arrangement be used?
Disadvantages
• For landowner, income will be variable
• Increased record-keeping
– Shared expenses
– Government programs
– Crop insurance
• Landowner must make marketing decisions
(unless it is a nonmaterial participation lease)
AgLease101.org
3
Should a crop-share arrangement be used?
Notes
• Sharing arrangement may need to change
as prices or technology change
• For landlord, material participation may
reduce Social Security benefits in
retirement
AgLease101.org
4
Establishing a Crop-Share Arrangement
• Share yield-increasing variable expenses in
the same percentage as the crop
• Adjust arrangement as technology changes
relative costs
• Share total returns in the same proportion as
parties contribute resources
• At the end of the lease, compensate
operators for portion of long-term investments
made that are not fully depreciated
AgLease101.org
5
Establishing a Crop-Share Arrangement
• Maintain open and honest communication
– Make sure both parties know and understand
their responsibilities.
– Written leases encourage communication up
front and clarify plans.
AgLease101.org
6
Share yield-increasing variable expenses in
the same % as the crop is shared
Encourages optimal input use.
Yield increasing inputs may include:
• Fertilizer
Yield
• Irrigation water
• Herbicides
• Seed
AgLease101.org
Input
7
Share yield-increasing variable expenses in
the same % as the crop is shared
• For example, at $0.40/lb for fertilizer, $4
per additional bushel of corn yield
Fertilizer Yield Income (lb/a)v
(bu)
($/a)
Return over fertil. cost
Operator position for income (I) and cost (C)
100% I
100% C
50% I
100% C
50% I
0% C
50% I 50% C
140
175
700
644
644
294
350
322
160
178
712
648
648
292
356
324
180
179
716
644
644
286
358
322
200
180
720
640
640
280
360
320
AgLease101.org
8
Adjust arrangements as technology changes
relative costs
• Yield-increasing inputs shared in the same
% as the crop
• True substitution inputs paid by the party
responsible for them in the original lease
• Both? Address in lease
– Corn seed with bundled traits
AgLease101.org
9
Share total returns in the same proportion as
parties contribute inputs
Figure 2. Effects of Land Quality and Farm Costs on Crop‐share Rental Arrangements
Operating
cost, $/ac
Yield, bu/ac
60
55
50
45
1/2 Landowner
40
35
1/3 Landowner
1/4 Landowner
COSTS
30
25
20
15
1/2 Operator
2/3 Operator
3/4 Operator
10
5
0
Most productive land
AgLease101.org
Land Quality/Value
Least productive land
10
Compensate operators for long-term
investment remaining
• If the operator shares in the cost of an
input that has a useful life beyond the life
of the lease, the lease should stipulate
how the tenant will be compensated for
any unused portion.
– Lime
– Alfalfa seed or establishment costs
– Tiling
– Underground pipe
AgLease101.org
11
Developing an Equitable Crop-Share
Lease Arrangement
Crop Budget Approach
Identify items and values/charges
• Land
– Value
– Interest on land
– Cash rent
– Real estate taxes
– Development
AgLease101.org
12
Developing an Equitable Crop-Share Lease
Arrangement (continued)
• Crop machinery (and irrigation equipment,
if applicable)
– Depreciation
– Repairs
– Taxes
– Insurance
– Interest
AgLease101.org
13
Developing an Equitable Crop-Share Lease
Arrangement (continued)
• Labor
– Value is part of bargaining process
– Caution: avoid forming a partnership
• Management
– One alternative is a percent of the average
capital managed, e.g. 1 to 2.5%
– Professional farm managers may charge 510% of adjusted gross receipts
• Custom rates
AgLease101.org
14
Cropland Rent-to-Value Ratios by Region
Figure 3. Cropland Rent‐to‐Value Ratios by Region, 2001‐2010 (Source: USDA NASS Land Values and Cash Rents)
Rent‐to‐Value, percent
8.0
Northeast (CT, DE, ME, MD, MS, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT)
7.0
Lake (MI, MN, WI)
6.0
Corn Belt (IL, IN, IA, MO, OH)
Northern Plains (KS, NE, ND, SD)
5.0
Appalachian (KY, NC, TN, VA, WV)
4.0
Southeast (AL, FL, GA, SC)
3.0
Delta (AR, LA, MS)
2.0
Southern Plains (OK, TX)
1.0
Mountain (MT, ID, WY, NV, UT, CO, NM, AZ)
0.0
Pacific (WA, OR, CA)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
AgLease101.org
15
Contributions Approach
• Percentage contribution of each party is
determined (Worksheet 1)
• Parties share other operating expenses
and income (crops, government payments,
other income) in the same percentage
• Note: use average costs for crop rotations
AgLease101.org
16
Desired Share Approach
• Parties specify a given percentage share
basis, e.g., 60-40 and adjust contributions
to fit this percentage
• Use Worksheet 1 to discuss alternatives
AgLease101.org
17
Put the Agreement in Writing
• Encourages a detailed statement of the
agreement, with better understanding of
expectations by both parties
• Serves as a reminder of agreed upon terms
• Guide to heirs of either party
• Documentation for tax purposes
• See NCFMEC-02 for a sample form
AgLease101.org
18
Lease Publications at AgLease101.org
• Fixed and Flexible Cash Rental Arrangements
For Your Farm (NCFMEC-01)
• Crop Share Rental Arrangements For Your Farm
(NCFMEC-02)
• Pasture Rental Arrangements For Your Farm
(NCFMEC-03)
AgLease101.org
19
Questions?
AgLease101.org
20