Amber Farmland Investments vs. Farmland LP: Two Approaches to Organic Farmland Investing
Amber means Amber Farmland Investments PBC, formerly Iroquois Valley Farmland REIT (renamed September 2, 2026). Farmland LP means the sponsor of the Vital Farmland funds and, where an offering is compared, its 2026 Fund I Preferred Offering.
Both support converting farmland to organic, and both say they do it for the land as well as the return. Amber leases land to independent farmers, mostly in the Midwest, and is open to any investor. Farmland LP leases most of its West Coast land too but farms a large share itself, and sells to accredited investors.
Guide Thesis
Amber rents organic land to farmers and files audited SEC reports. Farmland LP farms part of its land itself, and its offering's financial terms are not public.
Start here
What you actually own: REIT shares or a fund preferred
The two products are different securities with different claims on different land. Start with what you would hold and whether you are allowed to hold it.
| Investment | What you own | Who can buy, minimum | How you get out | Tax form |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amber Farmland REIT shares | Common stock of one REIT: 78 farms, 39 mortgages, 18 states | Anyone, from $10,000 (non-accredited within Reg A limits) | Quarterly redemption requests after 5 years, 1.5% cap per window; board can suspend | 1099-DIV |
| Farmland LP Fund I Preferred Offering | A preferred interest in Vital Farmland LP (Fund I): two farms, about 91% of value in Frank's Farm | Accredited only, from $100,000 | Cash redemption date December 31, 2031; conversion to LP interests is not a cash exit | Not stated publicly |
| Amber notes (Rooted in Regeneration Series 3) | Unsecured notes of the operating company at 0.5% or 1.5%, not REIT equity | Accredited only, from $25,000 | At maturity | Interest reporting |
| Farmland LP Fund III (closed March 2026) | LLC interests in Vital Farmland III: twelve farms in CA, OR and WA | Was accredited only, $100,000 | Not open to new investors | Not stated publicly |
TL;DR
The comparison in two sentences
Amber (formerly Iroquois Valley) is a diversified organic farmland REIT anyone can buy from $10,000, with audited reports, dividends under 1%, a board-set value down four times in a row and redemptions capped at 1.5% a quarter after five years. Farmland LP sells accredited investors a 5% preferred from $100,000 in Fund I, which is concentrated in one irrigated California farm and whose fees, debt and audited financials are not public.
If you read nothing else: jump to who runs the farms →
At a glance
Side-by-side at a glance
| Feature | Amber Farmland (formerly Iroquois Valley) | Farmland LP (Fund I Preferred Offering) |
|---|---|---|
| Company | Amber Farmland Investments PBC, a Delaware public benefit corporation taxed as a REIT; founded 2007; Roanoke, Indiana | Farmland LP (Vital Farmland Holdings), founded 2009; Larkspur, California |
| Model | Landlord: leases land to independent organic and transitioning farmers | Mostly landlord, part operator: Fund I is 63% tenant farmed, 37% directly farmed (deck, page 3) |
| Sponsor footprint | The REIT is the investment: 78 farms, 18 states, 33,500 acres | Three funds, 19,193 acres in CA, OR and WA, about $399M of assets |
| Investment being compared | The whole REIT portfolio, mostly Midwest row crops | Fund I only: two farms in California and Oregon |
| Investment concentration | Largest farmer 6.5% of invested assets | Frank's Farm about 91% of Fund I's appraised value |
| Access | Regulation A Tier 2; $10,000; non-accredited allowed | Accredited only; $100,000 |
| Return basis | Board-set NAV plus dividends under 1%; about 0.6%/yr (3 yrs), 7.3%/yr (5 yrs) | Stated 5% preferred return; 14% to 16% target net IRR; Fund I common 5.6% net post-tax IRR since 2009 (sponsor) |
| Costs | No separately charged fees; overhead about 3.5% of average NAV-basis equity | Not stated in public materials |
| Cash exit | Redemption requests after 5 years; 1.5% cap per quarterly window | Redemption date December 31, 2031; conversion to LP interests is not a cash exit |
| Disclosure / tax | Audited 1-K (Plante & Moran), 1-SA; 1099-DIV | Form D only; no public financials; tax form not stated |
| AltStreet score | 5.0 (C+) | 3.4 (D+); see how to read the scores below |
Head-to-head
Amber REIT vs Farmland LP, factor by factor
Eight factors, from who runs the farms to how each company proves its impact, with the organic transition and a $100,000 income example beside the relevant sections.
Leasing land to independent farmers vs leasing most of it and farming the rest in-house
Amber vs Farmland LP: Landlord, or Landlord and Operator
Amber Farmland Investments PBC, a public benefit corporation taxed as a REIT and founded in 2007, buys farmland, usually land a farmer has identified, and leases it to that farmer on initial terms of 'typically 3-6 years' with '2-3 year' renewals. Its policy lets a farmer buy the farm after a minimum period, generally seven years, at the company's discretion. The farmer runs the farm; Amber is also winding down a farm-mortgage book. Farmland LP, founded in 2009 in Larkspur, California, buys farmland, converts it to 'diverse, high-value organic and permanent crops', then 'either lease[s] it to tenants or farm[s] it ourselves'. Its strategy page says it farms a third of its acreage across its funds; in Fund I, the deck shows 37% directly farmed and 63% tenant farmed (page 3).
Practical answer
Both are mostly landlords. The difference is that Farmland LP also operates a large minority of its land, so Fund I's return depends on crop economics on those acres as well as on rent and land value.
| Decision factor | What changes |
|---|---|
| Founded | Amber: 2007 (Iroquois County, Illinois; now Roanoke, Indiana). Farmland LP: 2009 (Larkspur, California). |
| What it does | Amber: buys land and leases it to independent farmers; mortgage book being wound down. Farmland LP: buys land, converts it, leases most and farms the rest. |
| Who runs the farm | Amber: the tenant farmer. Farmland LP: tenants on most acres; its own farm team on about a third across its funds and 37% of Fund I. |
| Farmer path to ownership | Amber: policy allowing purchase after generally seven years. Farmland LP: none described. |
$10,000 open to non-accredited investors vs $100,000 for accredited investors
Amber vs Farmland LP: Who Can Invest and How Much
Amber's Regulation A Tier 2 offering (file 024-12624) sells REIT shares directly, without a selling commission, from $10,000 to accredited and non-accredited investors, the latter limited to 10% of the greater of income or net worth; the price is $107.57 from August 17, 2026. Farmland LP sells only to accredited investors ($200,000 of income, $300,000 with a spouse, or $1 million of net worth excluding a primary residence) with a $100,000 minimum. Its open offering is the Fund I preferred; Fund III closed in March 2026.
Practical answer
For a non-accredited investor, or anyone below $100,000, Amber is the only one of the two. An accredited investor chooses between a diversified REIT share and a preferred position in one sponsor's two-farm fund.
| Decision factor | What changes |
|---|---|
| Minimum | Amber: $10,000. Farmland LP: $100,000. |
| Non-accredited | Amber: yes, within Regulation A limits. Farmland LP: no. |
| Current offering | Amber: REIT common stock, continuous. Farmland LP: Fund I Preferred Offering (2026); Fund III closed March 2026. |
| IRA | Amber: through a self-directed custodian. Farmland LP: its webinar materials say clients can invest through IRAs and donor-advised funds. |
78 farms in 18 states, mostly Midwest row crops, vs West Coast permanent crops with senior water rights
Amber vs Farmland LP: Geography, Crops and Water
Amber's May 2026 circular counted 78 owned farms, 39 mortgages and 66 farmers in 18 states; the company reports 33,500 acres and prioritizes 'Midwest row-crop farmland', with farm profiles from Illinois grain to Montana legumes, New York pasture and Indiana produce. Low organic grain prices led it to abandon variable rent. Farmland LP's funds hold 19,193 acres in Northern California, Oregon and Washington, weighted to permanent crops and 'secure strong senior water rights'. The investment compared here is narrower: Fund I owns two farms, Frank's Farm (formerly Burns Farm, 4,242 acres) near Tracy, California and A2R (692 acres) in Oregon, and Frank's Farm is about 91% of Fund I's $95.5 million of 2025 appraisals. The sponsor describes Frank's Farm as 12 crops and 7 tenants with a 600-acre organic blueberry planting and a pre-1914 water right, 'the most senior class in California'.
Practical answer
Amber's exposure is broad and Midwestern, with crop-price risk sitting mostly with its tenants. Farmland LP's Fund I is concentrated in one irrigated California farm whose value rests on water rights and high-value crops.
| Decision factor | What changes |
|---|---|
| Sponsor footprint | Amber: the REIT is the investment (78 farms, 18 states, 33,500 acres). Farmland LP: 19,193 acres in CA, OR and WA across three funds, not all available through the preferred. |
| Investment compared | Amber: the whole REIT portfolio. Farmland LP: Fund I only, two farms. |
| Crops | Amber: mainly organic row crops (corn, soybeans, small grains), some pasture, livestock and produce. Farmland LP: 44 crops and varieties, weighted to permanent crops (blueberries, orchards, vineyards, nuts) and vegetables. |
| Investment concentration | Amber: largest farmer 6.5% of invested assets. Fund I: Frank's Farm about 91% of appraised value. |
| Water | Amber: drought and local water access discussed as risks; no portfolio irrigation figure located. Farmland LP: pre-1914 water right at Frank's Farm; ~60% of irrigated acres on drip or micro. |
The organic transition
Who carries the three years before certification
Land must generally go about three years without prohibited inputs before its crops can be sold as organic. During that time yields can dip and the crop sells at conventional prices. Amber's offering circularputs it plainly: "During the transition period, usually 3 years, the crops can only be sold as conventional crops, thus not attaining the typical organic pricing premium." The two companies place that cost differently.
| Question | Amber | Farmland LP |
|---|---|---|
| Who farms through the transition | The tenant farmer, on Amber's land | The fund's own farm team on about a third of acres; tenants on the rest |
| Who bears the lower revenue | The farmer; Amber's exposure is the farmer's ability to pay rent | The fund on the acres it farms; tenants on leased acres |
| Current state | 92% certified organic, 8% transitioning (company) | Fund I's Frank's Farm: 2,910 acres certified organic or in permanent crops (from none in 2012); Stemilt joint venture: 311 acres certified, 272 transitioning |
| What extends it | Prices, weather, labor, drainage, soil compaction and degradation (circular risk factor) | Replanting into permanent crops, which take years to mature; deck projects Fund I's blueberries maturing by 2029 |
| Land tenure for the farmer | Initial leases typically 3 to 6 years with 2 to 3 year renewals; purchase allowed after generally 7 years | Not described publicly for tenants |
A board-set NAV with an organic premium vs a sponsor-reported post-tax IRR on appraised farms
Amber vs Farmland LP: How Values and Returns Are Calculated
Amber's board values the shares twice a year from third-party appraisals and desktop valuations, adds an 'organic premium' of 1% to 9% per certified farm ($5,001,123 at June 30, 2026), and carries mortgages at book and notes at fair value. The price fell from $117.00 at June 30, 2024 to $107.57 at June 30, 2026. On the board's valuation dates AltStreet calculates about 0.6% a year over three years, 7.3% over five and 4.0% since 2016; the company's 3% and 7.5% match on transaction prices. Dividends have been below 1% a year. Farmland LP reports Fund I's common equity at '5.6% net post-tax IRR and 1.5x post-tax MOIC as of 12/31/2025' (deck, page 3), partly on 2025 appraisals of $95.5 million against $32.6 million of cost; the dated cash flows are not published. The preferred carries a stated '5.0% simple annual' return and a '14-16% target net IRR over a 6-year hold' (deck, pages 7 and 8).
Practical answer
Both records rest heavily on appraisals rather than sales. Amber's is a fixed-window calculation from filed prices anyone can check; Farmland LP's is a sponsor-reported, post-tax figure for a different instrument from the preferred it is selling. Neither number ranks the two.
| Decision factor | What changes |
|---|---|
| Valuation | Amber: board-set NAV, semiannual, appraisals plus organic premium. Farmland LP: 2025 appraisals per the deck; fund NAV not published. |
| Reported record | Amber: about 0.6%/yr (3 yrs), 7.3%/yr (5 yrs), 4.0%/yr since 2016, AltStreet arithmetic. Farmland LP: Fund I common equity 5.6% net post-tax IRR, 1.5x since 2009, sponsor-reported. |
| Cash income | Amber: dividends below 1% of share price. Farmland LP preferred: stated 5%, semiannual; deck says cash or PIK at investor election. |
| Forward targets | Amber: none stated. Farmland LP: 14% to 16% net IRR target for the preferred; 12% to 13% for Fund III. |
Company overhead with no carry vs fees not stated in public materials
Amber vs Farmland LP: Fees, Profit Sharing and Holding Periods
Amber is internally managed and charges no separately stated management, performance, sales or redemption fee; shareholders bear company overhead instead, $4.33 million in 2025, about 3.5% of average NAV-basis equity. There is no carried interest, and the shares have no maturity. Farmland LP's public website and the sponsor deck reviewed by AltStreet do not disclose the applicable management fees, performance fees or carried interest for the Fund I preferred or Fund I. The preferred's term is '5-6 years' on the website and six years in the deck, with a redemption date of December 31, 2031 (pages 7 and 8); Fund I itself is a thirty-year fund ending in 2039 (page 3).
Practical answer
Amber's costs are visible in audited statements. Farmland LP's cannot be compared from the public materials; an investor should get the fee and carry terms in writing before committing.
| Decision factor | What changes |
|---|---|
| Ongoing cost | Amber: company overhead about 3.5% of average NAV-basis equity (2025). Farmland LP: not disclosed in the public materials reviewed. |
| Profit sharing | Amber: none. Farmland LP: not disclosed in the public materials reviewed. |
| Upfront | Amber: offering costs under 1%; no commission. Farmland LP: not disclosed in the public materials reviewed. |
| Holding period | Amber: no term; redemption requests after 5 years. Farmland LP preferred: 5 to 6 years, redemption date December 31, 2031. |
Worked example
What $100,000 buys, and what it is stated to pay
AltStreet arithmetic on stated terms, not a projection. $100,000 is Farmland LP's minimum; Amber accepts $10,000. Amber's figures use the $107.57 price in effect from August 17, 2026 (valuation supplement) and the $0.47 a share declared for 2025; Farmland LP's use the stated 5% preferred return, which is subject to the fund's ability to pay and the governing terms, neither of which is public.
| Item | Amber Farmland REIT | Farmland LP Fund I preferred |
|---|---|---|
| What $100,000 buys | About 929.6 shares at $107.57 | A $100,000 preferred interest |
| Stated or recent income | About $437 a year at the 2025 dividend of $0.47 a share (0.44%) | $5,000 a year stated (5%), in two semiannual payments; cash or PIK at the investor's election (deck, page 8) |
| Where the rest of the return comes from | Changes in the board-set share price | Cash redemption on the 2031 date; or, if converted, LP interests whose value follows Fund I's NAV |
| Earliest liquidity | Redemption request after 5 years, subject to the 1.5% quarterly cap | December 31, 2031 redemption date |
| What you cannot see | Redemption requests and unmet demand | Fees, debt, cash position, NAV and how the 5% and the redemption are funded |
The two income lines are not comparable returns. Amber's dividend is low by design and most of its return has come from land values; Farmland LP's 5% is a stated preferred return whose coverage public information cannot confirm. The sponsor reports Fund I became EBITDA positive in 2025, which does not show the cash left after interest and capital spending.
A capped quarterly redemption program vs a dated redemption and a conversion option
Amber vs Farmland LP: Redeeming or Selling
Amber shareholders can request cash redemption after five years in quarterly windows, each capped at 1.5% of shares outstanding and pro-rated when oversubscribed; the board can amend, suspend or end the program on 30 days' notice. Amber paid about $3.77 million in the first half of 2026, roughly two windows' estimated capacity, and does not disclose unmet requests. Farmland LP's preferred lists a redemption date of 'December 31, 2031 (with conversion)' and a liquidation preference of 'Principal + any unpaid Preferred Return' (deck, page 8); public materials describe no earlier cash redemption, and how the redemption would be funded is not public. Conversion is a separate feature, not an exit: the investor may convert to LP interests 'at any time on or before Redemption Date', and the general partner may convert once NAV reaches 120% of its December 2025 level (page 8). Conversion replaces the preferred with common partnership interests, which may change the preferred payment rights and the liquidity timetable, subject to the governing documents.
Practical answer
Amber offers a way to request cash on a schedule, which is not a promise of it. Farmland LP's preferred offers a cash redemption date whose funding cannot be assessed publicly; conversion, if it happens, swaps the preferred for common interests rather than returning cash.
| Decision factor | What changes |
|---|---|
| Cash redemption | Amber: request after 5 years; 1.5% of shares per quarterly window; board can suspend. Farmland LP preferred: December 31, 2031 redemption date; funding not public. |
| Conversion (not a cash exit) | Amber: none. Farmland LP preferred: into Fund I LP interests at the investor's option, or the GP's at 120% of December 2025 NAV; may change payment rights and liquidity timetable. |
| Recent use | Amber: $3.77M redeemed in H1 2026, about the cap's capacity. Farmland LP: no redemptions yet; preferred launched 2026. |
| Secondary market | Neither. |
Literature-based portfolio estimates vs a measured inventory for one fund and estimates for the others
Amber vs Farmland LP: How Each Substantiates Its Impact Claims
Both describe themselves as B Corps and rely on organic certification, which USDA-accredited certifiers verify farm by farm. Amber's 2025 public benefit report uses the B Lab assessment as 'our 3rd party verification' and presents ten-year totals, such as an 'estimated 29 million pounds of synthetic pesticides and herbicides' eliminated; its supporting sheet cites published studies, and AltStreet did not locate farm-level measurement behind the totals. Farmland LP's 2025 Stewardship and Impact Report had Carbon Friendly, 'an independent carbon accounting firm', count Fund III's greenhouse gas footprint with 192 paired soil samples (982 tons taken back by the top 12 inches of soil against 2,662 released); 'For the older funds, the estimates ... sit beside it, labeled as estimates.' Its roughly 8,000 Verra soil carbon credits for 2022 to 2024 had not been issued as of October 2026.
Practical answer
Farmland LP has one fund's independently counted inventory, but not for Fund I, the fund in this offering; Amber's totals are estimates from published averages. Neither has audited impact figures for its whole portfolio.
| Decision factor | What changes |
|---|---|
| Certifications | Amber: B Corp; organic certification on 92% of acres (company). Farmland LP: B Corp certified 2010 (per its report); organic, Salmon-Safe, LIVE, Bee Better, Global G.A.P. |
| Measured outcomes | Amber: none located at farm level; portfolio totals estimated. Farmland LP: Fund III GHG inventory measured by Carbon Friendly (2025); Funds I and II estimated. |
| Carbon credits | Amber: none described. Farmland LP: about 8,000 Verra VM0042 credits submitted for 2022 to 2024; not yet issued. |
| Reporting | Amber: annual public benefit report (required of a PBC). Farmland LP: annual Stewardship and Impact Report. |
An SEC-reporting REIT with audited statements vs a private fund whose financials are not public
Amber vs Farmland LP: Disclosure, Audit, Tax and Risk
Amber files audited annual reports (Form 1-K, Plante & Moran, unmodified), semiannual reports and a valuation supplement every six months, so its credit problems are visible: its mortgage book was 47% performing at year-end 2025 and 60% by June 2026. It issues Form 1099-DIV. Farmland LP's funds file Form D notices only; Fund I's debt, cash position, fees, NAV and audited statements are not public, and 'EBITDA positive in 2025' (deck, page 3) is not a measure of the cash available to pay the 5%. AltStreet located no SEC, FINRA or state enforcement action against either company.
Practical answer
Amber's risks are disclosed and, in 2025, realized; you can read them. Farmland LP's main risks, payment coverage and redemption funding, cannot be assessed from public information, which is a limit of private-fund disclosure rather than a finding against the offering.
| Decision factor | What changes |
|---|---|
| Public reporting | Amber: 1-K (audited), 1-SA, semiannual NAV supplements. Farmland LP: Form D notices; annual impact report; no public financials. |
| Audit | Amber: Plante & Moran, unmodified. Farmland LP: no auditor named publicly. |
| Tax form | Amber: 1099-DIV. Farmland LP: not stated publicly for the preferred. |
| AltStreet score | Amber: 5.0 (C+). Farmland LP: 3.4 (D+). |
How to read the scores
What 5.0 against 3.4 does and does not say
AltStreet scores four pillars (methodology). Farmland LP scores higher than Amber on Investment Merit. Its lower composite comes from Transparency and Operational Risk, where fees, auditor, administrator and financial statements that are not public count against it. The gap is mostly about what can be verified, not demonstrated underperformance.
| Pillar (0 to 100) | Amber | Farmland LP | What drives the difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Investment Merit | 30.2 (D) | 40.0 (C-) | Amber's flat recent returns and 2025 credit losses; Farmland LP's sponsor-reported record and stated preferred return |
| Transparency & Alignment | 69.3 (A-) | 24.4 (F) | Amber's audited SEC reporting; Farmland LP's fees and financials not disclosed publicly |
| Operational Risk | 64.4 (B+) | 37.6 (C-) | Amber's named auditor; Farmland LP's auditor and administrator unknown from public sources |
| Liquidity & Access | 30.0 (D) | 30.0 (D) | Capped redemptions after five years vs a dated redemption |
Final read
Bottom line
Both are organic farmland investments with overlapping models, since both lease most of their land, but they put risk in different places. Amber spreads capital across dozens of independent farmers and reports in audited SEC filings, including its 2025 tenant and mortgage losses; its recent return on its own valuations is close to flat over three years and its exit is a capped queue. Farmland LP's offering is concentrated in one fund, mostly one farm, with high-value crops, senior water rights and a sponsor-reported record, but its fees, debt and payment coverage are not public.
A non-accredited investor has one choice here. An accredited investor is choosing between a transparent portfolio with modest recent results and a concentrated preferred whose terms must be obtained and read in full before committing. Neither has a market to sell into.
Primary sources
Sources and access
Amber Farmland Investments (SEC EDGAR and company site, public)
- ›Offering circular (1-A POS, May 12, 2026): Portfolio, leases and purchase policy, transition risk, redemption program, valuation method.
- ›Form 1-K, FY2025: Overhead, tenant defaults and write-offs, mortgage ratings; Plante & Moran opinion.
- ›Form 1-SA, June 30, 2026: Redemptions, dividends, mortgage ratings.
- ›Valuation supplement (253G2), August 17, 2026: June 30, 2026 NAV of $107.57 and organic premium.
- ›2025 Public Benefit Report: B Lab assessment as third-party verification; estimated impact totals.
Farmland LP (public filings, company publications and a sponsor-provided presentation)
- ›farmlandlp.com /invest: Fund I Preferred Offering summary, Frank's Farm before-and-after, accredited-investor definition and minimum.
- ›farmlandlp.com /strategy: Buy, Add Value, Manage; farming a third of acreage; water-rights focus.
- ›2025 Stewardship and Impact Report: Fund III measured GHG inventory (Carbon Friendly), estimates for older funds, Verra credits, water and certifications.
- ›SEC EDGAR Form D filings (Vital Farmland entities): Fund I (2012), Vital Farmland REIT, Fund III ($109,960,527 from 581 investors), Vital Riverwood Farm.
- ›"Fund I Convertible Preferred Interests Overview" (sponsor-provided presentation, nine pages, undated, received October 2026): page 3, Fund I returns, EBITDA, fund term and direct versus tenant farming; page 7, 5% preferred return, six-year term and 14% to 16% target net IRR; page 8, term sheet summary (5.0% simple annual, cash or PIK at investor election, December 31, 2031 redemption date, liquidation preference, conversion rights and threshold). Not publicly available. Confidential offering documents were not reviewed.
FAQs
Amber Farmland vs Farmland LP: Common questions
How does Amber Farmland differ from Farmland LP?＋
Amber Farmland Investments PBC (formerly Iroquois Valley Farmland REIT) is a perpetual REIT that leases farmland, mostly Midwest row-crop land, to independent organic and transitioning farmers in 18 states; anyone can buy from $10,000. Farmland LP is a private fund sponsor on the West Coast that converts farmland to organic and permanent crops, leases most of its acreage and farms the rest itself; its current offering is a 5% preferred interest in its oldest fund, Fund I, for accredited investors from $100,000.
Which one is available to non-accredited investors?＋
Only Amber. Its REIT shares are sold under Regulation A Tier 2 from $10,000 to accredited and non-accredited investors, the latter limited to 10% of the greater of annual income or net worth. Amber's notes and 721 exchange program are accredited-only. Farmland LP's funds and its 2026 Fund I Preferred Offering are for accredited investors only, with a $100,000 minimum.
Do they buy certified organic farms or finance the conversion to organic?＋
Both support conversion to organic, and the public evidence differs. Amber usually buys land a farmer has chosen and leases it to that farmer, who carries the roughly three-year transition; the company says 92% of its acreage is certified organic and 8% transitioning today, which does not show how much was conventional when bought. Farmland LP describes buying conventional farms and converting them: its main Fund I farm had no organic acres when bought in 2012 and 2,910 acres certified organic or in permanent crops by 2025, per its website.
Who operates the farms, and who bears crop-production risk?＋
At Amber, independent farmers do: Amber collects fixed rent, so crop yields and prices are the farmer's risk and Amber's risk is whether the farmer pays. In 2025 five tenants defaulted and Amber wrote off $980,497. Farmland LP leases most of its land too, but farms the rest itself: about a third of acreage across its funds, and 37% of Fund I's (deck, page 3), including Fund I's organic blueberries. On those acres the fund bears crop-production and price risk directly.
How do portfolio geography, crops and water exposure compare?＋
Amber holds 78 farms in 18 states, mainly Midwest organic row crops, and its largest farmer was 6.5% of invested assets; AltStreet did not locate a portfolio irrigation figure. Farmland LP's funds are in Northern California, Oregon and Washington, weighted to permanent crops and senior water rights. The Fund I preferred is far narrower: Frank's Farm (formerly Burns Farm) near Tracy, California, which holds a pre-1914 water right, is about 91% of Fund I's appraised value.
What happens during the organic transition period?＋
Land generally needs about three years without prohibited inputs before its crops can be sold as organic, and in the meantime they sell at conventional prices. On Amber's land the tenant farmer carries that period. At Farmland LP the fund carries it on the acres it farms itself, along with the cost of replanting into permanent crops; the deck projects Fund I's blueberries maturing by 2029 (page 3).
How do fees, profit sharing and holding periods differ?＋
Amber charges no separately stated management, performance, sales or redemption fee and has no carried interest; its company overhead was about 3.5% of average NAV-basis equity in 2025. Its shares have no fixed term. Farmland LP's public website and the sponsor deck reviewed by AltStreet do not disclose the applicable management fees, performance fees or carried interest; investors should obtain them from the offering documents. The preferred's stated term is six years, with a redemption date of December 31, 2031 (deck, pages 7 and 8).
How are farmland values and investor returns calculated?＋
Amber's board sets the share price twice a year from appraisals plus an 'organic premium' for certified farms; on those prices AltStreet measures about 0.6% a year over three years to June 30, 2026 and 7.3% over five (the company states 3% and 7.5% on transaction prices). Farmland LP reports Fund I's common equity at '5.6% net post-tax IRR and 1.5x post-tax MOIC as of 12/31/2025' (deck, page 3), partly on 2025 appraisals; Fund I's NAV, which sets the preferred's conversion threshold, is not published.
Which impact claims are independently measured?＋
Organic certification and B Corp assessment are third-party processes for both. On outcomes, Farmland LP's 2025 impact report has Fund III's greenhouse gas inventory counted by an independent firm, Carbon Friendly, and labels the older funds' figures, including Fund I's, as estimates; its soil carbon credits had not been issued by Verra as of October 2026. Amber's 2025 public benefit report presents its decade totals as estimates drawn from published studies, not farm-level measurement.
What opportunities exist to redeem or sell an investment?＋
Neither has a secondary market. Amber shareholders can request cash redemption after five years in quarterly windows capped at 1.5% of shares; the board can suspend the program. Farmland LP's preferred has a stated cash redemption date of December 31, 2031; public materials describe no earlier redemption, and how it would be funded is not public. Conversion into Fund I partnership interests, at the investor's option or the general partner's once NAV reaches 120% of its December 2025 level, is not an exit: it replaces the preferred with common interests, which may change payment rights and the liquidity timetable under the governing documents.
Related research
Keep comparing farmland platforms
Platform Review
Amber Farmland Investments Review
Formerly Iroquois Valley Farmland REIT: share prices, returns on stated methods, the mortgage book, redemption limits and the notes program.
Platform Review
Farmland LP Review
The 2026 Fund I Preferred Offering from public sources: concentration in Frank's Farm, conversion terms, the sponsor's record and open questions.
Comparison Guide
Amber Farmland vs AcreTrader
A diversified farmland REIT against individual farm LLCs for accredited investors.
Comparison Guide
AcreTrader vs FarmTogether vs Steward
Farmland equity, farm debt and single-farm offerings compared.
Category Guide
Farmland
Category coverage of farmland REITs, single-farm offerings, farm debt and funds.