A crop sharing contract, such as the rental price, has pros and cons. A farmer will not be stuck and will pay a high rent per hectare if the market collapses or if the weather negatively affects the crops. On the other side of the equation, however, a farmer who gets high production or harvest prices is expected to pay more rent than last year on the same soil. This model usually requires a more involved landowner who works with the farmer to maximize production. Although Sharecropper`s provision protected against the negative effects of a poor harvest, many sharecroppers (black and white) remained quite poor. Arrangements have generally left a third of the crop to the sharecropper. An alternative path was chosen and forced. In the summer of 1865, President Andrew Johnson was one of the first acts of reconstruction to order that all state-controlled underground land be returned to the owners who had confiscated it. This meant that the plantation and land owners in the south returned to their land but had no labour. The solution was „sharecropping,“ which allowed the government to combine work with demand and begin the process of economic reconstruction of the nation through employment contracts. I have a sharing agreement with an owner, it`s a 50/50 agreement in which we both pay for half the seed, aerosol, fertilizer and harvest insurance, and both share half the harvest at harvest. Given the increase in the cost of fuel and equipment, I think the owner should pay for some of the harvest and truck driving.
Are there farmers who do that and what are your agreements? Finally, Table 4 has several additional features of the leased crop area. Two-thirds of all leased land was leased by the same tenant and one quarter of all land with a harvest share and rent was leased by the same tenant. An interesting indicator that serves as an assistant property for landowners` participation in leased land decisions is the frequency with which the landowner visits the farm for a year. Table 4 shows that landowners visit the farm at 37 per cent of the rented crop each day, which is much higher than the corresponding ratio of 25 per cent for land leased in cash leases. This is consistent with the common belief that landowners are generally more involved in crop participation agreements than in cash leases. However, Table 4 also shows that owners never visit the leased farm for 12 per cent of the land leased with a harvest share.