Posted 5/16/2018 18:38 (#6763564 - in reply to #6763424) Subject: RE: Notill sharecropping
North Liberty and South Bend, Indiana
I assume what you are getting at is why a landlord should have to pay for an expense that is required in a no-till practice but in a conventional tillage the farmer would privide labor and machinery for that. I understand your point of view but times have changed for one. Landlord chose farmer so he should have known of the practices and expenses incurred. Even in a conventional tillage practice cultivation seems to be very uncommon around here so that chemical pass will still be required. The landlord is possibly reaping benefits that are nearly impossible to put on paper from a no-till practice so an additional spray expense may be a wash. And again, landlord chose the farmer so its his/her own fault if the spray expense is an issue.
Notill sharecropping
