Nebraska Crop-Share Lease Survey

How landowners and tenants share crop inputs, field operations and irrigation

Prepared by: Anastasia Meyer, Extension Educator, Center for Agricultural Profitability

The Nebraska Crop-Share Lease Survey was conducted from October 2024 through March 2025. Participants were recruited through online promotion and outreach at in-person meetings. Since participation was voluntary rather than based on a probability sample, survey findings describe the lease arrangements reported by participants and should not be interpreted as estimates for all Nebraska crop-share leases. 

A crop-share lease is an agreement in which the landowner and tenant each receive a share of the crop and allocate responsibility for selected production expenses. Both parties are exposed to yield and price changes through their respective crop-shares, but they do not necessarily bear all production, liability, insurance, or financial risks equally. Because both parties share revenue and production risk, crop-share leases often require coordination on certain production and marketing decisions.

A crop-share lease does not automatically divide every farming expense according to the crop-share percentage.

Lease-share notation. All lease splits are stated as the tenant’s share first and the landowner’s share second. For example, a 60/40 lease allocates 60% of the crop to the tenant and 40% to the landowner. 

Webinar Recording: Nebraska Crop-Share Leases: Findings From 92 Lease Arrangements

Statewide Descriptive Report

This report summarizes 92 usable crop-share lease arrangements across irrigated, non-irrigated and operations with both irrigated and non-irrigated acres. It is designed as a benchmarking resource for lease conversations, not as a recommended lease formula.

Bottom line:  

Yield-enhancing inputs are commonly shared, while labor and field operations are commonly assigned to the tenant. As the tenant's crop-share percentage increases, the survey suggests that more seed and selected input costs also shift to the tenant.  

Crop-share arrangements with limited responses should be interpreted with caution.

Why crop-share splits differ

There is no single crop-share arrangement that works for every farm across Nebraska. The crop split and the expenses paid by each party should reflect what the landowner and tenant contribute to the operation.

The landowner typically contributes the land and may also provide irrigation equipment, buildings or other improvements. The tenant generally provides machinery, labor, management and operating capital. Depending on the lease, both parties may share the cost of seed, fertilizer, chemicals and other inputs. They also share some of the risk associated with changes in yields and prices.

Land productivity can also influence the lease arrangement. More productive land generally provides a greater expected return to the land. Irrigation, soil quality, field improvements and other characteristics may increase the value of the landowner’s contribution. At the same time, machinery, labor, technology and management costs affect the value of the tenant’s contribution. Because of this, the crop split and expense responsibilities should be evaluated together. A 50/50 lease commonly shares many of the major crop inputs, while the tenant provides the machinery and labor needed to plant, manage and harvest the crop. Under a 60/40 lease, the tenant receives 60% of the crop but may also pay a larger share of the production expenses.

Seed and application costs are examples of why the crop-share lease and expense responsibilities must be considered together. For example, in many 60/40 arrangements, the tenant pays the entire seed cost and also provides the machinery and labor needed to apply fertilizer and crop-protection products. If application responsibilities have shifted to the tenant while the crop split has remained unchanged, the arrangement may no longer provide an equitable return to both parties. This does not necessarily mean the selected crop-share lease (60/40) must change. The parties could instead adjust how seed, application or other production expenses are shared and distribute the expenses differently. 

In summary, the full arrangement including the crop-share split, purchased inputs, machinery, labor, management, land expenses, and risk must be considered when determining whether the lease provides a reasonable return to both parties.

What the survey says

Across the crop-share arrangements reported in this survey, yield-related inputs were more often shared, while field operations and labor were more often assigned to the tenant. Reported practices also differed by crop-share split, particularly for seed and irrigation energy.

At a glance:

• 50/50 and 60/40 dominate. Among the 92 crop-share arrangements reported, 36 were noted as 50/50 and 37 were noted as 60/40 arrangements; together accounting for 79%.
• Yield-enhancing inputs generally follow the lease split. Fertilizer was shared in 92–100% of the 50/50 and 60/40 irrigated and non-irrigated larger response groups. In-season herbicide, fungicide, and insecticide inputs were shared in 76–100% of the 50/50 and 60/40 groups, but less frequently in the smaller 67/33 and 70/30 response groups.
• Seed is the clearest dividing line. Seed was shared in 78–88% of 50/50 crop-share leases but treated as a tenant expense in 83–92% of 60/40 crop-share arrangements.
• Field operations stay with the tenant. Planting and harvesting were tenant expenses in 80–100% of the detailed groups; trucking was assigned to the tenant in 60–100%.
• Irrigation energy varies with the crop-share arrangement. It was shared in 100% of 50/50 irrigated observations and 67% of 60/40 irrigated observations but was a tenant expense in 71% of the seven 67/33 irrigated observations.
• Irrigation parts and labor. Landowners most often indicated covering the cost of irrigation equipment parts, especially on wells, while power-unit and pivot labor expenses were more evenly divided between tenant and landowner.

Use these findings as a benchmark:  

The survey describes what respondents reported; it does not establish a fair or legally sufficient lease. Compare the full economic contribution of land, capital, inputs, labor, management and risk before negotiating a split.

The crop split and expense allocation should be evaluated as a package; changing one without considering the other may shift the economic return between the parties.

Survey method, sample and interpretation

Eligible participants included landowners, tenants, farm and ranch managers, and others familiar with a Nebraska crop-share lease arrangement. Participants were recruited through the Center for Agricultural Profitability’s online outreach and listserv and through in-person Extension meetings held from October 2024 through March 2025. Respondents could report more than one lease arrangement. A usable arrangement was defined as a completed survey describing a lease located in Nebraska; incomplete and out-of-state responses were omitted. The arrangement, rather than the individual respondent, is the unit of analysis. Arrangements reported as “other” or “split by field” were retained as a separate category. Grass hay and alfalfa questions were supplemental, and those arrangements may overlap with the 92 primary crop-share arrangements.

Table 1 summarizes the 92 survey responses by irrigation status and crop-share arrangement. The sample was relatively balanced across irrigated, mixed (irrigated and non-irrigated), and non-irrigated operations. 

Table 1. Sample Composition

Most arrangements reported either a 50/50 or 60/40 crop-share arrangement, accounting for 79% of the sample. Because relatively few arrangements reported 67/33, 70/30, or other arrangements, results for these groups should be interpreted with caution. Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Where the responses came from

For regional analysis, counties are organized into USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) Agricultural Statistics Districts based on similarities in geography, climate, and cropping practices (Figure 1). Nebraska has eight reporting districts, previously referred to as crop reporting districts.  Table 2 summarizes the survey responses by reporting districts. 

Table 2. Distribution of District-Coded Survery Arrangements by Nebraska NASS Reporting District

Figure 1: Nebraska Agriculture Statistics Districts

Source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service

Respondent Role, Crop Insurance, Grain Marketing, and Crops Reported

The following tables provide additional context about the individuals who reported the arrangements, their involvement in crop insurance and grain marketing decisions, and the crops grown under the reported leases.

Table 3 indicates that landowners reported 71% of the 92 arrangements, tenants reported 28%, and one respondent did not identify their role.

Table 3. Role of person reporting the arrangement (n=92)

Questions about crop insurance and grain marketing were asked only when a landowner completed the survey. Tenant respondents were instructed to leave these questions blank. Of the 65 landowner-reported arrangements, 58 included responses to these questions.

Table 4 indicates that crop insurance was purchased for the landowner’s share in 52 of the 58 landowner reported arrangements that answered this question.

Table 4. Landowner purchase of crop insurance (n=58)

Table 5 shows that 86% of landowners market their share of grain themselves.  Only 10% report that the tenant markets the landowner’s share of grain.  

Table 5. Responsibility for marketing of landowner's share of grain (n=58)

In Table 6, corn and soybeans dominated the reported arrangements. Each remaining crop was represented by relatively few observations. Their results should be interpreted cautiously and should not be assumed to represent typical crop-share arrangements for those crops across Nebraska.

Table 6. Crops grown in reported arrangements (n=92)

Note: Respondents could select more than one crop for each arrangement. Therefore, counts sum to more than 92 and the percentages do not total 100%.

How to read the crop-share tables

• Arrangement is the unit of analysis. Results do not necessarily represent unique people or operations.
• Group n is not always the item denominator. Skipped questions and item-level coding mean some percentages are based on fewer responses than the n in a table title.
• Percentages are rounded. Columns or rows may total 99% or 101%.
• Use results from smaller response groups as a general reference and interpret them with caution. The 67/33, 70/30 and several district groups are too small for confident statewide generalization. 
• “Mixture of Irrigated and Non-Irrigated Acres: Expenses are shared the same, except non- irrigated land has no irrigation expenses” was able to be selected. Consequently, an irrigation-energy response may appear in a non-irrigated-acre table when that response applies to irrigated acres covered by the same lease arrangement.
• Definitions of the responsibility categories and inputs used in Table 7-13 appear on page 8.

Definition of cost responsibilities and inputs

Crop-share Lease Terms

Cost-share terms: 50/50 arrangements

Reported 50/50 arrangements showed the most consistent cost-allocation pattern. Herbicide, insecticide, and fungicide products are almost always shared, seed is usually shared, and field operations are generally assigned to the tenant. Irrigation energy is shared in all reported irrigated 50/50 observations.

Table 7 shows how input costs are allocated in irrigated 50/50 crop-share arrangements across Nebraska. “Shared” indicates that the cost is divided between the tenant and landowner in proportion to the lease. “Tenant” or “Landowner” indicates that the respective party pays the entire expense. For example, seed costs are shared according to the lease in 78% of the reported arrangements, while the tenant pays the entire seed expense in 22% of the reported arrangements.

Table 7. 50/50 Arrangements with Irrigated Acres Statewide (n=24)

Note: Row totals do not always sum to n=24.  Each cell reflects the number of respondents who selected that option for that specific input; a small number of respondents left that individual line item blank.  Percentages are calculated based on the number of respondents who answered that specific question, not the full n=24. 

Table 8 shows how input costs are allocated in non-irrigated 50/50 crop-share arrangements across Nebraska. “Shared” indicates that the cost is divided between the tenant and landowner in proportion to the lease. “Tenant” or “Landowner” indicates that the respective party pays the entire expense.

Table 8. 50/50 Arrangements with Non-Irrigated Acres Statewide (n=26)

Note: Row totals do not always sum to n=26.  Each cell reflects the number of respondents who selected that option for that specific input; a small number of respondents left that individual line item blank.  Percentages are calculated based on the number of respondents who answered that specific question, not the full n=26. 

Interpretation  

A 50/50 crop split does not imply that every cost is divided equally. In this sample, planting, harvesting, trucking and tenant-applied application work generally remained the tenant’s responsibilities.

Cost-share terms: 60/40 arrangements

The 60/40 tables show most fertilizer, insecticide, herbicides, and fungicides inputs still commonly follow the lease split but seed and field operations usually shift to the tenant. Irrigation energy is less uniform than under 50/50 leases.

Table 9 shows how input costs are allocated in irrigated 60/40 crop-share arrangements across Nebraska. “Shared” indicates that the cost is divided between the tenant and landowner in proportion to the lease. “Tenant” or “Landowner” indicates that the respective party pays the entire expense.

Table 9. 60/40 Arrangements with Irrigated Acres Statewide

Note: Row totals do not always sum to n=20.  Each cell reflects the number of respondents who selected that option for that specific input; a small number of respondents left that individual line item blank.  Percentages are calculated based on the number of respondents who answered that specific question, not the full n=20. 

Table 10 shows how input costs are allocated in non-irrigated 60/40 crop-share arrangements across Nebraska. “Shared” indicates that the cost is divided between the tenant and landowner in proportion to the lease. “Tenant” or “Landowner” indicates that the respective party pays the entire expense.

Table 10. 60/40 Arrangements with Non-Irrigated Acres Statewide 9n=26)

Note: Row totals do not always sum to n=26.  Each cell reflects the number of respondents who selected that option for that specific input; a small number of respondents left that individual line item blank.  Percentages are calculated based on the number of respondents who answered that specific question, not the full n=26. 

Interpretation  

The biggest practical difference from 50/50 is seed: 83% of irrigated and 92% of non-irrigated 60/40 observations treated seed as a tenant expense. That term should be written explicitly rather than inferred from the crop split.

Cost-share terms: 67/33 and 70/30 arrangements

These groups suggest a greater tenant cost burden as the tenant's crop-share rises, but the samples are small. The seven irrigated 67/33 observations, five non-irrigated 67/33 observations, and five 70/30 observations should be used as conversation starters, not statewide norms.

Table 11 shows how input costs are allocated in irrigated 67/33 crop-share arrangements across Nebraska. “Shared” indicates that the cost is divided between the tenant and landowner in proportion to the lease. “Tenant” or “Landowner” indicates that the respective party pays the entire expense.

Table 11. 67/33 Arrangements with Irrigated Acres Statewide (n=7)

Note: Row totals do not always sum to n=7.  Each cell reflects the number of respondents who selected that option for that specific input; a small number of respondents left that individual line item blank.  Percentages are calculated based on the number of respondents who answered that specific question, not the full n=7. 

Table 12 shows how input costs are allocated in non-irrigated 67/33 crop-share arrangements across Nebraska. “Shared” indicates that the cost is divided between the tenant and landowner in proportion to the lease. “Tenant” or “Landowner” indicates that the respective party pays the entire expense.

Table 12. 67/33 Arrangements with Non-Irrigated Acres Statewide (n=5)

Note: Row totals do not always sum to n=5.  Each cell reflects the number of respondents who selected that option for that specific input; a small number of respondents left that individual line item blank.  Percentages are calculated based on the number of respondents who answered that specific question, not the full n=5. 

Table 13 shows how input costs were allocated across the five reported 70/30 arrangements, including irrigated, mixed, and non-irrigated arrangements.

Table 13. 70/30 Arrangements Across Irrigation Statuses Statewide (n=5)

Note: Row totals do not always sum to n=5.  Each cell reflects the number of respondents who selected that option for that specific input; a small number of respondents left that individual line item blank.  Percentages are calculated based on the number of respondents who answered that specific question, not the full n=5. 

Small-sample caution  

In Tables 11–13, one response changes a percentage by approximately 14 percentage points when n=7 and 20 percentage points when n=5.

Irrigation Lease Terms

Share Arrangement and Irrigation Status

The share mix differs modestly by irrigation status as shown in Table 14. A 60/40 split is more common among non-irrigated arrangements (47%) than irrigated (38%) or mixed (33%) arrangements. A 67/33 split appears more often among irrigated arrangements (21%) than non-irrigated arrangements (11%). With only 27–36 arrangements per status, the pattern is descriptive rather than conclusive.

Table 14. Share arrangement by irrigation status

Regional Pattern: Irrigation Energy

Table 15 summarizes responsibility for irrigation energy among arrangements where the expense applied. Among the 91 district-coded arrangements, 88 included a response to the irrigation-energy question. Irrigation energy applied to 51 of those arrangements. Among applicable arrangements, the expense was shared according to the lease in 78%, paid entirely by the tenant in 18%, and paid entirely by the landowner in 4%

Table 15. Irrigation energy responsibility by NASS reporting district

Note: Percentages for Shared, Tenant, and Landowner are calculated using applicable responses within each district. Three district-coded arrangements did not answer this question.

How to interpret this  

A high non-applicable rate should be read as lower irrigation relevance in the district sample—not as a cost-sharing preference. Among applicable responses, the proportion shared can look very different from the all-response percentage.

Irrigation equipment responsibility

Both indicates that the tenant and landowner shared responsibility, not in proportion to the lease arrangement. 

Table 16 summarizes how 47 arrangements with irrigated land allocated parts and labor costs when the landowner owned the well, power unit, or pivot. 

Table 16. Responsibility for landowner-owned irrigation equipment

What stands out

• Wells are most often the landowner's responsibility. Landowners were solely responsible for well parts in 83% of responses and well labor in 70%.
• Responsibility for power unit labor varies. Tenants were solely responsible in 38% of responses; landowners were solely responsible in another 38%, and both parties shared the responsibility in 17%.
• Pivot responsibility splits by task. Sole responsibility for pivot labor was nearly evenly divided between tenants (40%) and landowners (38%); while responsibility of pivot parts were the sole responsibility of the landowner 57% of the time. 

Avoid the word “repairs” by itself  

A lease is easier to administer when it separates parts, labor, routine maintenance and major replacement for each piece of irrigation equipment.

Hay and alfalfa lease terms

Grass hay and alfalfa share lease arrangements represent a small survey sample, dominated by 50/50 leases. The results are descriptive only, but they reinforce the row-crop pattern: yield-related inputs are often shared while field operations and wrap or twine expenses are paid by the tenant.

Field operations: The labor, machinery, fuel, and related operating costs associated with harvesting hay, including swathing or mowing, conditioning, raking, baling, stacking, and moving bales from the field. Net wrap and twine are reported separately.

Table 17 summarizes cost responsibilities for grass hay leases. 13 arrangements answered the field-operations and wrap/twine questions, while only 12 answered the fertilizer and pesticide questions. 

Table 17. Grass hay lease cost-share terms

Table 18 summarizes cost responsibilities for alfalfa leases. Because only 10 arrangements reported alfalfa arrangements, these findings should be interpreted with caution.

Table 18. Alfalfa lease cost-share terms

Interpretation

On hay ground (Table 17), fertilizer, herbicide and insecticide were shared in proportion to the lease in 58% of all responses. Field operations and wrap/twine were reported as tenant expenses in 85%. On alfalfa ground (Table 18), establishment and production inputs were shared in 50–70%, while field operations and wrap/twine were tenant expenses in all 10 observations.

Negotiation point  

Perennial forage raises an inter-year fairness issue: if the tenant pays establishment costs, but the stand benefits later lease years, the agreement should say how the tenant is compensated if the lease ends early.

Applying Survey Results to a Written Lease

The share percentage is only one part of the overall economic arrangement. Use the survey to identify questions, then evaluate the value and risk contributed by both parties.

Key negotiation question: Do the crop share and assigned expenses provide each party a reasonable expected return on the resources and risks they contribute?

A practical lease review sequence

1. List every contribution: land, buildings, irrigation equipment, seed, fertilizer, herbicide, insecticide, fungicide, application, machinery, labor, management, insurance and financing.
2. Assign payment responsibility for each item and state whether the cost is shared in the crop proportion or under a different formula.
3. Define operating decisions: crop choice, input rate, vendor selection, repair authorization, conservation practices, and marketing responsibilities.
4. Run projected returns for both parties under low, expected, and high yield-price scenarios.
5. Write procedures for records, reimbursement timing, government payments, crop insurance, storage, hauling, and end-of-lease inventories.
6. Review the agreement annually and obtain legal and tax advice appropriate to the parties' situation.

Crop-share Lease Considerations

• Who pays for seed, chemical and fertilizer—and whether application charges follow the same split.
• Who pays for irrigation energy, routine repairs, major equipment parts and labor.
• How cover-crop establishment, grazing, termination and any conservation payments are handled.
• How grain is stored, marketed and transported, and who bears drying or shrink costs.
• How hay and alfalfa establishment costs are recovered when the lease ends early.

Irrigation Lease Considerations 

• Define routine maintenance versus capital replacement, including dollar thresholds.
• Name who authorizes repairs and who selects the contractor or parts supplier.
• Specify whether tenant labor is compensated, absorbed as part of the crop split or credited against another expense.
• Address uninsured losses, deductibles, and damage caused by negligence or misuse.

Educational use

This report is a benchmarking resource and does not constitute legal, tax, or financial advice. Lease terms should be tailored to the farm, the parties, and applicable law.