I've now run across two situations of share arrangements. One was 50/50, where the landowner charged no rent, paid for their land costs like mortgage payments, property taxes, land repairs and was responsible for marketing their 50% share of grain. The farmer received and was responsible for marketing the other 50% of the grain, paid ALL the input costs (including crop insurance premiums) and received all title payments and crop insurance indemnities if any. The second was a 60/40 relationship where the landowner charged no rent, paid for their land costs like mortgage payments, property taxes and land repairs and was responsible for marketing their 40% share of the grain. They also paid 40% of all the direct specified input costs (fertilizer, seed, chemicals, crop insurance) but none of the labor, equipment or overhead costs. I'm we see land share arrangements repeat over and over and over, we might be able to work through all the logic and provide models that reflect these arrangements (somewhat akin to what we do for variable land rent). I'm putting this "issue" in as simply a long term placeholder in that I think these share arrangements are all different enough that it will be hard to produce a simple and clean option to model these relationships. Also on the situation with the 60/40 relationship that was only for about 150 acres and the farmer's total of 2,000 acres farmed -- so having some on a share basis, some owned and some rented would add a lot of complexity. But wanted to write it down to remember it and bring to your attention. Nothing to do now for sure on this one.
I've now run across two situations of share arrangements. One was 50/50, where the landowner charged no rent, paid for their land costs like mortgage payments, property taxes, land repairs and was responsible for marketing their 50% share of grain. The farmer received and was responsible for marketing the other 50% of the grain, paid ALL the input costs (including crop insurance premiums) and received all title payments and crop insurance indemnities if any. The second was a 60/40 relationship where the landowner charged no rent, paid for their land costs like mortgage payments, property taxes and land repairs and was responsible for marketing their 40% share of the grain. They also paid 40% of all the direct specified input costs (fertilizer, seed, chemicals, crop insurance) but none of the labor, equipment or overhead costs. I'm we see land share arrangements repeat over and over and over, we might be able to work through all the logic and provide models that reflect these arrangements (somewhat akin to what we do for variable land rent). I'm putting this "issue" in as simply a long term placeholder in that I think these share arrangements are all different enough that it will be hard to produce a simple and clean option to model these relationships. Also on the situation with the 60/40 relationship that was only for about 150 acres and the farmer's total of 2,000 acres farmed -- so having some on a share basis, some owned and some rented would add a lot of complexity. But wanted to write it down to remember it and bring to your attention. Nothing to do now for sure on this one.