Cornhusker Economics July 3, 2019Cover Crop Utilization across Nebraska and Implications for Cropland Lease Arrangements in 2019
The Nebraska Farm Real Estate Market Survey and Report 2018-2019 provides insight on recent trends in the market value of land and cash rental across the state. Each year the special feature section from this report covers topics on new or emerging issues related to the agricultural land industry in Nebraska. These topics reflect interest expressed by panel members and readership of the Nebraska Farm Real Estate Market Highlights Reports. The special feature section in 2019 focuses on trends and considerations for cover crops across Nebraska and implications on cropland lease arrangements.
Findings from the 2017 Census of Agriculture in Table 1 provide an overview of the utilization of cover crops across the eight districts of the state (USDA-NASS, 2019). Approximately 748 thousand acres of cover crops were grown by about 38 thousand operators on approximately 22 million acres of cropland across Nebraska in 2017. Cover crops were planted on about 3.4 percent of cropland acres across the state by 4,419 operators.
The number of cropland acres in each district varied greatly across the state. Utilization of cover crops also varied greatly across the eight regions. Arid areas such as the Northwest, North, and Southwest Districts tended to grow around 50 thousand acres of cover crops on roughly 2.4 percent of the cropland acres. The Northeast, Central and East Districts each planted around 100,000 acres or more of cover crops on roughly 4.2 percent of the cropland acres. The number of operators in each of these regions planting cover crops also varied. In percentage terms, the cropland operators planting cover crops varied from a low of 7.4 percent in the Northwest District compared to a high 14.8 percent in the Central District.
When planting a cover crop, the motivation of the landowner or operator may vary depending upon their agronomic needs and/or management requirements. Increased interest in cover crops in recent years has come from the perceived benefits to the land and mitigation of environmental issues. Cover crops are used to reduce soil degradation (i.e. erosion) as well as enhance soil quality (i.e. organic matter and nutritive content). These effects may take multiple years to fully materialize but they also tend to persist for several years into the future. Grazing the cover crops or harvesting for forage are perceived as viable options for generating benefits on a more immediate basis.
The underlying motivation for utilizing cover crops remains important as the operator may incur additional establishment and termination expenses for the land in the year of use while the benefits provided may be spread out over several years into the future. Figure 1 summarizes the major reasons for planting cover crops across Nebraska.
Division of cover crop establishment expenses remains a provision to consider in a cropland lease arrangement. Benefits from utilizing a cover crop may exceed the length of the current lease. Figure 2 summarizes the dollar per acre rental discount on a cropland lease provided to a tenant when planting a cover crop.
Panel members indicated that slightly over 80 percent of land leases do not provide a discount to tenants for planting cover crops. About 15 percent of leases provided a small discount, between $1 and $9 per acre. Opportunities exist in lease negotiations to more equitability divide cover crop expenses.
Survey results shown and discussed in this report are findings from the University of Nebraska–Lincoln 2019 Nebraska Farm Real Estate Market Survey. Complete results from the survey are available here.
Please address questions regarding preliminary estimates from the 2018 Nebraska Farm Real Estate Survey to Jim Jansen at (402) 261-7572 or jjansen4@unl.edu.
Jim Jansen
Assistant Extension Educator
Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
402-261-7572
jjansen4@unl.edu
Jeff Stokes
Hanson-Clegg-Allen Endowed Chair in Agricultural Banking and Finance
Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
402-472-1742
jeffrey.stokes@unl.edu
Jay Parsons
Associate Professor
Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
402-472-1911
jparsons4@unl.edu
| County and Agricultural Statistics District |
Planted Acres | Cropland Acres Planted to Cover Crops (%) | Number of Operators | Cropland Operators Planted Cover Crops (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cover Crops | Cropland | Planted Cover Crops | Planted Cropland | |||
| Banner | 1,710 | 191,224 | 0.9 | 14 | 193 | 7.3 |
| Box Butte | 11,241 | 346,638 | 3.2 | 31 | 329 | 9.4 |
| Cheyenne | 3,881 | 528,751 | 7.3 | 29 | 492 | 6.0 |
| Dawes | 2,383 | 174,531 | 1.4 | 22 | 368 | 6.0 |
| Deuel | 1,256 | 226,814 | 0.6 | 5 | 201 | 2.5 |
| Garden | 2,426 | 166,330 | 1.5 | 8 | 179 | 4.5 |
| Kimball | 2,740 | 410,680 | 0.7 | 16 | 369 | 4.3 |
| Morrill | 11,727 | 242,450 | 4.8 | 37 | 351 | 10.5 |
| Scotts Bluff | 7,619 | 218,126 | 3.5 | 63 | 573 | 11.0 |
| Sheridan | 6,152 | 301,456 | 2.0 | 28 | 416 | 6.7 |
| Sioux | 1,749 | 97,637 | 1.8 | 21 | 211 | 10.0 |
| Northwest | 52,884 | 2,904,637 | 1.8 | 274 | 3,682 | 7.4 |
| Arthur | 730 | 31,693 | 2.3 | 8 | 61 | 13.1 |
| Blaine | 395 | 28,818 | 1.4 | 6 | 58 | 10.3 |
| Boyd | 2,511 | 135,575 | 1.9 | 22 | 241 | 9.1 |
| Brown | 5,116 | 108,102 | 4.7 | 18 | 181 | 9.9 |
| Cherry | 3,898 | 383,698 | 1.0 | 19 | 377 | 5.0 |
| Garfield | 1,250 | 66,383 | 1.9 | 13 | 121 | 10.7 |
| Grant | b | 50,552 | - | 1 | 43 | 2.3 |
| Holt | 27,584 | 607,954 | 4.5 | 130 | 899 | 14.5 |
| Hooker | b | 6,797 | - | 1 | 20 | 5.0 |
| Keya Paha | 3,851 | 95,619 | 4.0 | 13 | 170 | 7.6 |
| Logan | 999 | 41,865 | 2.4 | 7 | 65 | 10.8 |
| Loup | 845 | 24,049 | 3.5 | 9 | 93 | 9.7 |
| McPherson | 932 | 22,733 | 4.1 | 4 | 50 | 8.0 |
| Rock | 2,050 | 121,374 | 1.7 | 14 | 148 | 9.5 |
| Thomas | b | 7,406 | - | 3 | 29 | 10.3 |
| Wheeler | 7,828 | 87,779 | 8.9 | 38 | 130 | 29.2 |
| North | 57,989 | 1,820,397 | 3.2 | 306 | 2,686 | 11.4 |
| Antelope | 23,516 | 364,429 | 6.5 | 117 | 583 | 20.1 |
| Boone | 9,321 | 319,202 | 2.9 | 67 | 470 | 14.3 |
| Burt | 3,348 | 275,222 | 1.2 | 42 | 476 | 8.8 |
| Cedar | 8,347 | 393,200 | 2.1 | 87 | 692 | 12.6 |
| Cuming | 11,672 | 330,140 | 3.5 | 82 | 691 | 11.9 |
| Dakota | 81 | 151,099 | 0.1 | 3 | 244 | 1.2 |
| Dixon | 6,403 | 221,799 | 2.9 | 62 | 463 | 13.4 |
| Knox | 10,298 | 323,551 | 3.2 | 109 | 792 | 13.8 |
| Madison | 25,538 | 312,084 | 8.2 | 141 | 593 | 23.8 |
| Pierce | 14,727 | 275,201 | 5.4 | 119 | 540 | 22.0 |
| Stanton | 12,148 | 203,713 | 6.0 | 65 | 493 | 13.2 |
| Thurston | 2,714 | 206,766 | 1.3 | 19 | 279 | 6.8 |
| Wayne | 5,772 | 253,645 | 2.3 | 47 | 401 | 11.7 |
| Northeast | 133,885 | 3,630,051 | 3.7 | 960 | 6,717 | 14.3 |
| Buffalo | 10,066 | 324,488 | 3.1 | 70 | 744 | 9.4 |
| Custer | 34,485 | 481,876 | 7.2 | 175 | 779 | 22.5 |
| Dawson | 12,893 | 303,662 | 4.2 | 62 | 518 | 12.0 |
| Greeley | 10,719 | 156,471 | 6.9 | 74 | 321 | 23.1 |
| Hall | 4,955 | 272,034 | 1.8 | 30 | 489 | 6.1 |
| Howard | 14,522 | 177,984 | 8.2 | 97 | 504 | 19.2 |
| Sherman | 3,615 | 158,959 | 2.3 | 34 | 302 | 11.3 |
| Valley | 7,230 | 172,629 | 4.2 | 43 | 292 | 14.7 |
| Central | 98,485 | 2,048,103 | 4.8 | 585 | 3,949 | 14.8 |
| Butler | 19,312 | 319,085 | 6.1 | 94 | 600 | 15.7 |
| Cass | 7,478 | 306,383 | 2.4 | 71 | 628 | 11.3 |
| Colfax | 15,898 | 240,401 | 6.6 | 81 | 443 | 18.3 |
| Dodge | 7,903 | 312,456 | 2.5 | 59 | 627 | 9.4 |
| Douglas | 3,808 | 81,581 | 4.7 | 26 | 303 | 8.6 |
| Hamilton | 17,796 | 286,661 | 6.2 | 49 | 485 | 10.1 |
| Lancaster | 14,361 | 362,935 | 4.0 | 133 | 1,547 | 8.6 |
| Merrick | 12,302 | 201,497 | 6.1 | 60 | 388 | 15.5 |
| Nance | 10,285 | 158,833 | 6.5 | 62 | 311 | 19.9 |
| Platte | 18,908 | 336,411 | 5.6 | 96 | 768 | 12.5 |
| Polk | 8,274 | 224,983 | 3.7 | 31 | 407 | 7.6 |
| Sarpy | 1,078 | 92,986 | 1.2 | 38 | 348 | 10.9 |
| Saunders | 17,747 | 436,188 | 4.1 | 110 | 952 | 11.6 |
| Seward | 18,924 | 310,452 | 6.1 | 104 | 811 | 12.8 |
| Washington | 1,949 | 215,935 | 0.9 | 34 | 602 | 5.6 |
| York | 10,193 | 327,256 | 3.1 | 54 | 475 | 11.4 |
| East | 186,216 | 4,214,043 | 4.4 | 1,102 | 9,695 | 11.4 |
| Chase | 8,375 | 322,955 | 2.6 | 28 | 244 | 11.5 |
| Dundy | 1,322 | 210,461 | 0.6 | 14 | 245 | 5.7 |
| Frontier | 6,024 | 203,805 | 3.0 | 35 | 243 | 14.4 |
| Hayes | 5,046 | 195,667 | 2.6 | 17 | 180 | 9.4 |
| Hitchcock | 662 | 228,336 | 0.3 | 16 | 241 | 6.6 |
| Keith | 7,805 | 226,675 | 3.4 | 21 | 245 | 8.6 |
| Lincoln | 23,661 | 421,610 | 5.6 | 87 | 687 | 12.7 |
| Perkins | 6,302 | 432,062 | 1.5 | 31 | 343 | 9.0 |
| Red Willow | 1,656 | 248,186 | 0.7 | 16 | 258 | 6.2 |
| Southwest | 60,853 | 2,489,757 | 2.4 | 265 | 2,686 | 9.9 |
| Adams | 15,816 | 300,549 | 5.3 | 55 | 439 | 12.5 |
| Franklin | 10,426 | 187,011 | 5.6 | 44 | 275 | 16.0 |
| Furnas | 2,571 | 291,461 | 0.9 | 20 | 315 | 6.3 |
| Gosper | 7,823 | 150,248 | 5.2 | 41 | 225 | 18.2 |
| Harlan | 4,330 | 220,639 | 2.0 | 40 | 224 | 17.9 |
| Kearney | 28,534 | 244,933 | 11.6 | 67 | 299 | 22.4 |
| Phelps | 7,534 | 277,090 | 2.7 | 41 | 328 | 12.5 |
| Webster | 6,213 | 206,158 | 3.0 | 35 | 326 | 10.7 |
| South | 83,247 | 1,878,089 | 4.4 | 343 | 2,431 | 14.1 |
| Clay | 6,836 | 259,454 | 2.6 | 31 | 363 | 8.5 |
| Fillmore | 7,011 | 305,326 | 2.3 | 35 | 404 | 8.7 |
| Gage | 8,900 | 449,429 | 2.0 | 88 | 987 | 8.9 |
| Jefferson | 3,002 | 283,739 | 1.1 | 36 | 517 | 7.0 |
| Johnson | 8,544 | 137,665 | 6.2 | 32 | 446 | 7.2 |
| Nemaha | 6,177 | 229,970 | 2.7 | 62 | 365 | 17.0 |
| Nuckolls | 8,344 | 248,692 | 3.4 | 65 | 381 | 17.1 |
| Otoe | 5,506 | 331,038 | 1.7 | 58 | 718 | 8.1 |
| Pawnee | 1,189 | 183,745 | 0.6 | 19 | 407 | 4.7 |
| Richardson | 7,316 | 272,419 | 2.7 | 73 | 630 | 11.6 |
| Saline | 4,819 | 305,041 | 1.6 | 41 | 653 | 6.3 |
| Thayer | 5,559 | 251,004 | 2.2 | 44 | 367 | 12.0 |
| Southeast | 73,203 | 3,257,522 | 2.2 | 584 | 6,238 | 9.4 |
| Statec | 747,903 | 22,242,599 | 3.4 | 4,419 | 38,084 | 11.6 |
a 2017 Census of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service, USDA.
b Value not released due to county-level disclosure.
c District values may not sum to state totals due to county-level disclosure.