Nefstead, Ward E.

English

Research Papers in Economics

Comparison of Survey Results from Land Value& Rental 
Surveys: Differences and Synthesis 
Ward E. Nefstead,Assoc.Prof&Ext. Economist. Dept of Applied Economics, U. of Minnesota 
*Presented at the AAEA Annual Meeting, Pittsburg  PA  on July 26-30,2011 
Research Objectives:                                            
 
1.  Identify different sources of land market and rental information in 
Minnesota. 
2.  Determine survey methodologies and procedures for land rent/value 
surveys. 
3.  Evaluate data collection and statistical survey properties 
4.  Determine differences and simlarities in studies; synthesize results to 
determine actual land rents and values 
   
 
 
 
 
Procedure: 
 
1.  Obtain copies of current land value and rental surveys. 
 
2.  Evaluate the data and procedures used in these surveys. 
 
3.  Determine similarities and differences in land rent/value data. 
    
 
References: 
     
1.  Edwards , William.  Land Rental Survey 2010. Ag Decisionmaker. ISU. 
2.  Duffy ,Mike.  Land Value &Rental Surveys, Iowa State University. 
3.  Hamda Y,Pflueger B&Larry  Janssen . Trends Historical& Recent in 
Ag.Land Values.Research report #200304. South Dakota State 
University 
4.  County surveys-Land Rental(MN) Fillmore County,etc. 
5.  Hachfeld G.  MN Land Rental. CFFM report. U . of Minnesota.2007-
2010. 
6.  Krause. Joyce;Brorsen B. Wade (1995). The Effect of Risk on Rental 
Value of Agricultural Land. 17(1): 71-76. 
 
 
 
 
Three Sources of Land Value/Rental 
Information 
 
*  U. of MN(CFFM): 
1. Based on Farm Business Mg’t data 
2. Represents data for contracts negotiated in the 
previous year. 
3. Useful for historical comparisons. 
4. Not all counties/regions represented. Land rent 
only 
    5. Focus on arms-length contracts , not competitive   
bidding 
 
 
*  USDA Land Value& Rent(NASS) 
 
1. August  report-NASS based on data  collected in 
midsummer. 
2. 2007 Farm Bill mandated county data be 
collected. 
3. Statistically reliable sample 
 
* MN Chapter-ASFMRA 
1. Online surveys conducted with Survey Gold 
software. December –January of each year. Results 
released and published late January. Surveys 
conducted for three years. Current  year information 
 
*Synthesis of Results: 
1. Differences exists among surveys based on survey 
techniques-mainly on cash rent. 
2. Competitive bidding affects average rent paid. 
 
 
 
Comparisons of Results from Land Rental 
Surveys: 
* Historical Comparison: All Sources of Land 
Rent Information 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
* U. of MN  vs. USDA Land Value/Rent(2008 
comparison) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Summary/Conclusions 
 
 
Need for Future Research 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Competitive bidding affects average rent paid. Comparisons of Results from Land Rental Surveys: * Historical Comparison: All Sources of Land Rent Information * U.

County surveys-Land Rental(MN)

Differences exists among surveys based on survey techniques-mainly on cash rent.

Farm Bill mandated county data be collected.

Focus on arms-length contracts , not competitive bidding

Hamda Y,Pflueger B&Larry Janssen . Trends Historical& Recent in Ag.Land Values.Research report #200304.

Land Rental Survey 2010. Ag Decisionmaker.

Land Value &Rental Surveys,

Not all counties/regions represented. Land rent only

Online surveys conducted with Survey Gold software. December –January of each year. Results released and published late January. Surveys conducted for three years. Current year information *Synthesis of Results:

report-NASS based on data collected

Represents data for contracts negotiated in the previous year.

Statistically reliable sample *

The Effect of Risk on Rental Value of Agricultural Land.

Useful for historical comparisons.

Comparison of Survey Results from Land Value & Rental Surveys: Differences and Synthesis

Comparison of Survey Results from Land Value & Rental Surveys: Differences and Synthesis

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics