I can't imagine what would drive that kind of negative investment, because if you do any kind of cash flow chart it is ridiculous. Here goes another of my anilazations.
100 acres at $12,000.00 per acre = $1,200,000.00
financed at 7% for 20 years annual payment =$113,271.51
average annual yield @194 bushel per acre =19,400 bu
current price per bu @ $4.00 annual income = $77,600.00
projected input cost per acre $550.00 =$55,000.00
_____________
Non land net revenue annually = $ 22,600.00
Annual land cost payments = -$113,271.51
______________
Annual negative income = (-$90,671.51)
This doesn't allow any thing for property taxes or any real equipment costs or insurance costs.
Now lets look at taking that same $1,200,000.00 at 6% for 20 years. Total interest earned would be $2,838,830.93 for a future value of that money of $4,038,830.93. Which looks like the better over all investment for 20 years? Even if we were to assume that the land value would increase by $1,000.00 per acre and you sold it for $13,000.00 you would would still only sell for $1,300,000.00 for a profit of $100,000.00. If you factor the crop yield profit at a constant $22,000.00 per year for 20 years you would add another $440,000.00 for a total profit of $540,000.00 as opposed to the $2,838,830.93 the other way. Even if a person had cash to pay for the farm it would not cash flow because of the future value of the money. What are people thinking?