Increasing Landowner Income Through Recreational Leases, C-FAR Research Rpt
Phillip R. Eberle, Agribusiness Economics. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
“Fifty-two farm managers out of 133 Accredited Farm Managers belonging to the ISPFMRA completed a recreational leasing survey. The respondents managed a total of 585,000 acres, of which 18,300 acres were under recreational leases. Twenty farm managers had clients with recreational leases. The analysis of the data from the survey provided the results for our objectives.
- Objective 1: Determining the extent of recreational leasing activity in Illinois indicated that 38% of the managers had property with recreational leases. For managers without recreational leases, 35 percent indicated they would likely have recreational leases in the next 5 years. This would add 12,500 acres with recreational leases assuming managers maintained six percent of their managed land in recreational leases.
- Objective 2: Determining lease terms and rents, lease rates ranged from $1 to $75 per acre. Average lease rates were $8 an acre for median quality recreational property and $31 per acre for high quality recreational property.
- Objective 3: Determining impact of factors on recreational lease rates, we found that location, land mix, and adoption of land management practices to enhance habitat positively impacted lease rates. For high-valued recreational property, property located in region 4 (western Illinois) added $15 per acre to lease rates. Land management practices to enhance habitat increased lease rates by $20 per acre. For median-valued property, 100 percent wood over 0 percent woods increased lease rates by $12 per acre.
- Objective 4: Identifying reasons for not having recreational leases and problems of leasing, trespassing or poaching, boundary disputes, and farm tenant conflicts were the highest rated problems. One manager commented that recreational leases were more time consuming for the income earned for client or manager.
We conclude that opportunities for recreational leasing provide a means to increase landowner income and enhance wildlife habitat.”
Ethanol Co-Products Used for Livestock Feed
Ellen Dougherty, (202) 690-8122 or Scott Hollis (202) 720-4751
Roughly half of the cattle and hog operations in a 12-state region either fed ethanol co-products or considered feeding them to their livestock last year, according to a report published today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) with the support and funding of the Nebraska Corn Board.
Among dairy operations, 38 percent indicated that they fed co-products during 2006 and another 22 percent considered doing so. Among cattle on feed operations, 36 percent fed co-products and 34 percent more considered it. Among beef cattle operations, 13 percent reported that they fed co-products and 30 percent considered it. For hog operations, 12 percent fed co-products and 35 percent considered it.
NASS contacted approximately 9,400 livestock operations in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin to determine whether they used co-products including distillers grains and corn gluten feed in their feed rations in 2006. NASS collected information regarding the types and amounts of co-products fed, how the co-products were procured and used, and what concerns and barriers may have prevented operations from feeding co-products.
Of the various types of co-products available to operations for feeding, corn gluten feed was used by 46 percent of beef cow operations and 38 percent of cattle on feed operations, while distillers dried grains were used by 45 percent of dairy cattle operations and 44 percent of hog operations Other co-products that the survey looked at included distillers dried grains with solubles, condensed distillers solubles, brewers grains and distillers wet grains.
Where do livestock operators get their ethanol co-products? Most dairy cattle, beef cattle and hog producers purchase them through feed companies or co-ops, while a majority of cattle on feed operations purchase them directly from ethanol and other processing plants. Livestock operations that are not currently using ethanol co-products indicated that availability is the primary impediment. Infrastructure and handling issues are also a barrier as, to a lesser extent, is cost.