This report summarizes the 2019 results of the North Dakota Land Valuation Model. The model is used annually to estimate average land values by county, based on the value of production from cropland and non-cropland. The county land values developed from this procedure form the basis for the 2019 valuation of agricultural land for real estate tax assessment. The average value for all agricultural land in a county from this analysis is multiplied by the total acres of agricultural land on the county abstract to determine each county’s total agricultural land value for taxation purposes. The State Board of Equalization compares this value with the total value assessed to agricultural property in each county. The average value per acre of all agricultural land in North Dakota increased by 2.72 percent from 2018 to 2019 based on the value of production. The formula cost of production index value used in the 2019 analysis was 209.56. The formula capitalization rate was 4.51 percent. The capitalization rate had a larger effect on higher valuations compared to recent years. Cropland value increased, on average, 2.64 percent. Across individual counties, the cropland valuation ranged from a decrease of 4.29 percent to an increase of 6.99 percent. County values had small increases and decreases depending on crop mix and cropland to non-cropland percentages. Non-cropland values increased 5.52 percent. Generally, valuations for counties with a higher percentage of livestock increased partly due to increased calf prices for the current year replacing the lower oldest year in the data set. Changes in market value are included for comparison. Market value data are from the annual County Rents and Prices survey conducted by the North Dakota Department of Trust Lands.
Gene editing is a relatively new plant-breeding tool that, unlike earlier methods such as genetic modification, is more precise in targeting its manipulations to site-specific locations within the genome. This precision with gene editing offers considerable research and development cost economies and a higher probability of success, particularly for the initial discovery phase of research and development. This study quantifies the advantages of gene editing versus genetic modification by examining the minimum required planted area for a proposed trait where a typical crop technology company can expect to break even on its research and development investment using a real option valuation model. A novel feature of the model is the combination of a decision tree with a binomial lattice for project valuation with an embedded abandonment real option. A primary numerical result from the model was the observation that gene editing required a much smaller potential market area (96% smaller) to break even on the financial investment when compared to genetic modification for the same trait value per acre. This result held across a wide range of potential trait values. Sensitivity analysis on the results indicated that the much higher probability of success for gene editing in the discovery phase of research and development was the primary driver of the difference in break-even acreage.
Long-term and widespread wetlands conservation within agricultural working lands remains tenable. There exists a need to identify alternative options for incentivizing wetland maintenance on private property. The objective of this research is to facilitate development of viable options by developing an understanding of how landowners view conservation, including that specifically targeted towards maintenance of wetlands, and what influences their decision regarding conservation program participation. Landowners in the five-state Prairie Pothole Region were surveyed. Most landowners supported use of incentives for wetlands conservation. Fewer supported the options of incentivized regulation, easements, and regulation. Landowners identified contract attributes including payment level and guaranteed source of income as important in their decision-making regarding conservation program participation. Effect of program participation on soil quality and erosion control were also considered important. Other program attribute and external effect factors were of moderate importance, and impact on neighboring properties was not considered important. Revealed decision criteria differed between groups defined by operation as including livestock, residence as on-farm, gender, previous or current participation in the Conservation Reserve Program, and support of various policy options for wetlands conservation. Attitudinal questions revealed that landowners in general agreed that they should be consulted on wetlands programs, promoting healthy ecosystems is a landowner’s responsibility, and landowners have the right to decide land use, should be compensated for land use choices that benefit the environment, including for maintenance of wetlands, and should be able to farm wetlands. They agreed that wetlands are important for wildlife and their conservation is important, although agreement that it is important to protect wetlands on private and public lands and especially that small wetlands benefit their operations tended toward neutral. Landowners were neutral on whether current conservation programs are effective and there should be regulations to control the conversion of naturally-occurring wetlands on agricultural land. Landowners with a CRP contract history were more supportive of the role of and need to protect wetlands, and had a lower level of agreement that decisions on land use are their right and that landowners should be able to farm their wetlands than those without. Members of general and crop-specific farm organizations were more strongly in agreement with landowners’ rights than non-members and less supportive of the role of wetlands and the need and policy tools to protect them. Members of Farmers Union and three crop commodity organizations also more strongly agreed that farmers should receive compensation when land use choices benefit the environment than non-members. Alternatively, conservation organization member agreement was higher than that of non-members that small wetlands benefit their operations, that it is important to protect wetlands, and that conservation of wetlands is important, and was lower for statements reflecting landowner rights.
