• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Citrus land values decline as other...
 Citrus land values decline as other...
 Citrus land values decline as other...






Group Title: Department of Food and Resource Economics publication FE321
Title: Citrus land values decline as other land values increase
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00066714/00001
 Material Information
Title: Citrus land values decline as other land values increase 2001 survey results
Alternate Title: EDIS FE 321
2001 survey results
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Reynolds, John E ( John Everett )
Publisher: University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, EDIS
Place of Publication: <Gainesville Fla.>
Publication Date: <2001>-
 Subjects
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
System Details: Internet access required.
Statement of Responsibility: John E. Reynolds.
General Note: Title from Web page viewed on April 9, 2002.
General Note: At head of title: University of Florida, Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, EDIS.
General Note: "This is EDIS document FE 321, a publication of the Department of Food and Resource Economics, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Published October 2001."--Footnote.
Funding: Florida Historical Agriculture and Rural Life
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00066714
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 002799821
oclc - 49938110
notis - ANS8097

Table of Contents
    Citrus land values decline as other land values increase: 2001 survey results
        Page 1
    Citrus land values decline as other land values increase: 2001 survey results
        Page 2
    Citrus land values decline as other land values increase: 2001 survey results
        Page 3
        Page 4
Full Text










Florida Food and Resource Economics
August 2001 Nc

Citrus Land Values Decline as Other Land Values Increase:
2001 Survey Results

John E. Reynolds*


The 2001 Florida Land Value Survey results
indicate that the value of all types of
agricultural land, except citrus, increased during
the past year. Survey respondents cited
nonagricultural factors (purchases by
developers, speculators and the government, as
well as individuals wanting land for second
homes, recreational uses and larger homesites
away from urban areas) for the relatively strong
increases over the past year. Agricultural land
values vary by the type of land use and
geographic area.
The Florida Land Value Survey, conducted by
the Food and Resource Economics Department
at the University of Florida, provides estimates
of the value of different types of agricultural
land for geographic regions of the state. The
survey questionnaire was designed to obtain
estimates of the market value for different types
of land as of May 2001. Survey respondents
included rural appraisers, farm lenders, real
estate brokers, farm managers, land investors,
county extension agents, Farm Services Agency
and Natural Resource and Conservation Service
personnel, county property appraisers and other
persons who develop and maintain information
about rural land values in their areas.
Respondents provided 210 usable county
reports for the 2001 survey.
The state was divided, based on agricultural
production, into four maj or regions (Northwest,


Northeast, Central and South) (Figure 1). A
fifth region (Southeast) was delineated as a
result of the impact of urbanization in southeast
Florida. Even though the state was divided into
more homogeneous regions, wide variation in
agricultural land values still exists within each
region.

Changes by Type of Land Use

The value of land used for crops and pasture
increased in all regions. The value of cropland
increased from 3 to 17 percent, and the value of
improved and unimproved pasture land
increased from 6 to 12 percent. The value of
farm woods increased 12 percent. However, the
value of orange groves declined from 9 to 11
percent and the value of grapefruit groves
declined from 4 to 10 percent (Table 1).

Citrus. After two years of improved grove
values, the value of orange and grapefruit
groves declined in both the Central and South
regions. The value of orange groves declined
9.4 percent in the South and 11 percent in the
Central region. The value of grapefruit groves
decreased 10 percent in the South and 4.3
percent in the Central region. The value of land
with 5- to 7-year-old citrus plantings decreased
1.8 percent in the South region and 3.2 percent in
the Central region.


John E. Reynolds is a Professor in the Food and Resource Economics Department, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0240.


SUNIVERSITY OF Cooperative Extension Service

FLORIDA Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences


July-


. 147







Cropland. The value of cropland increased in
all regions. The value of irrigated cropland
increased 5 to 6 percent in the Northeast, Central
and South regions and 12.7 percent in the
Northwest region. The value of nonirrigated
cropland increased from 2.7 percent in the
Central region to 17.4 percent in the South. The
value of nonirrigated cropland increased 6.1
percent in the Northwest and 10.9 percent in the
Northeast region.

Pastureland. The value of pastureland increased
in all regions. The value of improved pasture
increased 9 to 10 percent in the southern regions
and 11 percent in the northern regions. The value
of unimproved pasture increased 6 to 7 percent in
the southern regions and 11 to 12 percent in the
northern regions.

Farm Woods. The value of farm woods
increased 12.4 percent in the Northwest and 12.2
percent in the Northeast region.

Regional Comparisons
of Land Values

The average value of citrus land was higher in
the South region than in the Central region.
However, the value of other types of agricultural
land was higher in the Central region than it was
in other regions. The average value of orange
groves was $6,410 per acre in the South region,
about $270 per acre higher than in the Central
region. The estimated value of grapefruit groves
was $4,344 per acre in the South region, about
$100 per acre higher than in the Central region.
The average value of land with 5- to 7-year-old
citrus groves was $5,802 per acre in the South
region, more than $1,000 per acre higher than in
the Central region.
The values of cropland and pastureland were
higher in the Central region than in other regions.
The lowest agricultural land values were reported
in the Northwest region.
The value of irrigated cropland was $2,580 per
acre in the Central region and $2,561 in the
Northeast. The value of irrigated cropland in the
South region was $2,150 per acre and $1,630 in
the Northwest. The value of nonirrigated
cropland was $2,271 per acre in the Central


region and $1,960 in the Northeast. The value of
nonirrigated cropland in the South region was
$1,630 per acre and $1,396 in the Northwest.
The value of improved pasture ranged from
$2,418 per acre in the Central region to $1,291
per acre in the Northwest. The value of
unimproved pasture ranged from $1,735 per acre
in the Northeast region to $1,088 per acre in the
Northwest. The values of improved and
unimproved pastureland in the South region were
62 and 75 percent, respectively, of those in the
Central region. The value of both types of
pastureland in the Northwest region were 63
percent of those in the Northeast.

Transition Land

Transition land is defined as agricultural land
that is being converted or likely to be converted
to nonagricultural uses as sites for homes,
subdivisions and commercial uses. Transition
land values were analyzed by metropolitan and
non-metropolitan counties for each region.
Metropolitan counties are those areas that are
classified as Metropolitan Statistical Areas by
the U. S. Office of Management and Budget
and are considered urban or urbanizing areas.
Non-metropolitan counties are the more rural
counties where less land is being converted to
urban uses. This year, transition land values
were again at least three times higher in the
Southeast region than in the other regions. In
the other regions, the values for transitional
land in metropolitan counties were about two
times as high as the values for transition land
in non-metropolitan counties (Table 3).
The value of transition land within five miles
of a major town in the metropolitan counties
increased 10 to 12 percent in the northern areas
and 14 to 17 percent in the southern regions. The
value of transition land within five miles of a
major town ranged from $11,000 to $13,120 per
acre, except in the Southeast region where
transition land values were $40,000 per acre.
Transition land values for land more than five
miles from a maj or town in metropolitan counties
ranged from $5,635 to $7,904 per acre, except in
the Southeast region where transition land values
were $26,250 per acre. Transition land values for
land within five miles of a major town in







non-metropolitan counties ranged from $3,853 to
$5,275 per acre, while transition land values for
land more than five miles from a major town in
non-metropolitan counties ranged from $2,928 to
$3,533 per acre.

Cash Rents

The estimated cash rent for nonirrigated
cropland was $31.88 per acre in the Northwest
region and $25.00 per acre in the Northeast
region (Table 2). The estimated cash rent for
improved pastureland was $22.60 per acre in the
Northwest region, $20.08 per acre in the
Northeast region, $19.14 per acre in the Central
region and $18.17 per acre in the South region.
Cash rent for unimproved pastureland ranged
from $14.60 per acre in the Northwest region to
$9.93 per acre in the Central region. The 2001
cash rent estimates indicate that cash rents for
improved pasture increased in the Northwest,
Northeast and Central regions. Cash rents in the
South region and for other types of land changed
by only small amounts.
Cash rent as a percentage of the estimated
value of cropland and pastureland continues to be
quite low as compared to other areas of the
country. These low rates of return have been
consistent for several years, indicating that the
market value of agricultural land has been "bid
up" beyond the income earning capacity from
agricultural uses. This reflects the influence of
the nonagricultural demand for land on the
market value of agricultural and rural land.

Expected Trends

Survey respondents were asked if they expected
agricultural land values to be higher, lower or
remain unchanged during the next 12 months.
Seventy-one percent of the respondents in the
Northwest and Northeast regions expected
agricultural land values to increase in their
regions while 43 percent of the respondents in the
southern (Central, South and Southeast) regions
expected land values to increase (Table 4).
Respondents in the northern regions expected
larger land value increases during the next 12
months than respondents in the Central and South
regions. Agricultural land values are expected to


to increase 7.8 percent in the Northwest region
and 4.5 percent in the Northeast during the next
year. In the southern regions, respondents
indicate that they expect agricultural land values
to increase 2.2 percent in the Central region and
one percent in the South. The Southeast region is
expected to see the largest increase (9 percent) of
all regions, primarily due to the impact of urban
development in this region.

Use of the Survey Results

The estimates of land values provided in this
report are based on the opinions of many people
involved in the real estate market. Care must be
exercised when making year-to-year
comparisons between surveys for several
reasons. First, the group of participating
respondents changes from year to year. Second,
government rules and regulations for water, land
use and the environment may change and affect
agricultural land values. Finally, with these
changes, the results may not be directly
comparable with results from previous years.
Despite these limitations, this survey has
provided estimates of agricultural land values
that have been fairly consistent since the
mid-1980s. These estimates serve as a guide to
the relative value of different land uses within
areas and between areas. It is important, however,
to emphasize that the value of a specific tract of
land may vary substantially from these estimates
because of the physical characteristics of the
tract, the location of the tract and the economic
and institutional factors that may affect or restrict
its use. Therefore, the value of a specific tract of
land should not be determined by these survey
results. A professional appraiser should be used
to determine the value of a specific tract of land.

References

Reynolds, John E. and Amy Deas. "Florida
Agricultural Land Values Increase: 2000
Survey Results" Florida Food and Resource
Economics Number 145. Food and Resource
Economics Department, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL, July-August 2000.
www.agbuscenter.ifas.ufl.edu/landuse/











Table 1. Estimated land value per acre, by geographic region
and land use, 2000 and 2001
Date
Percent
Region/Land Use 5/00 5/01 Change
---- $/acre ------
SOUTH
Mature Oranges 7,073 6,410 -94
Mature Grapefruit 4,824 4,344 -10 0
5-7 Yr Citrus 5,909 5,802 -1 8
Cropland
Irrigated 2,036 2,150 56
Nonrrigated 1,388 1,630 174
Pastureland
Improved 1,362 1,490 9 4
Unimproved 1,036 1,113 74

CENTRAL
Mature Oranges 6,899 6,139 -110
Mature Grapefruit 4,431 4,241 -43
5-7 Yr Citrus 4,941 4,783 -3 2
Cropland
Irrigated 2,425 2,580 64
Nonrrigated 2,212 2,271 27
Pastureland
Improved 2,195 2,418 102
Unimproved 1,410 1,494 60

NORTHEAST
Cropland
Irrigated 2,430 2,561 54
Nonrrigated 1,768 1,960 109
Pastureland
Improved 1,831 2,030 109
Unimproved 1,558 1,735 114
Farm Woods 1,406 1,579 12 2

NORTHWEST
Cropland
Irrigated 1,466 1,630 12 7
Nonrrigated 1,316 1,396 6 1
Pastureland
Improved 1,162 1,291 111
Unimproved 970 1,088 122
Farm Woods 916 1,030 124

"Florida Land Value Survey," Food and Resource Economics
Department, University of Florida, May 2001


Table 2. Cash rent by geographic region, May 2001
Land Class NW NE Central South
Improved Pastureland 22 60 20 08 19 14
18 17
Unimproved Pastureland 1460 10 23 993
1020
Nonrrigated Cropland 31 88 25 00


Table 3. Estimatedvalue of transition land by geographic region, May 2001
Date


Region/Category


Metropohtan Counties
< 5 Mi to Major Town
Northwest
Northeast
Central
South
Southeast

> 5 Mi to Major Town
Northwest
Northeast
Central
South
Southeast

Non-metropolitan Counties
< 5 Mi to Major Town
Northwest
Northeast
Central
South

> 5 Mi to Major Town
Northwest
Northeast
Central
South


Percent
5/00 5/01 Change
--------- $/acre -----


10,046
11,600
11,364
11,171
34,000



5,188
6,460
7,181
5,182
22,917


11,000
13,000
13,120
12,688
40,000



5,635
6,828
7,904
5,556
26,250


3,672 3,853
4,444 4,780


5,217 5,275



2,710 2,928
3,000 3,535


3.250 3.533


Table 4. Respondents' opinions regarding their expectations of land values
over the next 12 months, by geographic region, May 2001
Item Higher No Change Lower
----percentage of responses----
Land Values, Next 12 Months
Southern Regions 43 41 16
Northern Regions 71 39 0


Figure 1. Geographic regions used for the Florida Land Value Survey


Address editorial comments or correspondence regarding Articles appearing in Florida Food and Resource Economics This publication was produced at an annual cost of
S1 .... i,. iI ... I I; ,and Michael T Olexa, may be reproduced, in whole or in part, without special $150 20, or 7 5 cents per copy, to present research
i,, 1 i *.^ I I *..d Resource Economics permission.Newspapers,periodicalsandotherpublicationsare results and economic information onFlorida foodand
Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611- encouraged to reprint articles that would be of interest to their agricultural industries
0240 Editorial assistance provided by Carol Fountain readers. Credit is requested if information is reprinted.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs