2023 Iowa State University Land Value Survey:
Overview
Rabail Chandio
Working Paper 23-WP 655
December 2023
Center for Agricultural and Rural Development
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa 50011-1070
www.card.iastate.edu
Rabail Chandio is Assistant Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, Iowa State
University, Ames, Iowa, 50011. E-mail: rchandio@iastate.edu.
This publication is available online on the CARD website: www.card.iastate.edu. Permission is
granted to reproduce this information with appropriate attribution to the author and the Center for
Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011-1070.
For questions or comments about the contents of this paper, please contact Rabail Chandio,
rchandio@iastate.edu.
Iowa State University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, age, ethnicity, religion, national origin,
pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic information, sex, marital status, disability, or status as
a U.S. veteran. Inquiries regarding non-discrimination policies may be directed to Office of Equal Opportunity,
3410 Beardshear Hall, 515 Morrill Road, Ames, Iowa 50011, Tel. (515) 294-7612, Hotline: (515) 294-1222, email
eooffice@iastate.edu.
1
2023 IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY LAND VALUE SURVEY:
OVERVIEW
Rabail Chandio
Assistant Professor and Extension Economist
Department of Economics, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, and
Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Iowa State University
481 Heady Hall, 518 Farmhouse Lane, Ames, Iowa
Email: rchandio@iastate.edu
Phone: 515-294-6181
Abstract: Fluctuations in land values can signal changes in market conditions, impact farmers' financial well-
being, and influence policy decisions, making it essential to record and analyze them. Since 1950, the Iowa State
University Land Value Survey has been the only data source that provides a county-level land value estimate for
each of the 99 counties in Iowa. The 2023 Iowa State University Land Value Survey reported a 3.7% increase to
$11,835 per acre for average Iowa farmland values from November 2022 to November 2023. This continues the
increase in land values from last year, and the $11,835/acre nominal land value is the highest ever since data
collection began in the 1940s. However, the pace of the increase has slowed down. The inflation-adjusted value,
$9,131/acre in 2015 dollars, also the highest recorded, saw a very modest increase of 0.5%. While the overall
increase is supported by limited land supply, stronger-than-expected crop yields, and ample cash reserves on the
farm, the slowing pace and, in some places, the fall in land values is largely attributable to the recent hikes in
interest rates, decreasing commodity prices and increasing input costs. All crop reporting districts except the
Northwest district reported an increase in land values. The Southeast and South Central districts reported the
largest growths of 12.8% and 9.6%, respectively, with all other increases falling below 5%. The Northwest
district reported a small decrease of 0.8% in land values. High-quality land saw a 3.5% increase, while medium-
and low-quality land increased 3.8% and 4.0%, respectively. In general, the 2023 Iowa State University Land
Value Survey results echo other surveys, which all showed relatively stable farmland market values.
Key Words: Land Values, Iowa, Land Ownership, Interest Rate, Farm Income, Ag Credit, Real Estate,
Commodity Prices, Expert Opinion Survey, Agricultural Trade, Inflation
JEL Codes: Q15, Q13, Q14, Q18
Citation suggestion: Chandio, R. 2023. “2023 Iowa State University Land Value Survey: Overview.” CARD
working paper 23-WP 655, Iowa State University Extension and Outreach, Center for Agricultural and Rural
Development.
Acknowledgement:
The author gratefully acknowledges the support of all CARD staff, especially Karen Kovarik and
Nathan Cook. This paper also benefited significantly from data entry research assistance from Trinydee Prins and Madhav
Dhimal, and from feedback and discussions with Ann Johanns, Chad Hart, Lee Schulz and ISU Extension and Outreach farm
management specialists.
I also want to thank the continuous and great assistance from several agricultural professional organizations, such as the
ASFMRA Iowa Chapter, RLI Iowa Chapter, Iowa Bankers Association, and USDA Farm Service Agency.
2
2023 IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY LAND VALUE SURVEY:
OVERVIEW
History and Purpose of the ISU Land Value Survey
The survey was initiated in 1941 and is sponsored annually by Iowa State University. Only the state
average and the district averages are based directly on Iowa State survey data. County estimates are derived
using a procedure that combines Iowa State survey results with data from the US Census of Agriculture.
Since 2014, the survey has been conducted by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development in the
Department of Economics at Iowa State University and Iowa State University Extension and Outreach.
The survey is intended to provide information on general land value trends, geographical land price
relationships, and factors influencing the Iowa land market. The survey is not intended to provide a direct
estimate for any particular piece of property.
The survey is an expert opinion survey based on reports by licensed real estate brokers, farm managers,
appraisers, agricultural lenders, county assessors, and selected individuals considered to be knowledgeable
of land market conditions. Respondents were asked to report for more than one county if they were
knowledgeable about the land markets in multiple counties. The 2023 ISU Land Value Survey is based on
417 usable county-level land value estimates provided by 282 agricultural professionals.
Of the 282 respondents, 41% completed the survey online. Online responses allow participants to provide
estimates for up to 12 counties. A web portal has been developed to facilitate the visualization and analysis
of Iowa farmland values by pooling data from ISU, USDA, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and the
REALTORS® Land Institute Iowa Chapter, as well as by making use of charts over time and interactive
county maps. The portal can be accessed at https://www.card.iastate.edu/farmland.
Participants in the survey are asked to estimate the value of high-, medium-, and low-quality land in their
county. Comparative sales and other factors are taken into account by the respondents in making these
value estimates. This survey is the only data source that provides an annual land value estimate at the
county level for each of the 99 counties in Iowa. In addition, this survey provides estimates of high-,
medium-, and low-quality land at the crop reporting district and state level.
Analysis by State
The 2023 state average for all land of all quality was estimated to be $11,835 per acre as of November 1,
2023.
The statewide average value increased $424 per acre from November 2022.
The statewide average value increased 3.7% from November 2022.
December 12, 2023
3
Analysis by Crop Reporting District
The highest average land values were reported in Northwest Iowa, $14,753 per acre.
The lowest average land values were reported in South Central Iowa, $7,482 per acre.
Land values increased across all crop reporting districts except Northwest Iowa, with a decrease of 0.8%.
The largest percentage increases were in the Southeast and South Central districts, at 12.8% and 9.6%,
respectively. The East Central and Southwest districts, which saw the smallest percentage changes,
reported increases of 0.7% and 2.6%, respectively.
Analysis by Counties
The highest value was estimated for Sioux County, $16,521 per acre.
The lowest value was in Decatur County, $6,286 per acre.
Twelve of the 99 counties reported decreases in nominal land values and 45 counties reported a decrease in
inflation-adjusted values, but 87 counties still report the highest nominal land values since 1950, and, for
42 counties, the inflation-adjusted values are also record-high—topping the previous peak in 2013.
The largest percentage decrease, 3.9%, was reported in Scott County, while the largest increase, 12.9%, was
reported in Appanoose, Decatur, Lucas, and Wayne counties. Sioux County reported the lowest percentage
increase at less than 1%. The largest dollar decrease was reported in Scott County, $630 per acre, while
Marion County saw the largest dollar increase, $1,117 per acre. The smallest dollar increase was reported
in Sioux County, $5 per acre.
Analysis by Quality of Land
Low-quality land statewide averaged $7,664 per acre, a 4% or $296 per acre increase from November
2022. Low-quality land in the Southeast, South Central, and West Central saw increases of 17.6%,
16.6%, and 11.3%, respectively; and low-quality land in the Northwest, Northeast, Central and East
Central districts posted decreases in land values with the largest percentage decrease in the East Central
district at 4.2%.
Medium-quality land averaged $11,075 per acre, an increase of 3.8% or $401 per acre, with a minor decrease in
its value reported in East Central district at 0.1%.
High-quality land averaged $14,296 per acre, an increase of 3.5% or $479 per acre. High-quality land in three
of nine districts (Northeast, Central, and Southeast) saw increases over 5%, while the Northwest district
reported a modest decrease of 1.1%.
Regardless of land quality, the South Central and Southeast districts saw larger increases, while the East
Central, West Central, and Southwest districts reported smaller increases with only the Northwest district
reporting a decrease in land values this year.
Major Factors Influencing the Farmland Market
Most survey respondents listed positive and/or negative factors influencing the land market. Of all
respondents, 90% listed at least one positive factor, and 86% listed at least one negative factor. In most
cases, respondents listed multiple factors.
There were three positive factors listed by over 50% of respondents who provided at least one positive
factor. The most frequently mentioned factor was limited land supply, mentioned by 15.5% of respondents.
4
Strong yields and the combination of cash on hand and credit availability were the next most-frequently
mentioned positive factors, mentioned by 12.6% and 12.1% respondents, respectively. Other frequently
mentioned positive factors included higher commodity prices (11.3%) strong land demand including from
investors (11.3%), a good farm economy (5.4%), and a recent history of favorable interest rates (2.8%).
There were also three negative factors listed by more than 40% of respondents who identified at least one
negative factor. The most frequently mentioned negative factor affecting land values was the series of
interest rate hikes over the past two years, mentioned by 23.4% of respondents, and the fall of commodity
prices during 2023 was the second-most important concern with 22.7% responses identifying it. Concerns
about higher input costs, weather uncertainty, and stock market volatility and economic uncertainty were
the next most frequently mentioned negative factors, mentioned by 11.4%, 7.2% and 5.1% of respondents,
respectively. Land availability and uncertainty in agricultural profitability were each mentioned by roughly
3.6% of respondents.
Number of Sales Compared to the Previous Year
In 2023, 39.5% of respondents reported fewer sales relative to 2022, which signals the slowing place of the
land market. On the other hand, 21% reported more sales, and 39.5% reported the same level of sales in
2023 compared to 2022.
The South Central district has the lowest percentage of respondents who reported more sales, at 11%,
while the East Central district has the highest percentage of respondents who reported more sales, with
28%. On the other hand, in six of the nine districts, more than 40% of respondents indicated fewer sales in
2023 than 2022.
Land Sales by Buyer Category
The survey asked respondents what percent of the land was sold to six categories of buyers: existing local
farmers, existing relocating farmers, new farmers, local investors, non-local investors, or other.
The majority of farmland sales, 70%, were to existing farmers, of which existing local farmers captured
69% of land sales. Only 1% of sales were to existing relocating farmers. New farmers represented 4% of
sales. Investors represented 24% of land sales, with 12% going to local investors and 12% to non-local.
Other purchasers were 2% of sales.
Sales to existing local farmers by crop reporting district ranged from 58% in the South Central district to
77% in the West Central district.
Sales to investors were highest in the South Central district (34%). The West Central district reported the
lowest investor activity (17%). Four districts, Northwest, West Central, Central, and East Central, reported
more local investor sales than non-local investor sales.
Land Sales by Seller Category
The survey also asked respondents what percent of land was bought from six categories of sellers: active
farmers, retired farmers, estate sales, local investors, non-local investors, or other.
The majority of farmland sales, 57%, were from estate sales, followed by retired farmers at 23%. Active
farmers accounted for 7% of sales, while local and non-local investors accounted for 4% and 7%,
respectively.
Estate sales by crop reporting district ranged from 40% in the South Central district to 70% in the West
Central district.
Sales by investors were highest in the South Central district (24%), with local investors representing 10%
of sales and non-locals representing 14%. The Northeast and East Central districts reported the lowest
5
investor sale activity (6% each), with local investors representing 2% and 3% of sales and non-locals
representing 4% and 3%, respectively.
Respondents by Occupation and by Mode of Survey
The survey asked the main occupation of the respondent: farm manager, appraiser, agricultural lender,
broker/realtor, government, farmer/landowner, and other, along with the respondents’ number of years of
experience and the number of counties in which they offer services.
In total, 282 agricultural professionals completed the survey, providing 417 county land value estimates.
Of these 282, agricultural lenders represented the largest group, accounting for 41% of all respondents.
Brokers/realtors and farm managers were the next largest groups, representing 14.2% and 13.1% of
respondents, respectively.
Of all respondents, the percentage of agricultural lenders ranged from 25% in the Southwest district to
more than 45% in the Northwest, Northeast, West Central, and Southeast districts.
Our respondents, on average, have 27 years of experience in their current profession and offer professional
services to an average of six counties. While government officials typically only serve one county,
appraisers, agricultural lenders, farm managers, and realtors/brokers offer services, on average, to 15, 10,
10, and 4 counties, respectively.
The survey was completed online by 41% of the 282 respondents.
Farmland Value and Cash Crop Price Predictions by Respondents
This year’s survey asked respondents to predict land values and cash crop prices one and five years from
now, as well as the prevailing interest rates for a 20-year farmland mortgage and a one-year operating loan.
Respondents had optimistic views regarding the strength of the farmland market five years from now, and
generally expect stable or even higher land values, with the one year expectation tilting towards a fall in
land values. Forty-eight percent of respondents forecasted a decrease in their local land market in one year,
while 30% expected a higher land value and 22% forecasted no change. While the most popular response
was for the one-year land price forecast to decrease by 5% or less, the second-most popular answer was for
land values to remain the same as the current situation. Looking five years ahead, 16% of respondents
forecasted a decline, much smaller than the 48% forecasting a decline 12 months from now. Meanwhile,
70% of respondents expect an increase in land values in the long term, with an increase of 10%–20%
selected by most respondents.
To better gauge the respondents’ views of current farmland values, the survey also asks them to rate the
current farmland values in their primary county as way too low, too low, just right, too high, or way too
high. Fifty-nine percent and 10% of respondents think the current land values are too high or way too
high, respectively, while only 5% of respondents think the current land values are too low. Twenty-five
percent of respondents think the land values are just right.
Respondents expect corn and soybean cash crop markets to remain relatively stable. In particular, the
predicted state average cash corn prices for November 2024 (one year from now) and 2028 (five years from
now) are $4.69/bu. and $5.33/bu., respectively. The statewide average soybean price predictions are
$12.42/bu. in one year and $13.36/bu. five years from now.
Respondents reported typical interest rates for 20-year farmland mortgages and one-year operating loans
are 7.59% and 8.54%, respectively. These are significantly higher than one-year-ago levels due to the
multiple interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve to combat inflation.
Land Quality and Corn Suitability Rating 2
6
To gauge how each respondent defined high-, medium-, and low-quality land for their county, we asked
for estimated average CSR2 (Corn Suitability Rating 2) for high-, medium-, and low-quality land. We also
asked for estimates of the percent of land area for each land quality class.
Approximately 90% of participants provided at least one CSR2 estimate for the corresponding land quality
classes. The estimated average CSR2 values statewide for high-, medium-, and low-quality land are 83, 70,
and 56 points, respectively. The estimated percent of land area for high-, medium-, and low-quality land is
35%, 40%, and 25%, respectively.
In addition, respondents ranked high-, medium-, and low-quality land based on relative conditions in their
region. For example, the average CSR2 for high-quality land in the South Central district is 72, which is
only slightly larger than the CSR2 for low-quality land in the Northwest district (70).
7
Interpretation of the 2023 Survey Results
The 2023 Iowa State University Land Value Survey reported a 3.7% increase to $11,835 per acre for average
Iowa farmland values from November 2022 to November 2023. This represents a modest increase from last
year, and the $11,835/acre nominal land value is the highest-ever recorded by the survey. The 2023
nominal land value is 36% higher than the 2013 peak in nominal land values, and the inflation-adjusted
value, $9,131/acre in 2015 dollars, saw a 0.5% increase and is also the highest on record.
The declining rate of increase in land values, along with falling values in select regions, is revealing a
possible plateauing in the land market. The downward pressures on land values are largely attributable to
interest rate hikes, lower commodity prices, increasing input prices, and weather uncertainty. At the same
time, limited land supply, stronger-than-expected crop yields, readily available cash and credit, higher
commodity prices earlier in the year, strong demand, including from investors, and a good farm economy
supported the overall growth in Iowa land values. In general, nearly half of the respondents expect modest
declines in land values within the next year but are optimistic about the future of the land market,
forecasting increases in five-year land values.
The 2023 Iowa State University Land Value Survey revealed a geographic pattern in land value changes
across crop reporting districts, counties, and land quality classes. Land values increased in eight of the nine
crop reporting districts, with the largest percentage increases in the South Central and Southeast districts,
12.8% and 9.6%, respectively. All other districts reported increases less than 5% except for the Northwest
district, where land values decreased by 0.8%. Across land quality classes, low-quality land saw the greatest
increase, 4%, while high- and medium-quality land experienced 3.5% and 3.8% increases, respectively.
Within the districts, high quality land decreased in value by 1.1% in the Northwest district, medium-
quality land value decreased in the East Central district by 0.1%, while low-quality land values fell in the
Northwest, Northeast, Central, and East Central districts by 0.8%, 1%, 0.1%, and 4.2%, respectively.
Twelve of Iowa’s 99 counties reported decreases in nominal land values and 45 counties reported a
decrease in inflation-adjusted values, but 87 counties still report the highest nominal land values since
1950, and, for 42 counties, the inflation-adjusted values are also record-high—topping the previous peak
in 2013. The largest percentage increase, 12.9%, was reported in Appanoose, Decatur, Lucas, and Wayne
Counties while the largest percentage decreases were reported in Scott and Clinton Counties at 3.9% and
1.9%, respectively.
In general, the results from the 2023 Iowa State University Land Value Survey are similar to the results
from other surveys, which all highlight the slowing pace of the farmland market due to higher interest
rates and lower commodity prices. In November 2023, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago reported no
change in Iowa‘s “good” farmland values from October 2022 to October 2023. In September, the
REALTORS® Land Institute reported an overall 0.6% increase in Iowa cropland values from September
2022 to September 2023, with decreases reported in Northwest, North Central, and West Central district
values. The US Department of Agriculture June Area Survey reported a 5.6% rise in Iowa‘s agricultural real
estate values (land and building) from June 2022 to June 2023.
Nearly 40% of respondents reported less sales in 2023 relative to 2022, another 39% reported the same
level of sales, while only 21% reported more sales compared to 2022. Limited land supply is reported as the
most common factor selected as a positive influence on land values.
The majority of farmland sales, 70%, were to existing farmers, of which existing local farmers captured
69% of land sales. Only 1% of sales were to existing relocating farmers. New farmers represented 4% of
sales. Investors represented 24% of land sales, with 12% going to local investors and 12% to non-local.
Other purchasers were 2% of sales.
The farmland value estimates from the Iowa State survey are average estimates for all farmland in a county,
including cropland, pasture, CRP, and timberland. Specifically, we asked respondents to estimate “farmland
value for average-sized farms in your county as of November 1, 2023.”
An opinion survey is just that—it represents the collective opinion of the survey respondents. Most of the
respondents will use actual sales to formulate their opinions but each person can choose to weigh or
8
discount particular sales as they deem necessary. The Iowa State Land Value Survey is an opinion survey,
as are the surveys conducted by Federal Reserve Bank, USDA, and the REALTORS® Land Institute. It is
important to consider the survey respondents, the questions asked, the time period covered, and other
factors relating to a particular survey. As a result, it is important to note that when comparing results
across surveys for Iowa and neighboring states, it is better to compare percentage change over time as
opposed to dollar amount per acre.
The Iowa State Land Value Survey is intended to provide information on general land value trends and
factors influencing the Iowa land market, it is not intended to provide a direct estimate for any particular
piece of property. We recommend interested buyers or sellers hire an appraiser to conduct a formal
appraisal of a particular parcel, go to county assessor websites, or examine recent auction results for
comparable parcels in their region.
9
Outlook for Land Values in 2023 and Beyond
The slowing pace of the growth in Iowa farmland values is not really a surprise for some – in November
2022, over 30% of the 2022 Iowa State survey respondents thought land values in their territory would
either remain the same or modestly increase in 2023. The small increase of 3.7% falls within that
expectation. On the other end of the spectrum, nearly 70% of the respondents believe that land values are
higher than they should be and about 50% expect a decline in the next year. This is explained by the
downward pressures by rising interest rates, lower commodity prices, and higher input costs.
The estimated $11,835 per acre statewide average for all qualities of land in Iowa represents a 3.7%
increase in nominal land values from November 2022. This modest increase, following the dramatic 17%
surge last year, means that Iowa farmland values, still at an all-time high since Iowa State started tracking
the land value information in the 1940s, have started to cool off. After adjusting for inflation, the overall
inflation-adjusted land values rose only 0.5%, and the inflation-adjusted land values fell in 45 counties.
Despite the slowing pace, there is a variation in the change and inflation-adjusted land values in 42 out of
99 counties in Iowa are still at an all-time high.
Many of the factors behind the large surge in values last year continue to support this increase at the
beginning of the year—interest rates were lower through the first half of the year, commodity prices were
still elevated as weather and geopolitical uncertainty created crop production concerns, crop yields once
again were a positive surprise despite the weather challenges throughout the growing season, cash and
credit availability has remained ample and allowed farmers to stay aggressive in the land market, and
investor demand grew stronger nudged by inflation concerns and lack of alternative investment options.
According to USDA Economic Research Service’s December 2023 farm income forecast, US net farm
income is forecast to decrease $31.8 billion (17.4%) from 2022 levels to $151.1 billion in 2023 (in
inflation-adjusted terms, a 20% fall). Despite the decline, US net farm income in 2023 is higher than the
2020 net farm income by 38%, and its 20-year average (2003–2022) by 36%. The decrease is driven by
falling commodity prices and cash receipts from farming, along with lower direct government payments
and higher production costs. In particular, both crop receipts and animal or animal product receipts are
expected to decrease by 4% and 5%, respectively. Even though the direct government payments continue
to fall, the 2023 direct government payments are forecasted at $12.1 billion, reflecting the reduction in
COVID-related assistance in 2023. As farm production expenses are rising, with the largest increases this
year coming from interest expenses, the growth in expenses has caught up to the growth in revenues,
making for tighter margins.
Put simply, land value is the net present value of all discounted future income flows. With certain
assumptions imposed, one could think of land value being net income divided by the interest (discount)
rate. To understand the changes in land value over time and across space, it is useful to examine how net
income and interest rates will change over the next few years. Improving commodity prices, rising farm
income, and lower interest rates tend to exert upward pressures on land values; while lower prices and
incomes and higher interest rates tend to press downward on land values.
From this perspective, the annual 3.7% increase in farmland values is consistent with reports on stabilizing
farm incomes as well as several other underlying supply and demand factors. First, commodity prices,
although falling, are at par with the pre-pandemic levels—USDA forecasts the 2023 season-average corn
and soybean prices at $4.85/bu. and $12.90/bu., respectively. These prices are 28% and 8% lower than
year-ago levels, respectively, but are still higher than 2020. However, production costs have also risen,
leading to tighter profit margins based on the 2023 Iowa Cost of Production estimates. Corn per bushel
cost of production has, in fact, exceeded the season average price. The lowering profitability, which is a
combination of prices and input costs, is placing downward pressure on land values. Many respondents
cited low commodity prices and high input costs as a key negative factor for farmland markets.
Second, despite the weather challenges throughout the growing season, the Iowa and national corn and
soybean yields are much stronger than expected, with Iowa at 200 and 58 bushels per acre, respectively,
and the nation at 174.9 and 49.9 bushels per acre, respectively. These yields are very similar to last year’s
levels, but are still surprisingly high given the extent of drought conditions within the state and across the
growing season, making this a positive influence on land values.
10
Third, the Federal Reserve continued their interest rate hikes throughout the year in response to the
inflationary pressures that had begun to build in 2021. By the second quarter of 2022, the US Bureau of
Labor Statistics reported that the US inflation rate rose to its highest level since 1982. While inflation has
driven some investors to consider farmland as an alternative investment asset because farmland value tends
to rise with higher inflation, that demand has also slowed down with inflation. Moreover, higher interest
rates from the summer of 2022 increased the contribution of interest expenses to production costs and
decreased farm profitability. Previous research shows that the realization of the interest rate hikes in the
land market is often delayed. The hikes in interest rates since the second half of 2022 are now influencing
land values as we move into 2024 and 2025.
Finally, despite the fall in sales activity, many respondents noted the strong demand for farmland,
including from investors. As noted earlier, some investors are nudged by the higher inflation rate when
looking for alternative investment options, some look for undervalued assets or a bargain, and others are
also attracted to rural acreage or land with recreational potential. However, there is still limited farmland
supply, which was noted to have helped buoy market prices in many areas across the state, and kept the
overall Iowa land values increasing despite substantial downward pressure with lowering incomes and
rising interest rates.
Eight of the nine crop reporting districts saw growth in their land values, with the Southeast and South
Central districts reporting the highest percentage increases of nearly 10% or more. While these two
districts have the highest percentage increases this year compared to other districts, the percentage increase
in their values is almost the same as last year. The regional trends suggest that the surging land values are
cooling off first in the northern and central districts, where they surged with a much higher magnitude,
whereas the southern areas are following with a lag. While land values could be thought of as net income
divided by interest rates, net income tends to be localized while interest rates are more universal. The
strength in these districts reflected the competitiveness of the land market, more investor influence
(especially for recreational land use in South Central Iowa), lower land availability (with roughly half of
the regional respondents indicating fewer land sales), as well as the positive impacts of better-than-
expected crop yields. While low-quality land experienced the largest percentage increase, specifically in the
South Central and Southeast districts, the medium-quality land value change was only slightly smaller,
with high-quality land capturing the smallest increase. Furthermore, previous research shows that experts’
estimates are less informative and noisier for low-quality land, suggesting that more trust should be put in
the Iowa State University Land Value Survey for high-quality land values than for low-quality land values.
It is also worth noting that low-quality farmland in the Iowa State survey includes pasture, timber, and
recreational tracts.
All Iowa counties except for 12 reported growth in nominal land values, although the magnitudes of
increases are much smaller than in the previous two years—the largest percentage increase, 12.9%, was
reported in Appanoose, Decatur, Lucas, and Wayne counties. Scott and Clinton counties reported the
largest decreases at 3.9% and 1.9%, respectively. The 12 counties reporting a decrease in nominal land
values are all located in Northwest and East Central districts, while the 45 counties reporting a decrease in
inflation-adjusted values are distributed well in seven Iowa districts except for the South Central and
Southeast districts where all counties report an increase. Moreover, in inflation-adjusted values, 68
counties have values that exceed the peaks from 2012 and 2013, and 42 of these counties have record-high
inflation-adjusted land values. The 42 record-setting counties that truly posted historically high land
values, include all counties from the Southeast, no counties from the Northwest and North Central
districts, and a more equal distribution across other crop reporting districts.
Across the Corn Belt and Great Plains, the land market saw consistent, yet more modest, increases. Many
neighboring states also experienced recent large increases in land values, especially in surveys conducted in
recent months in light of commodity market rallies. The Illinois Society of Professional Farm Managers and
Rural Appraisers and University of Illinois reported in March 2023 that Illinois land values for excellent
quality land increased 15.3% from January 2021 to January 2022. The February 2023 Nebraska report
indicated the average market value of dryland non-irrigated cropland increased by 13% compared to one
year earlier. The 2023 land value survey conducted by Purdue University reported a 7.3%, 5.8%, and 0.7%
increase for Indiana’s statewide top-, medium-, and low-quality farmland values, respectively, from June
2021 to June 2022. The quarterly AgLetter report by the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank issued in November
2023 indicated a 6% increase in Illinois, no change in Iowa, and 9% and 16% growth for Wisconsin and
11
Indiana, respectively, for the period of October 1, 2022, to October 1, 2023. It also reported an overall 1%
growth over the last quarter for the seventh district, a 1% increase for Illinois and Iowa land values, and no
change for Indiana values. The quarterly Ag Credit survey conducted by the Kansas City Federal Reserve
Bank, published in August 2023, showed that non-irrigated cropland values in their district grew by
roughly 8% from the previous year.
While there has been a tempering of land value growth potential in the short run, generally, respondents
expect higher land values in the future. Nearly half, 49%, of respondents forecasted a decrease in their local
land market in one year, while the most selected answer (29%) was for less than a 5% fall in land values.
Looking five years ahead, 16% of respondents forecast a decline, growing from the 11% that forecasted a
decline 12 months ago and the 6% that forecasted a decline two years ago. However, roughly 60% of
respondents still expect a further increase in land values, with an increase of 10%–20% selected by the
largest number of respondents (30%). This is consistent with respondents’ corn and soybean price
forecasts—respondents expect stable to slightly rising corn and soybean cash crop prices. The Ag Economy
Barometer led by Purdue University, a nationwide monthly agricultural producer survey, showed that the
most surveyed farmers expect higher farmland prices 12 months from now, mostly due to strong investor
demand which is expected to outweigh the rising costs, lowering prices, and higher interest rates.
The inflation concerns that arose last year continued to strengthen through the early part of this year.
Although the inflation rate peaked in 2022, we experienced quite high inflation rates earlier this year. Since
the fall of 2022, the Federal Reserve conducted a series of interest rate hikes to curb inflation. Research
suggests that farmland values are very sensitive to interest rate changes. It is also worth noting that changes
in the federal funds rate have long-lasting impacts on farmland values, as it takes at least a decade for the
full effects of an interest rate change to be capitalized in farmland values. So, although interest rates are
expected to stabilize and then ease in 2024, the land market will continue to react to the interest rate hikes
in 2022 and 2023. But within the current land market environment, the interest rate increases are fighting
against other factors, such as relatively strong farm incomes, which continue to support higher values.
The concerns about inflation and the credibility of land as a strong inflation hedge has nudged more
investors to consider farmland as an investment option due to the strong positive correlation between
farmland returns and inflation. Farmland has historically been a fairly robust investment that generates
relatively stable returns, especially when compared with other investments, such as stocks. The 2023
survey reported that investors represented 24% of land sales, which is slightly lower than the 27% in 2022,
coinciding with the fall in inflation. Sales to investors were highest in the South Central district (34%).
Consistent with previous years, the majority of farmland sales, 70%, were still to existing farmers, of which
existing local farmers captured 69% of land sales. The cash infusion from COVID-19-related assistance
programs and a good agricultural economy over the last couple of years are still supporting land values
enough to maintain an increase, though modest, in land values despite the recent interest rate hikes.
Moreover, respondents are also concerned about the negative impact of lower commodity prices and higher
input costs on the land market. Producers already saw rising costs in many factors of their production,
including fertilizers, machinery, and fuel over the past two years. For producers who rely significantly on
rented acres, they have seen their cropland rents increase, with additional concerns for next year’s rent as
well. The current projections of crop prices and production costs show that overall producers are expected
to have a profitable crop year in 2024 with much tighter margins, with corn potentially being grown at a
loss, but the uncertainty about higher input costs and the decreases in commodity prices has already
eroded profitability and broken the momentum of farmland value increases. However, there are several
factors supporting the seemingly high land values: farm income, though lower than last year, is still higher
than the pre-pandemic levels, the relative stability from at least 84% of Iowa farmland being fully paid for,
and the fact that farmland is increasingly viewed as a more stable and robust investment option given
greater general economy and geopolitical uncertainty. Although the land market is likely to face declines in
the short run, we do not foresee a sudden collapse of the agricultural land markets in the near future.
There have been three ‘golden’ eras for Iowa land values over the past 100 years. The first one ended in a
long, drawn-out decline in land values from 1921 to 1933, the second golden era ended with a sudden
collapse from 1981 to 1986. The third golden era ended with an orderly adjustment in values from 2014
onwards as opposed to a sudden collapse. We are now at the cusp of another great period of farmland
values, and if the economy bypasses a recession as planned, we should be able to end this era without a
12
rapid collapse in land values.
13
Table 1. Recent Changes in Iowa Farmland Values, 1974–2023
Value
Per Acre
Dollar
Change
%
Change
Value
Per Acre
Dollar
Change
%
Change
1974 834 153 31.7 1999 1781 -20 -1.1
1975 1095 261 31.3 2000 1857 76 4.3
1976 1368 273 24.9 2001 1926 69 3.7
1977 1450 82 6.0 2002 2083 157 8.2
1978 1646 196 13.5 2003 2275 192 9.2
1979 1958 312 19.0 2004 2629 354 15.6
1980 2066 108 5.5 2005 2914 285 10.8
1981 2147 81 3.9 2006 3204 290 10.0
1982 1801 -346 -16.1 2007 3908 704 22.0
1983 1691 -110 - 6.1 2008 4468 560 14.3
1984 1357 -334 -19.8 2009 4371 -97 -2.2
1985 948 -409 -30.1 2010 5064 693 15.9
1986 787 -161 -17.0 2011 6708 1644 32.5
1987 875 88 11.2 2012 8296 1588 23.7
1988 1054 179 20.5 2013 8716 420 5.1
1989 1139 85 8.1 2014 7943 -773 -8.9
1990 1214 75 6.6 2015 7633 -310 -3.9
1991 1219 5 .4 2016 7183 -450 -5.9
1992 1249 30 2.5 2017 7326 143 2.0
1993 1275 26 2.1 2018 7264 -62 -0.8
1994 1356 81 6.4 2019 7432 168 2.3
1995 1455 99 7.3 2020 7559 127 1.7
1996 1682 227 15.6
2021
9751
2192
29.0
1997 1837 155 9.2
2022 11411 1660 17.0
1998 1801 -36 -2.0
2023 11835 424 3.7
Table 2. Iowa Farmland Values and Percentage Change by District and Land
Quality as of November 2023
District
Average
Value
%
Change
High
Quality
%
Change
Medium
Quality
%
Change
Low
Quality
%
Change
Northwest
$14,753
-0.8%
$16,938
-1.1%
$13,731
0.2%
$9,497
-0.8%
North Central
$12,818
3.0%
$14,719
3.1%
$11,512
3.1%
$8,045
2.5%
Northeast
$12,060
3.7%
$14,617
5.9%
$11,364
2.2%
$7,965
-1.0%
West Central
$12,741
2.7%
$14,950
0.9%
$12,018
3.1%
$9,084
11.3%
Central
$13,014
3.4%
$15,531
5.5%
$11,807
2.4%
$7,917
-0.1%
East Central
$12,678
0.7%
$15,593
3.3%
$11,862
-0.1%
$8,087
-4.2%
Southwest
$9,505
2.6%
$11,884
4.1%
$9,102
3.8%
$6,131
0.8%
South Central
$7,482
9.6%
$9,718
2.5%
$7,498
9.1%
$5,105
16.6%
Southeast
$10,460
12.8%
$14,157
10.4%
$9,858
13.6%
$6,357
17.6%
STATE (avg)
$11,835
3.7%
$14,296
3.5%
$11,075
3.8%
$7,664
4.0%
14
Table 3. Iowa Farmland Values by Crop Reporting District and Quality of Land, 2009–2023 ($)
Year
State
Avg
Northwest
North
Central
Northeast
West
Central
Central
East
Central
Southwest
South
Central
Southeast
All Quality
2009
4371
5364
4827
4464
4652
5026
4796
3559
2537
3832
2010
5064
6356
5746
5022
5466
5901
5447
4325
2690
4296
2011
6708
8338
7356
6602
7419
7781
7110
5905
3407
5705
2012
8296
11404
9560
8523
9216
9365
8420
7015
4308
6172
2013
8716
10960
9818
9161
9449
9877
9327
7531
4791
6994
2014
7943
9615
8536
8151
8424
9087
9008
6513
4475
7215
2015
7633
9685
7962
7861
8061
8505
8506
6372
4397
6892
2016
7183
9243
7562
7313
7358
7841
7917
6060
4241
6716
2017
7326
9388
7802
7543
7377
8097
8218
6058
4172
6864
2018
7264
9311
7789
7543
7413
7899
8004
6060
4329
6619
2019
7432
9352
7912
7325
7564
8336
8475
6166
4487
6868
2020
7559
9536
7927
7525
7859
8485
8524
6112
4658
6935
2021
9751
12164
10664
9958
10461
10744
11051
7582
6035
8451
2022
11411
14878
12449
11627
12411
12582
12595
9264
6824
9276
2023
11835
14753
12818
12060
12741
13014
12678
9505
7482
10460
High Quality
2009
5321
6129
5371
5349
5552
5939
5738
4539
3710
5306
2010
6109
7283
6397
6076
6585
7026
6152
5335
3892
5862
2011
8198
9649
8601
7994
8889
9332
8675
7418
5109
7721
2012
10181
12890
10765
10708
11128
11139
10201
8818
6437
8879
2013
10828
12824
11159
11423
11591
11803
11631
9591
7150
9785
2014
9854
11201
9630
10083
10275
10780
11034
8482
6663
10150
2015
9364
11229
8976
9575
9684
10087
10289
8031
6445
9536
2016
8758
10650
8442
8892
8874
9299
9502
7527
5980
9265
2017
8933
10829
8730
9151
8881
9568
9900
7571
5908
9471
2018
8863
10767
8699
9198
8834
9313
9768
7738
6055
9063
2019
9078
10757
8858
9050
9017
9749
10421
7768
6416
9341
2020
9068
10780
8889
9182
9159
9800
10199
7484
6408
9299
2021
11834
13997
12064
12308
12289
12512
13503
9424
8194
11628
2022
13817
17121
14271
13806
14821
14720
15097
11419
9478
12829
2023
14296
16938
14719
14617
14950
15531
15593
11884
9718
14157
Medium Quality
2009
4076
4977
4450
4193
4371
4615
4465
3386
2443
3535
2010
4758
5883
5300
4664
5111
5386
5445
4140
2596
4053
2011
6256
7708
6713
6290
6981
7029
6510
5553
3353
5468
2012
7773
11011
8691
7815
8619
8466
8128
6732
4219
5685
2013
8047
9918
8824
8573
8725
8930
8567
7137
4715
6605
2014
7359
8698
7874
7591
7827
8327
8388
6108
4318
6715
2015
7127
8834
7352
7460
7581
7758
7934
6038
4282
6525
2016
6705
8468
6992
6994
6870
7186
7396
5683
4128
6283
2017
6849
8555
7218
7236
6824
7426
7674
5756
4079
6548
2018
6805
8548
7214
7116
6935
7341
7452
5671
4244
6353
2019
6938
8633
7248
6833
7076
7649
7823
5841
4371
6616
2020
7119
8993
7350
6980
7433
7883
7959
5843
4563
6639
2021
9071
11042
9641
9122
9700
9980
10179
7145
6094
8169
2022
10673
13710
11171
11122
11654
11527
11876
8769
6872
8677
2023
11075
13731
11512
11364
12018
11807
11862
9102
7498
9858
Low Quality
2009
2884
3490
3281
3177
3134
3203
3240
2286
1685
2281
2010
3357
4161
3976
3517
3542
3724
3840
2868
1794
2620
2011
4257
5196
4900
4352
4766
4848
4671
3824
1984
3335
2012
5119
7162
6303
5288
5877
5718
5013
4484
2562
3226
2013
5298
6845
6421
5670
5926
5918
5449
4592
2843
3651
2014
4878
6091
5428
5256
5173
5582
5479
3860
2808
3891
2015
4834
6252
5372
5242
5082
5292
5366
4070
2750
3797
2016
4665
6019
5164
4847
4577
5158
5153
4189
2892
3783
2017
4689
6216
5265
4965
4684
4993
5305
3935
2824
3768
2018
4609
6018
5161
5056
4720
4932
4911
3790
2953
3656
2019
4759
6099
5325
4803
4950
5467
5279
3844
2955
3790
15
2020
5078
6486
5297
5213
5492
5793
5599
4055
3262
4134
2021
6397
8088
6992
6717
7044
7136
7215
5155
4058
4734
2022
7369
9569
7849
8047
8161
7927
8441
6081
4379
5406
2023
7664
9497
8045
7965
9084
7917
8087
6131
5105
6357
16
Table 4. Level of Sales Activity, 2023 (Percent)
More
Less
Same
Northwest
18
30
52
North Central
33
27
39
Northeast
24
37
39
West Central
26
41
32
Central
18
44
38
East Central
28
41
31
Southwest
15
46
38
South Central
11
46
43
Southeast
16
50
34
STATE
21
39
39
Table 5. Iowa Land Purchases by Buyer Type, 2023 (Percent)
Existing Local
Farmers
Existing
Relocating
Farmers
New Farmers
Local
Investors
Non-local
Investors
Other
Northwest
73
1
2
12
9
3
North Central
65
1
5
13
15
1
Northeast
72
2
5
9
10
2
West Central
77
1
4
9
8
1
Central
66
1
3
15
14
1
East Central
72
1
4
13
7
3
Southwest
63
2
3
15
16
1
South Central
58
2
3
14
20
3
Southeast
67
1
6
10
13
3
STATE
69
1
4
12
12
2
17
Table 6. Iowa Land Purchases by Seller Type, 2023 (Percent)
Active Farmers
Retired Farmers
Estate Sales
Local
Investors
Non-
local
Investors
Other
Northwest
7
15
67
4
4
3
North Central
5
21
60
2
9
3
Northeast
9
34
51
2
4
0
West Central
1
17
70
4
6
2
Central
10
19
60
4
6
1
East Central
9
32
51
3
3
2
Southwest
8
24
52
6
9
1
South Central
6
25
40
10
14
5
Southeast
3
26
56
4
9
2
STATE
7
23
57
4
7
2
Table 7. Survey Respondents and Responses by Mode, 2023
(Some respondents report on more than one county)
Paper
Online
# Responses
Paper
Online
# Respondents
(Percent)
(Percent)
Northwest
45
55
64
48
52
50
North Central
44
56
41
47
53
32
Northeast
59
41
46
60
40
30
West Central
38
62
47
47
53
32
Central
28
72
47
27
73
33
East Central
35
65
37
32
68
31
Southwest
23
77
48
35
65
23
South Central
29
71
41
36
64
28
Southeast
41
59
46
26
74
23
STATE
38
62
417
41
59
282
18
Table 8. Survey Respondents by Occupation, 2023 (Percent)
Farm
manager
Appraiser
Ag
lender
Broker/
Realtor
Farmer/
Landowner
Government
(Assessors and
FSA Officers)
Other
Northwest
18
4
51
10
4
12
0
North Central
12
9
39
6
18
15
0
Northeast
3
3
47
27
3
10
7
West Central
12
6
53
15
12
3
0
Central
18
9
33
18
12
9
0
East Central
18
18
32
7
7
11
7
Southwest
14
19
29
24
5
10
0
South Central
10
21
31
21
10
7
0
Southeast
9
22
48
4
9
9
0
STATE
13
11
41
14
9
10
1
Table 9. Experience and Service Area by District and Respondent Occupation, 2023
Crop reporting
district
Years of
experience
Number of
counties served
Occupation
Years of
experience
Number of
counties
served
Northwest
26
6
Ag lender
25
10
North Central
32
4
Appraiser
27
15
Northeast
26
4
Broker/Realtor
24
4
West Central
28
5
Farm manager
31
10
Central
29
12
Farmer/Landowner
42
2
East Central
24
7
Government
21
1
Southwest
24
6
Other
22
2
South Central
29
6
Southeast
25
5
STATE
27
6
STATE
27
6
Table 10. Predicted Percent Change in Local Land Value One Year from Now (November 2023 to November 2024)
Drop >20%
Drop 10-
20%
Drop 5-
10%
Drop <5% the Same
Increase
<5%
Increase 5-
10%
Increase
10-20%
Increase
20%+
(Percent)
Northwest
0
0
22
24
15
17
13
9
0
North Central
0
4
18
36
18
14
4
4
4
Northeast
7
11
19
33
15
7
4
0
4
West Central
0
3
23
32
23
16
0
3
0
Central
0
3
3
25
19
28
16
3
3
East Central
0
4
8
29
33
13
8
4
0
Southwest
0
0
19
22
19
33
4
4
0
South Central
0
7
7
33
26
22
4
0
0
Southeast
0
0
19
24
38
14
5
0
0
STATE
1
3
16
29
22
19
7
3
1
Table 11. Predicted Percent Change in Local Land Value Five Years from Now (November 2023 to November 2028)
Drop >20%
Drop 10-
20%
Drop 5-10% Drop <5% the Same
Increase
<5%
Increase 5-
10%
Increase 10-
20%
Increase
20%+
(Percent)
Northwest
0
2
9
2
20
2
20
27
16
North Central
0
4
4
11
15
0
22
33
11
Northeast
4
4
13
9
22
4
26
17
0
West Central
4
14
0
7
4
7
18
32
14
Central
0
6
0
3
9
9
28
28
16
East Central
0
8
4
0
13
17
13
33
13
Southwest
0
0
10
0
10
24
10
33
14
South Central
0
0
0
4
9
9
17
35
26
Southeast
5
10
10
5
14
0
14
33
10
STATE
1 5 5 5 13 7 19 30 14
Table 12. Views of Current Farmland Values
View of Current Farmland Values (Percent)
Way too Low Too Low Just Right Too High Way Too High
(percent of respondents)
Northwest
4
0
26
67
2
North Central
0
4
19
70
7
Northeast
4
0
7
63
26
West Central
0
0
28
69
3
Central
0
0
38
53
9
East Central
0 0 17 71 13
Southwest
7
22
37
30
4
South Central
0
15
22
52
11
Southeast
0
5
30
45
20
STATE
2
5
25
59
10
Table 13. Iowa Cash Crop Price Predictions for November 2024 and 2028 ($/bu.)
Predicted Cash Corn Prices Predicted Cash Soybean Prices
November 2024 November 2028 November 2024 November 2028
Northwest
$4.75
$5.47
$12.28
$13.32
North Central
$4.72
$5.52
$12.58
$13.68
Northeast
$4.63
$5.19
$12.30
$13.14
West Central
$4.58
$4.93
$12.20
$12.72
Central
$4.70
$5.27
$12.33
$13.37
East Central
$4.60
$5.44
$12.62
$13.75
Southwest
$5.01
$5.99
$12.70
$14.09
South Central
$4.55
$5.24
$12.50
$13.68
Southeast
$4.63
$4.73
$12.50
$12.35
STATE
$4.69
$5.33
$12.42
$13.36
Table 14. Estimated Average CSR2 and Percent of Land Area by Land Quality, 2023
Reported Average CSR2
Reported Percent of Land Area
High
Quality
Medium
Quality
Low
Quality
High
Quality
Medium Quality
Low
Quality
Northwest
90
81
70
45
36
19
North Central
85
74
60
39
40
21
Northeast
82
67
50
35
41
24
West Central
82
70
58
39
39
22
Central
85
76
62
39
38
23
East Central
84
69
52
38
38
24
Southwest
81
66
51
25
46
29
South Central
72
57
43
21
42
37
Southeast
85
72
54
32
40
28
STATE
83
70
56
35
40
25
21
Table 15. Estimated Average Mortgage and Operating Loan Rate, 2023 (Percent)
Interest Rates
20-Year Farmland Mortgage 1-Year Operating Loan
Northwest
7.42
8.44
North Central
7.41
8.46
Northeast
7.83
8.55
West Central
7.75
8.88
Central
7.51
8.46
East Central
7.68
8.25
Southwest
7.60
8.70
South Central
7.52
8.47
Southeast
7.58
8.66
STATE
7.59
8.54
Table 16. Comparative Iowa Land Values, 2022–2023
2023 2022
2023
2022
County Name
$/acre $/acre $ change % change
Dis tr ict Nam e $/acre $/acre $ change % change Harrison 11,905$ 11,557$ $348 3.0%
Northw est $14,753 $14,878 -$125 -0.8% Henry 10,268$ 9,290$ $979 10.5%
North Central $12,818 $12,449 $370 3.0% How ard 11,102$ 10,659$ $443 4.2%
Northeast $12,060 $11,627 $433 3.7% Humboldt 14,014$ 13,691$ $323 2.4%
West Central $12,741 $12,411 $330 2.7% Ida 13,736$ 13,512$ $224 1.7%
Central $13,014 $12,582 $432 3.4% Iow a 11,768$ 10,959$ $809 7.4%
East Central $12,678 $12,595 $83 0.7% Jackson 11,158$ 11,100$ $58 0.5%
Southw est $9,505 $9,264 $241 2.6% Jasper 12,083$ 11,147$ $935 8.4%
South Central $7,482 $6,824 $657 9.6% Jef ferson 8,643$ 7,821$ $822 10.5%
Southeast $10,460 $9,276 $1,183 12.8% Johnson 13,141$ 12,535$ $607 4.8%
State Average $11,835 $11,411
$424 3.7%
Jones 11,801
$
11,991$
-$190 -1.6%
Keokuk
10,003
$
9,135$
$868 9.5%
Kossuth 13,754
$
13,562
$
$192
1.4%
2023 2022 Lee 10,489$ 9,391$ $1,098 11.7%
County Name $/acre $/acre $ change % change Linn 13,210$ 13,330$ -$120 -0.9%
Adair 8,910$ 8,599$ $310 3.6% Louisa 11,474$ 10,970$ $505 4.6%
Adams 7,804$ 7,380$ $424 5.7% Lucas 6,631$ 5,872$ $759 12.9%
Allamakee 8,994$ 8,719$ $276 3.2% Lyon 15,352$ 15,557$ -$205 -1.3%
Appanoose 6,353$ 5,626$ $727 12.9% Madison 9,720$ 9,282$ $438 4.7%
Audubon 12,588$ 12,301$ $287 2.3% Mahaska 10,453$ 9,461$ $992 10.5%
Benton 13,106$ 12,673$ $433 3.4% Marion 10,697$ 9,580$ $1,118 11.7%
Black Haw k 14,202$ 13,591$ $611 4.5% Marshall 12,404$ 11,728$ $676 5.8%
Boone 13,621$ 13,088$ $532 4.1% Mills 11,158$ 10,900$ $258 2.4%
Bremer 13,617$ 13,069$ $549 4.2% Mitchell 12,538$ 11,975$ $563 4.7%
Buchanan 13,152$ 12,673$ $479 3.8% Monona 11,253$ 10,887$ $367 3.4%
Buena Vista 14,648$ 14,709$ -$62 -0.4% Monroe 7,993$ 7,170$ $823 11.5%
Butler 12,595$ 12,106$ $489 4.0% Montgomery 9,314$ 9,099$ $215 2.4%
Calhoun 14,426$ 14,059$ $367 2.6% Muscatine 11,734$ 11,698$ $36 0.3%
Carroll 13,710$ 13,682$ $28 0.2% O'Brien 16,313$ 16,531$ -$218 -1.3%
Cas s 10,821$ 10,530$ $291 2.8% Osceola 14,170$ 14,360$ -$189 -1.3%
Cedar 12,732$ 12,779$ -$47 -0.4% Page 8,493$ 8,296$ $196 2.4%
Cerro Gordo 12,295$ 11,868$ $426 3.6% Palo Alto 13,525$ 13,448$ $76 0.6%
Cherokee 14,162$ 14,140$ $22 0.2% Plymouth 15,214$ 14,965$ $249 1.7%
Chickasaw 12,112$ 11,627$ $485 4.2% Pocahontas 14,181$ 13,961$ $220 1.6%
Clarke 7,128$ 6,354$ $773 12.2% Polk 12,678$ 11,947$ $731 6.1%
Clay 13,887$ 13,943$
-$57 -0.4% Pottaw attamie 12,473$ 12,145$ $327 2.7%
Clayton 10,923$ 10,589$ $335 3.2% Pow eshiek 11,702$ 10,884$ $818 7.5%
Clinton 11,665$ 11,886$ -$221 -1.9% Ringgold 7,139$ 6,541$ $598 9.1%
Craw ford 13,274$ 13,060$ $214 1.6% Sac 14,425$ 14,397$ $29 0.2%
Dallas 12,406$ 11,957$ $448 3.7% Scott 15,338$ 15,968$ -$630 -3.9%
Dav is 7,772$ 6,967$ $804 11.5% Shelby 12,750$ 12,372$ $378 3.1%
Decatur 6,286$ 5,566$ $719 12.9% Sioux 16,521$ 16,516$ $5 0.0%
Delaw are 13,924$ 13,614$ $310 2.3% Story 13,999$ 13,442$ $557 4.1%
Des Moines 11,131$ 10,071$ $1,060 10.5% Tama 12,406$ 11,791$ $615 5.2%
Dickinson 13,159$ 13,334$ -$176 -1.3% Taylor 7,158$ 6,776$ $382 5.6%
Dubuque 12,659$ 12,351$ $308 2.5% Union 8,090$ 7,416$ $674 9.1%
Emmet 13,405$ 13,454$ -$49 -0.4% Van Buren 8,321$ 7,455$ $866 11.6%
Fayette 13,197$ 12,730$ $466 3.7% Wapello 8,489$ 7,687$ $802 10.4%
Floyd 11,929$ 11,394$ $536 4.7% Warren 11,164$ 10,193$ $971 9.5%
Franklin 12,641$ 12,331$ $309 2.5% Washington 12,610$ 11,515$ $1,095 9.5%
Fremont 10,139$ 9,904$ $234 2.4% Wayne 6,711$ 5,943$ $768 12.9%
Greene 12,897$ 12,536$ $360 2.9% Webster 13,795$ 13,368$ $428 3.2%
Grundy 14,231$ 13,649$ $582 4.3% Winnebago 11,870$ 11,577$ $294 2.5%
Guthrie 11,418$ 11,056$ $363 3.3% Winneshiek 11,534$ 11,127$ $407 3.7%
Hamilton 14,403$ 13,949$ $453 3.2% Woodbury 11,597$ 11,230$ $367 3.3%
Hancock 12,603$ 12,291$ $312 2.5% Worth 11,582$ 11,182$ $400 3.6%
Hardin 13,353$ 12,931$ $422 3.3% Wright 14,050$ 13,720$ $330 2.4%
By County:
2022-2023
By Crop Reporting District:
2022-2023
2022-2023
Figure 1. 2023 (top) and 2022 (bottom) Iowa average land values, by county.
24
Figure 2. Percentage change in Iowa land values from 2022 to 2023.
25
Figure 3. 2023 Iowa land values by crop reporting district.
26
Figure 4. Percent change in Iowa land values from 2022 to 2023.
27
Figure 5. 2023 Iowa land values as of November 1, 2023.
28
Figure 6. Iowa nominal and inflation-adjusted average value per acre of farmland, 1941–
2023.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
1941
1943
1945
1947
1949
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
Farmland Values ($/acre)
Nominal and Inflation-adjusted Iowa Farmland Values
Nominal Iowa Land Value Inflation-adjusted Iowa Land Value (2015 Dollars)
29
Figure 7. Annual percentage change in nominal Iowa farmland values, 1942–2023.
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
1943
1945
1947
1949
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
Percent change in nominal land values (%)
30
Figure 8. Iowa farmland sale activity (percentages), 1986–2023.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
More Less Same
31
Figure 9. Iowa farmland sale activity index, 1986–2023.
-20.0%
-10.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Percent_Change Index Benchmark
32
Figure 10. Buyers of Iowa Farmland (percentage by category), 1989–2023.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Existing Farmers Investors New Farmers Other
33
Figure 11. Positive (top) and negative (bottom) factors of the Iowa
farmland market, November 2022–November 2023.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Limited
Land Supply
Stronger
Yields
Cash on
Hand & High
Credit
Availability
Higher
Commodity
Prices
Strong
Demand,
incl.
Investors
Good Farm
Economy
Favorable
Interest
Rates
Percent
Positive Factors Affecting 2023 Farmland Market
0
5
10
15
20
25
Interest
Rate Hikes
Lower
Commodity
Prices
Higher Input
Costs
Weather
Uncertainty
Stock
Market
Volatility &
Economic
Uncertainty
Land
Availability
Uncertain
Ag Future
Percent
Negative Factors Affecting 2023 Farmland Market
34
In accordance with Federal law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, this institution is
prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, and reprisal or retaliation for prior civil
rights activity. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Program information may be made available in languages other than
English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print,
audiotape, and American Sign Language) should contact the responsible State or local Agency that administers the program or USDA’s
TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. To file a
program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete a Form AD-3027, USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form,
which can be obtained online at https://www.ocio.usda.gov/document/ad-3027, from any USDA office, by calling 866-632-9992, or by
writing a letter addressed to USDA. The letter must contain the complainant’s name, address, telephone number, and a written
description of the alleged discriminatory action in sufficient detail to inform the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (ASCR) about the
nature and date of an alleged civil rights violation. The completed AD-3027 form or letter must be submitted to USDA by: (1) Mail: U.S.
Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20250-
9410; or (2) Fax: 833-256-1665 or 202-690-7442; or (3) Email: [email protected]. This institution is an equal opportunity
provider. For the full non-discrimination statement or accommodation inquiries, go to www.extension.iastate.edu/diversity/ext.
