• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Table of Contents
 Credits
 Table of Contents
 Main














Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ; no. 498
Title: Rental arrangements on crop-share farms
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027130/00001
 Material Information
Title: Rental arrangements on crop-share farms an analysis of contributions and returns
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 43 p. : ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Alleger, Daniel E
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1952
 Subjects
Subject: Sharecropping -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Farm income -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility: by Daniel E. Alleger.
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: "In cooperation with the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of Agriculture and Southeast Regional Land Tenure Committee"- -T.p.
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station) ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027130
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000925774
oclc - 18267115
notis - AEN6430

Table of Contents
    Table of Contents
        Page 1
    Credits
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Table of Contents
        Page 4
    Main
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
Full Text



Bulletin 498


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS
WILLARD M. FIFIELD, Director
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA



RENTAL ARRANGEMENTS ON
CROP-SHARE FARMS


An Analysis of Contributions
and Returns

By DANIEL E. ALLEGER
Associate Agricultural Economist


Fig. 1.-Location of Counties Included in Study.


In Cooperation with the
Bureau of Agricultural Economics
United States Department of Agriculture
And Southeast Regional Land Tenure Committee


June 1952









BOARD OF CONTROL

Frank M. Harris, Chairman, St. Petersburg
Hollis Rinehart, Miami
Eli H. Fink, Jacksonville
George J. White, Sr., Mount Dora
Mrs. Alfred I. duPont, Jacksonville
George W. English, Jr., Ft. Lauderdale
W. Glenn Miller, Monticello
W. F. Powers, Secretary, Tallahassee
EXECUTIVE STAFF
J. Hillis Miller, Ph.D., President
J. Wayne Reitz, Ph.D., Provost for Agr.8
Willard M. Fifield, M.S., Director
J. R. Beckenbach, Ph.D., Asso. Director
L. O. Gratz, Ph.D., Asst. Dir.,
Rogers L. Bartley, B.S., Admin. Mgr.'
Geo. R. Freeman, B.S., Farm Superintendent

MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
H. G. Hamilton, Ph.D., Agr. Economist '
R. E.E L. Greene, Ph.D., Agr. Economist
M. A. Brooker, Ph.D., Agr. Economist '
Zach Savage M.S.A., Associate
A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Associate
D. E. Alleger, M.S., Associate
D. L. Brooke, M.S.A., Associate'
M. R. Godwin, Ph.D., Associate 3
Tallmadie Bergen, B.S., Assistant
W. K. McPherson, M.S., Economist
Eric Thor, M.S., Agr. Economist
J. L. Tennant, Ph.D., Agr. Economist
Orlando, Florida (Cooperative USDA)
G. Norman Rose, B.S., Asso. Agr. Economist
J. C. Townsend, Jr., B.S.A., Agr.
Statistician 2
J. B. Owens, B.S.A., Agr. Statistician
J. K. Lankford, B.S., Agr. Statistician

AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
Frazier Rogers, M.S.A., Agr. Engineer
J. M. Johnson, B.S.A.E., Agr. Eng.3
J. M. Myers, B.S., Asso. Agr. Engineer
J. S. Norton, M.S., Asst. Agr. Eng.

AGRONOMY
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Agronomist 1
G. B. Killinger, Ph.D., Agronomist
H. C. Harris, Ph.D., Agronomist
R. W. Bledsoe, Ph.DR., Agronomist
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Associate
Darrel D'. More, Ph.D., Associate
Fred A. Clark, M.S.A., Assistant :
Myron C. Grennell, B.S.A.E., Assistant 4
E. S. Horner, Ph.D., Assistant
A. T. Wallace, Ph.D., Assistant 3
n E. McCloud, Ph.D., Assistant 3
II. E. Buckley, B.S.A., Assistant
E. C. Nutter, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND NUTRITION
T. J. Cunha, Ph.D., An. Husb.13
(;. K. D'avis, Ph.D., Animal Nutritionists
S. John F'olks, Jr., M.S., Asst. An. Husb.
Katherine Boney, B.S., Asst. Chem.
A. M. Pearson, Ph.D., Asso. An. Husb.3
John P. Feaster, Ph.I., Asst. An. Nutri.
H. D. Wallace, Ph.D., Asst. An. Husb.3
M. Koger, Ph.D., An. Husbandman 3
G. E. Combs, Jr., B.S.A., Asst. Animal
Husbandman
E. F. Johnston, M.S., Asst. Animal Husband-
man

DAIRY SCIENCE
E. L. Fouts, Ph.D., Dairy Tech.13
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husb.3
S. P. Marshall, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Husb.S
W. A. Krienke, M.S., Asso. Dairy Tech. '


P. T. Dix Arnold, M.S.A., Asst. Dairy Husb.'
Leon Mull, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Tech.
H. H. Wilkowske, Ph.D., Asst. Dairy Tech.
James M. Wing, M.S., Asst. Dairy Hush.

EDITORIAL
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editor'
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Associate Editor
L. Odell Griffith, B.A.J., Asst. Editor'
J. N. Joiner, B.S.A., Assistant Editor a

ENTOMOLOGY
A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Entomologist'
L. C. Kuitert, Ph.D., Associate
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant
F. A. Robinson. M.S., Asst. Apiculturist
R. E. Waites, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist

HOME ECONOMICS
Ouida D. Abbott, Ph.D., Home Econ.1
R. B. French, Ph.D., Biochemist

HORTICULTURE
G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist
F. S. Jamison, Ph.D., Horticulturists
Albert P. Lorz, Ph.D., Horticulturist
R. K. Showalter, M.S., Asso. Hort.
R. A. Dennison, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
R. H. Sharpe, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist
V. F. Nettles, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
F. S. Lagasse, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.2
R. D. D.ckey, M.S.A., Asso. Hort.
L. H. Halsey, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
C. B. Hall. Ph D., Asst. Horticulturist
Austin Griffiths, Jr., B.S., Asst. Hort.
S. E. McFadden, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
C. H. VanMiddelem, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
Buford Thompson, M.S.A., Ass.. Hort.

LIBRARY
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian

PLANT PATHOLOGY
W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist"
Phares Decker, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Erdman West, M.S., Mycologist and Botanist
Robert W. Earhart, Ph.D., Plant Path.2
Howard N. Miller, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
Lillian E. Arnold, M.S., Asst. Botanist
C. W. Anderson, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
POULTRY HUSBANDRY
N. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Husb.'1
J. C. Driggers, Ph.D., Asso. Poultry Hush.
SOILS
F. B. SmiLh, Ph.D., Microbiologist'1
Gaylord M. Volk, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
J. R. Henderson, M.S.A., Soil Technologist
J. R. Ncller,, Ph.., Soils Chemist
Nathan Gammon, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Ralph G. Leighty, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyors
G. D. Thornton, Ph.D., Asso. Microbiologist
Charles F. Eno, Ph.D., PAsst. Soils Micro-
biologist 4
H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant Chemist
It. E. Caldwell, M.S.A., Asst. Chemist 3
V. W. Carlisle, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor
James H. Walker, M.S.A., Ass'. Soil
Surveyor
S. N. Edson, M.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor '
William Ks. Robertson, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
0. E Cruz, B.S A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
W. G. Value, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
J. G. A. Fiskel, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
H. F. Ross, B.S., Soils Microbiologist
L. C. Hammond, Ph.D., Asst. Soil Physicist
VETERINARY SCIENCE
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian'
M. W. Emmel, D.V.M., Veterinarian '
C. F. Simpson, D.V.M., Asso. Veterinarian
L. E. Swanson, D.V.M., Parasitologist
Glenn Van Ness, T.V.M., Asso. Poultry
Pathologist
W. R. Dennis, D.V.M., Asst. Parasitologist









BRANCH STATIONS

NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY
W. C. Rhoades, Jr.. M.S., Entomologist
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
L. G. Thompson, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
W. H. Chapman, M.S., Asso. Agronomist
Frank S. Baker. Jr., B.S.. Asst. An. Hush.
T. E. Webb, B S.A., Asst. Agronomist

Mobile Unit, Monticello
R. W. Wallace, B.S., Associate Agronomist

Mobile Unit, Marianna
R, W. Lipscomb, M.S., Associate Agronomist

Mobile Unit, Pensacola
PR. L. Smith, M S.. Associate Agronomist

Mobile Unit, Chipley
J. tI. White, .S.A., Associate Agronomist

CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED
A. F. Camp. Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
W. L. Thompson, B.S., Entomologist
R. F. Suit. Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
E. P. Ducharme, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
C. It. Stearns. Jr., B.S.A., Asso. Chemist
J. W. Sites, Ph.D., Horticulturist
H. 0. Sterling, B.S.. Asst. Horticulturist
H. J. Reitz, Ph.D., Horticulturist
Francine I isher, MS., Asst. Plant Path.
I. W. Wander, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
J. W. Kesterson, M.S., Asso. Chemist
R. Hendrickson, B.S., Asst. Chemist
Ivan Stewart, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
D. S. Prosser, Jr., B.S., Asst. Horticulturist
R. W. Olsen. B.S., Biochemist
F. W. Wenzel, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist
Alvin H. Rouse, M.S., Asso. Chemist
H. W. Ford, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
L. C. Knorr, Ph.D., Asso. Histologist *
R. M. Pratt, Ph.D., Asso. Ent.-Pathologist
J. W. Davis, B.S.A., Asst. in Ent.-Path.
W. A. Simanton, Ph.D., Entomologist
E. J. Deszyck, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
C. D. Leonard, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
I. Stewart, M.S., Asst. Biochemist
W. T. Long, M.S., Asst Horticulturist
M. H. Muma. Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
F. J. Reynolds, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
E. J. Elvin, B.S., Asst. Hort.
W. F. Spencer, Ph.D., Asst. Chem.
I. H. Holtsberg, B.S.A., Asst. Entomologist-
Pathologist
K. G. Townsend, B.S.A., Asst. Entomologist-
Pathologist
J. B. Weeks, B.S., Asst. Entomologist
E. C. Lundbert. B.S.A., Asst. Biochemist
N. F. Shimp, M.S. Asst. Chem.
R. B. Johnson, M.S., Asst. Entomolhistt

EVERGLADES STATION. BELLE GLADE
R. V. Allison, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
Thomas Bregger, Ph.D., Physiologist
.T W. Randolph, M.S., Agricultural Engr.
W. T. Forsee, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist
R. W. Kidder, M.S., Asso. Animal Hush.
C. C. Seale, Asso. Agronomist
N. C. Hayslip, B.S.A., Asso. Entomologist
E. A. Wolf, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist
W. H. Thames, M.S., Asst. Entomologist
W. N. Stoner, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
W. A. Hills, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist
W. G. Genung, B.S.A., Asst. Entomologist
Frank V. Stevenson, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.
Robert J. Allen, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
V. E. Green, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
J. F. Darby, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
H. L. Chapman, Jr., M.S.A.. Asst. An. Husb.
Those. G. Bowery, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
V. L. Guzman, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
M. R. Bedsole, M.S.A., Asst. Chem.


SUB-TROPICAL STATION, HOMESTEAD
Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
D. 0. Wolfenbarger, Ph.D., Entomologist
Francis B, Lincoln, Ph.D., Horticulturist
Robert A. Conover, Ph.D., Plant Path.
John L. Malcolm, Ph.D., Asso. Soils Chemist
R. W. Harkness, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
R. Bruce Ledin, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
J. C. Noonan, M.S., Asst. Hort.
M. H. Gallatin, B.S., Soil Conservationist

WEST CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION,
BROOKSVILLE
William Jackson, B.S.A., Animal Husband-
man in Charge 2

RANGE CATTLE STATION, ONA
W. G. Kirk. Ph.D.. Vice-Director in Charge
E. h. Hodges, Ph.D., Agronomist
D. W. Jones, M.S., Asst. Soil Technologist

CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION, SANFORD
K. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
J. W. Wilson, Sc.D., Entomologist
P. J. Westgate, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
Ren. F. Whitner, Jr., B.S.A., Asst. Hort.
Geo. Swank, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.

WEST FLORIDA STATION, JAY
C. E. Hutton, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
H. W. Lundy, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist
W. R. Langford, Ph.D., Asst. Agron.

SUWANNEE VALLEY STATION,
LIVE OAK
G. E. Ritchey, M.S., Agronomist in Charge

GULF COAST STATION, BRADENTON
E. L. Spencer, Ph.D., Soils Chemist in Charge
E. G. Kelsheimer, Ph.D., Entomologist
David G. A. Kelbert, Asso. Horticulturist
Robert O. Magie, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
.. M. Walter, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Donad. S. Burgis, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
C. M. Geraldson, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
W. G. Cowperthwaite, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
Amegda Jack, M.S., Asst. Soils Chemist

FIELD LABORATORIES

Watermelon, Grape, Pasture-Leesburg
C. C. Helms, Jr., B.S., Asst. Agronomist
L. H. Stover, Asst. in Hort.

Strawberry-Plant City
A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist

Vegetables-Hastings
A. H. Eddins, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge
E. N. McCubbin, Ph.D., Horticulturist
T. M. Dobrovsky, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist

Pecans-Montieello
A. M. Phillips, B.S., Asso. Entomologist2
John R. Large, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.

Frost Forecasting-Lakeland
Warren 0. Johnson, B.S., Meteorologist 2

SHead of Department
2 In cooperation with U. S.
3 Cooperative, other divisions, U. of
On leave.









STATEMENT OF SPONSOR


This is the ninth of a series of land tenure studies sponsored
by the Southeast Regional Land Tenure Committee. The Com-
mittee was organized in May 1946. The cooperating stations
are those of Florida, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The Bureau of Agricultural
Economics, the United States Department of Agriculture, and
the Farm Foundation, Chicago, are also represented.
The activities of the Committee are supported financially, by
the several states, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the
Farm Foundation, and through Federal allotments of 9b3 funds
under the Research and Marketing Act. The early activities
of the Committee were partially supported by a grant from the
General Education Board of New York.


CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION ... .. ... ... .. .... ...... ... 5
Purposes .. ................. 6
Method of Study .. ............ ... ...... ... .... 7
Explanation of Terms Used ... .. -. .... ..... ...- ---- -- .- 8
SOME PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF OPERATORS .............. 9
Length of Tenure ...... ... -.. .. ...... .. .... --... .. --....- 9
Mobility of Croppers and Tenants .. ............... ... .......... 10
ANALYSES ....... ............... ............... .... ......... 11
FARM BUSINESS SUMMARIES ......... --- ................ 12
Land U tilization .. ... ... ...... .. ... .. -. 15
Crop Yield Indexes ... ..... ... ......... ...... ....---. 15
Farm Investm ents .. .......... ....................... ........ 16
Gross Receipts and Expenses ..... ...... ....-..- .. .. .... 18
Incom e Com prisons ...... ..............- ...- ---------------- ............... 20
Tractor-powered Tenant Units .................---------- 24
ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE RETURNS ....- .. ---------------------. 24
Composite Returns by Tenure .. .... ............--------- 25
Comparisons Relating to Returns and Expenses ..... .... ......... 27
SHARING CONTRIBUTIONS AND RETURNS .............------- ----- 30
Determining Contributions and Returns ........... -...................... 31
Contributions-Returns Ratios ....... ... -----------... ...... -- -.. 33
CR Ratio Analyses ...- ...... ....... .....-------------- .. 34
APPRAISAL OF ANALYTICAL METHODS .-.....- -....-- ------------ 38
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS -... ..--- --- ---......- 40
Summary .. .... ...... ... ----------....-------------.. .------- 40
Conclusions .... .4 ...... .......2.. .. --- -----... ---- 42









RENTAL ARRANGEMENTS ON
CROP-SHARE FARMS

An Analysis of Contributions
and Returns

By DANIEL E. ALLEGER

INTRODUCTION I
Crop-share farming, powered by man and mule, was ex-
tensively adopted in the South immediately after the Civil War.
The national economy has changed greatly since that time, but
in some rural areas of Florida the systems of crop-share farming
have remained substantially unaltered. Man and horse power
alone can no longer compete with the extended use of tractor
power, although many leasing structures still function within
the framework of an animal power economy. Moreover, in
proposals to raise incomes of croppers and tenants, little empha-
sis has been placed upon the interdependence of leasing arrange-
ments and systems of farming.
Not infrequently farm leasing problems are examined largely
in the setting of tenancy, but this approach leaves some of the
basic economic issues unsolved. An appraisal of the factors
affecting production indicates that many of the problems con-
fronting tenants are also faced by other farm-tenure groups.
Attaining maximum net returns has been difficult for tenants
and others because of small farm units, too much reliance on
hand labor, inadequate capital and inefficient farm management
practice,-:.
Tenant mobility and dissatisfaction with leasing arrangements
arise in no small degree because the productive resources con-
trolled by tenants are inadequate. The problem of tenancy
thus becomes one of fundamental farm economics. A general
improvement in landlord-tenant relationship rests in an under-
standing of their economic as well as their social and institutional
setting.

The author takes this means to thank the farmers who cooperated in
making this study possible and L. Richard Baldwin, Field Assistant, who
conducted most of the interviews; also his colleagues and members of the
Southeast Land Tenure Committee for their suggestions and criticisms.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


In 1950, according to the U. S. Census, approximately three-
fourths of the 7,000 tenants in Florida were located in the
northern part of the state. Throughout Florida about 40 per-
cent of the tenants rented farm land under share arrangements.
Land rented from others by farm operators in 1950 approxi-
mated 3.4 million of the state's 16.5 million acres of farm land.
Thus, because of the number of tenants engaged in farming and
the quantities of agricultural resources they control, efficiency
of farming in Florida is conditioned, at least in part, by leasing.
Research in the ways in which Florida farm land is rented
provided background for interpretation.2

PURPOSES
The purposes of the study upon which this report is based
were (1) to investigate and analyze the variations in rental
arrangements by systems of farming; (2) to determine the
contributions and returns of landlords and tenants by types of
leasing arrangements, to shed some light on the problems that
arise out of the way in which contributions and expenses are
divided; and (3) to furnish the information which Florida
agricultural research and extension personnel may use to pre-
pare lease forms suitable for the systems of farming in Florida.

METHOD OF STUDY
Three geographical areas consisting of five counties were
selected for study. Cotton, commercial peanuts and flue-cured
tobacco types of farming were, in the order named, represented
by (1) Holmes and Walton counties, (2) Jackson County and
(3) Hamilton and Madison counties (Fig. 1). It was decided
that a minimum of 50 records should be obtained in each of the
three areas. By the technique of systematic random sampling,
intra-county sampling blocks were chosen.3
County maps for the selected counties were available showing
both culture and section boundaries. In preparing the maps
for use, all non-farmland was blocked off and excluded from the
universe. The universe consisted of those tenants whose farm

-'Current Farm Leasing Practices in Florida, Southern Cooperative
Series Bul. 13, Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. June 1951.
: The sampling procedure was prepared by Professors R. L. Anderson
and A. L. Finkner of the Department of Experimental Statistics, the North
Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering of the University
of North Carolina.






Rental Arrangements on Crop-Share Farms


headquarters fell in square-mile sections which the map indi-
cated contained some farm land. The eligible sections in each
county were then numbered in a serpentine fashion. The size
of the sampling unit adopted was a four-section block, which
was selected to reduce travel costs and to increase the likelihood
of finding an eligible section in each sampling unit.
Because of the type of analysis contemplated it was decided
that approximately 50 records should be obtained for each major
crop. The number of four-section blocks required to yield an
expected 50 records was computed, from which the sampling
rates by county were then determined. The sampling rate in
Hamilton, Madison, and Jackson counties was designed for one
expected record from every nine eligibles, and in Holmes and
Walton counties for one from every six eligibles. These rates
were chosen to put all results on a 1 in 6 sample basis, which
would allow an easy combination of data from all counties and
yet would produce approximately the required number of records.
Thus the records from the 1 in 9 sample rate areas were weighted
by 1.5. As a result of this weighting process, the weighted
number of tenants is 93, the actual number 69. The weighted
number of croppers is 97, the actual number 72.

TABLE 1.-EXPECTED NUMBER OF CROPPERS AND TENANTS IN SAMPLE
COMPARED WITH RESULTS OBTAINED.

Counties
Schedules Holmes Hamilton
and Jackson and All
Walton Madison
Number expected .......... 39 72 68 179
Number taken ......... .... 51 61 56 168
Number used -.............. 45 47 49 141

Percentage rejection ...... 12 23 12 16


A list of shade tobacco growers was available for use in se-
lecting a sample of tenants growing that crop. The number of
names on the list was divided by 50 to determine the sampling
interval. For both the list and area sample, a systematic
sample with a random starting point was prescribed. However,
the data on shade tobacco were not analyzed because only 11
bonafide leasing arrangements existed in the universe.






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED
Studies.-The terms used in this study are those usually used
in farm management. However, several terms are slightly at
variance with accepted terminology. The value of items pro-
duced for family use, for example, were added to farm receipts,
because on crop-share farms these items were substantial por-
tions of cropper and tenant income.
Farm Capital.-The figure used to compute "total" capital or
"average" capital was the average of the values of land and
buildings, livestock, machinery and tools, feed, seed and farm
supplies on hand at beginning and end of the year.
Farm Receipts.-Farm receipts included the value of all crops,
livestock and livestock products sold during the year, held for
sale or produced for family use. They also included miscellaneous
income from outside work, rent of buildings, etc., and increases
in capital (excluding land) during the year. Income from pen-
sions, veterans' training programs and other public sources was
excluded.
Farm Expenses.-Farm expenses included feed, seed, ferti-
lizer, tractor fuel and oil, hired labor (including board), livestock
purchased, etc. Expenses also included an estimate for unpaid
family labor, but not the operator's labor, and decreases in farm
capital.
Farm Income.-Farm receipts less farm expenses gave farm
income.
Labor Income.-Farm income less interest on the total farm
capital was labor income, or the amount received for a year's
work and management in addition to the use of a house.
Non-farm Income.-Income received from non-agricultural
off-the-farm employment was non-farm income.
Values of Items for Family Use.-These were values given to
products produced for home use, such as garden products, pork,
milk, eggs and cane syrup.
Perquisites.-Croppers and tenants usually were permitted
the exercise of certain privileges for which the landlord made
no charge. They generally consisted of the right to cut non-
timber trees or dead wood for firewood, the right to keep a
family milk cow on a home pasture lot and the use of a tenant
house.






Rental Arrangements on Crop-Share Farms


Crop-share Tenants.-The distinction between share croppers
and share tenants, as used in this study, hinged on who supplied
the workstock or tractor power. Share croppers obtained work-
stock and operating equipment from their landlords, and share
tenants provided their own. In subsequent discussion, share
croppers are referred to as croppers and share tenants as tenants.

SOME PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF OPERATORS

This study centers around data from 72 croppers and 69
tenants. The average cropper or tenant was about 40 years of
age and had little formal education (Table 2). White croppers
and tenants averaged about two grades higher than negroes.
Approximately 24 percent of the whites and none of the negroes
reported related tenancies, or leasing arrangements between
relatives, such as father-son leasing agreements.

TABLE 2.-SOME PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED CROPPERS AND
TENANTS IN FIVE COUNTIES, FLORIDA, 1950.

Item Cropper Tenant
White Negro White Negro

Proportion by race
percent .................... 1 54 46 66 34
Related tenancies
percent ........................ 30 none 19 none
Average age-years ...... 39 42 42 43
Formal education-years 4 3 5 3

Weighted numbers* ...... 52 45 61 32

See page 7 for explanation of weighted lumber,.

LENGTH OF TENURE

As a rule, leasing arrangements were made or terminated at
the time the cash crops were harvested or shortly thereafter.
About 99 percent of the croppers and 98 percent of the tenants
had leasing arrangements for one-year terms. Generally,
neither croppers nor tenants had assurances that they could re-
main on their farms for more than one year, although more than
half of them did so (Table 3). Croppers moved more frequently
than tenants and whites more often than negroes. Large pro-
portions of the negroes stayed on the same farms for five years
or more.







10 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

TABLE 3.-PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED CROPPERS AND TENANTS
BY YEARS OF OCCUPANCY OF THE SAME FARM AND BY RACE, FLORIDA,
1950.


Length of
Farm Occupancy

Under 1 year .................
1 to 2 years ......... ....
3 to 4 years ............
5 to 6 years ................
7 years or more ........


Total ................


Weighted number ...........


100


32


MOBILITY OF CROPPERS AND TENANTS

The mobility of croppers and tenants appeared to be largely
an intra-county phenomenon (Table 4). Although the sample
was relatively small, the data indicated that fully two-thirds of
the farm transfers made by croppers and tenants occurred
within the same county. Also a relatively small percentage of
croppers and tenants changed landlords, but not farms, within
a year prior to the date of interviews because of changes in
ownership of the land they used.


TABLE 4.-FIRST-YEAR FARM OCCUPANCY RELATED TO THE 1949 FARMING


STATUS OF THE


OCCUPANTS, BY RACE, FLORIDA, 1950.


1949 Farmin


Did not farm
Farmed elsewl
same county
Farmed in oth
Florida coun
Lived in anoth


Total .


Weighted num
of total) .....


ig Status



here in

ler
ty ...........
er state*..





ber (42%
.--......--.


Cropper Tenant
White Negro | White Negro
(Pct) (Pct) (Pct) (Pct)
16 9 22 50

71 91 71 50
3 .----- -----......
10 .... 7


100 100 100 100



29 16 29 6
-I ~


* 1949 employment status not ascertained.


I _


----






Rental Arrangements on Crop-Share Farms


While these data were specific for three areas in Florida only,
they pointed up the huge cost incident to high rates of tenant
mobility. If the 40 percent annual turn-over (Table 4) is indic-
ative of tenant and cropper family mobility in the state as a
whole, the annual moving bill for some 2,000 migrating families
runs into many thousands of dollars. Perhaps one reason why
tenant rates of mobility are under cropper rates of mobility is
because tenants possess livestock, machinery and other equip-
ment, while croppers usually own little more than their household
effects.
Mobility also reflects the intangible as well as the positive
costs incurred in changing farms. Tenants and croppers who
move frequently seldom have firmly established community re-
lationships. Their children's education is often retarded, and
frequently social and religious activities are tempered by the
impermanence of their residence. Under these circumstances,
soil-depleting crops providing early cash returns are at a prem-
ium. Such systems of farming do not lend themselves readily
to the adoption of soil-conserving and soil-building practices.
These data indicate that most annual farm changes occur over
relatively short distances. This fact suggests the merit of ap-
proaching the problem of tenancy on an area or type-of-farming
basis when recommending economic adjustments aimed at im-
proving the situation.

ANALYSES
The difficulties in making an analysis of landlord-tenant
contributions and returns to a farm business are great. Many
values are purely subjective. They include the value of products
produced for family use, perquisites, house rent, unpaid family
labor, the operator's labor and the value of landlord manage-
ment, among others. Difficulties are also found in assigning
values for operating capital and real estate.4 Landlords were
not interviewed. As a result, tax and insurance data could not
be obtained.
The failure to obtain tax and insurance data is not regarded
as a major weakness. Florida farm owners are benefited by

'Estimated annual rental rates for real estate were capitalized at 8 per-
a $160
cent (8%). Capitalization formula: V or, for example, = $2,000,
r .08
where V is the capitalized value of the land, a the annual rent, and r the
current rate of interest. See Elements of Agricultural Economics, Forster
and Leager. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New York. 1950 p. 133.






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


the state constitutional right of homestead exemption, which
entitles a person permanently residing on real property to an
exemption from all taxation, except for assessments for special
benefits, up to an assessed valuation of $5,000. In addition, the
proportion of all county finances annually received from Racing
Commission funds in the areas of study is considerable.5 Since
there is no state tax on land, taxes on farm land in the general
farming areas are comparatively low, even on non-exempt land.
A 1949 farm business record was taken from all croppers and
tenants included in the study who occupied their farms in 1949.
As the survey was conducted during the summer of 1950,
croppers and tenants on the survey farms who began their
occupancy in 1950 reported their 1950 crop acreages, fertilizer
applications, and other operating costs or estimates of costs.
Yields and prices were adjusted to the averages obtained for
those reporting for 1949. All contributions toward the farm
business were summarized, except payments for taxes and in-
surance.
The analyses are divided into three major subdivisions, (1)
summaries of farm business records, (2) calculation of composite
returns to land, labor, capital and management, and (3) analysis
of contributions and returns. Each of these courses is taken
to meet a specific requirement. First, to determine the relation-
ship of tenure to farm returns by area and type of farming;
second, to determine the difference between out-of-pocket ex-
penses and farm receipts for the landlord and tenant, respec-
tively; and third, to analyze the contributions made by the
landlord and tenant, including values for labor and management,
and shares of the product received by each. Such a presentation
is important because it points out the relative success of crop-
sharing under different farming conditions.

FARM BUSINESS SUMMARIES
Total farm capital, including land investment, was highest on
tenant farms generally (Tables 5 and 6), except for the Holmes-
Walton area. This partially explains the larger farm income on
tenant units. In this study each cropper or tenant was con-
sidered as representing a single farm unit, although a small
proportion of landlords operated multiple units. No attempt
has been made to analyze a landlord's total farming activities,

See Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 460. 1949. pp. 71-72.




TABLE 5.-FARM BUSINESS SUMMARY OF SELECTED CROPPER AND TENANT UNITS BY AREA, FLORIDA, 1949.

Farm Units by Area
Item
S All Areas* Holmes-Walton Jackson Hamilton-Madison
Cropper Tenant _Cropper Tenant Copper Tenant Cropper Tenant
dollars


Farm capital:
Real estate ........ .
Livestock .........
Machinery and equip-
m ent** ..........
Feed and supplies ...

Total farm capital

Farm receipts:
Crops sold or to be sold
Livestock sold .......
Livestock products sold
Other receipts ..
Increase in capital

Total farm receipts

Farm expenses:
Decrease in capital ..
Livestock purchased
Operating expense

Total farm expenses


Farm income ...........
Interest on capital at 6',
Labor income ...........

Weighted number of farms


3,2
3

1


3,0


1,5


1
2

2,4


2,331
359

174
74

2,938


1,810
280
106
115
149

2,460



28
971

999


1,461
176
1,285

97


2,428
465

292
129




2,168
434
206
169
205

3,182



99
1,232




1,851
199
1,652

93


1,2
2,
1,0


282 2,960
191 400

i96 424
18 91

)87 3,875


593 1,621
172 542
119 210(
5:3 206
41_ 201

178 2,786



15 91
61 1,125

06 1,216


72 1,570
239 212
-32
)33 1,338

23 22


2,021 2,666
368 560

94 294
53 172

2,516 3,692


1,378 2,801
241 446
66 182
67 131
86 251

1,838 3,811



13 127
708 1,537

721 1,664


1,117 2,147
152 222
965 1,925

18 53


2,038
343

191
63

2,635


2,040
255
114
115
132

2,656



42
978

1,020


1,636
158
1,478

56


1,086
265

127
48

1,526


986
268
265
233
78

1,830



25
475

500


1,330
92
1,238

18


* The average for all areas was calculated from the aggregate totals.
** Automobiles and trucks were not inventoried. Their uae was charged against the farm operations on a cost per mile basis.


1,1
1,2






TABLE 6.-FARM BUSINESS SUMMARY OF SELECTED CROPPER AND TENANT UNITS BY TYPE OF FARMING, FLORIDA, 1949.


Item



Farm capital:
R eal estate ......................
L ivestock ...........................
Machinery and equip-
m ent ..................................
Feed and supplies ..........

Total farm capital ...............

Farm receipts:
Crops sold or to be sold ...
Livestock sold ....................
Livestock products sold ....
Other receipts ....................
Increase in capital ...........

Total farm receipts ............

Farm expenses:
Decrease in capital .....
Livestock purchased ..........
Operating expenses .......

Total farm expenses ..........


Farm income e ......................
Interest on capital at 6' ..
Labor income e .........................

Weighted number of farms _


Farm Units by Type of Farming

Cotton Peanuts Tobacco Untyped*
Cropper Tenant Cropper | Tenant Cropper I Tenant Cropper Tenant
dollars


2,547
275

156
93

3,071


1,392
203
77
108
206

1,986



58
798

856


1,130
184
946

23


2,508
433

184
101

3,226


1,456
279
187
46
210

2,178



29
935

964


1,214
194
1,020

13


2,608
408

105
70

3,191


1,514
313
103
61
109

2,100



11
1,030

1,041


1,059
191
868

19


2,937
569

381
165

4,052


3,111
488
181
53
291

4,124



124
1,684

1,808


2,316
243
2,073

46


2,223
309

216
74

2,822


2,260
266
75
133
143

2,877



45
1,036

1,081


1,796
169
1,627

44


2,070
515

246
91

2,922


1,646
407
310
261
142


1,832
645

163
43

2,683


1,405
439
312
202
127


2,315
393

293
46

3,047


1,529
548
203
476
105


2,766 2,485 2,861



49 7 152
831 982 1,061

880 989 1,213


1,886 1,496 1,648
175 161 183
1,711 1,335 1,465

16 11 18


Farms which did not receive at least half their income from a single farm enterprise.
part cotton farms, etc., with partial or general diversification.


Generally they were part peanut-part cotton, part tobacco-








Rental Arrangements on Crop-Share Farms


because the emphasis of this study was placed upon landlord-
tenant relationships and not upon the total farm organization
of landlords. In tables 5 and 6 contributions and returns of both
parties were lumped together to make an analysis of the receipts,
expenses, farm income and other items from the standpoint of
the farm as a whole. In a later section of this study these items
are divided on the basis of the leasing arrangements.

LAND UTILIZATION
Farms operated by croppers and tenants averaged from about
68 to 92 acres (Table 7). Totalwise, about 60 percent of the
acreage was planted in crops with only small acreages of crop-
land unused. Less than half the croppers or tenants had the
use of woodland or unimproved open land.

TABLE 7.-AVERAGE ACREAGE PER FARM FOR SELECTED CROPPER AND
TENANT UNITS BY AREA AND TYPE OF TENANCY, FLORIDA.

Holmes- Jackson Hamilton-
Walton I Madison
Item Crop- Crop- Crop-
per Tenant per Tenant per Tenant
(Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres)
Cotton .......................... 11.0 9.4 3.4 2.8 2.6 1.0
Peanuts, commercial .. 6.4 5.9 10.9 20.5 0.5
Tobacco, flue-cured .... .. .... ...... i .... ...... 3.9 3.0
Corn, grain .................. 22.4 17.2 21.4 16.9 27.5 23.4
Corn, hogging off ...... 5.4 10.2 2.0 5.7 6.7 3.2
Peanuts, hogging off .. 4.7 6.1 4.7 7.5 5.1 3.4
Other crops ........ ...... 4.6 1.5 1.0 1.1 4.1 11.1
Idle cropland .............. 1.0 1.5 5.0 1.9 0.2 5.7
All other* ............... 28.1 32.4 19.5 i 19.2 41.4 26.2

Total ............................ 83.6 84.2 67.9 75.6 92.0 77.0

Weighted number ...... 23 22 18 53 56 18

*Includes farmsteads, woodland, wasteland, etc.

CROP YIELD INDEXES
The average crop yield per acre, assuming equal potential
productivity of the soil, is an important measure of production
efficiency and hence of gross income per acre. Per acre yields
by area for peanuts and tobacco were available for 1949.6 The
average yields for all farms in the five counties under study

1949 PMA Statistical Summary, Florida, pp. 75-76.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


were used to compute crop indexes. These measures were de-
signed to give comparisons of individual farms against all farms
in the three areas. The index is stated as a percentage of the
average yield (Table 8). An index of 100 for peanuts equaled
754 pounds and for flue-cured tobacco 1,080 pounds. Recent
county-wide per-acre production data for cotton were not ob-
tainable.

TABLE 8.-CROP INDEX BY TENURE AND AREA.

i Crop Index*
Area I
]___Peanuts I _Tobacco
i Cropper i Tenant Cropper Tenant

Holmes-W alton ............... 100 159 .... ..
Jackson ........................... 100 139
Hamilton-Madison .......... 136 ..-... 92 95
Five-county index ........ 104 141 92 95

Average yield in 1949 for the five counties equal 100.

FARM INVESTMENTS

The landlord's major investment was in real estate (land and
buildings) for both cropper and tenant units. However, less than
10 percent of the landlords had $5,000 or more invested in land
and buildings.
The average value of all implements and machinery assigned
to croppers by their landlords approximated $170. The value
rarely exceeded $750. The machinery investments of tenants
ranged from less than $100 to nearly $3,000, and averaged just
under $300.
For the most part, investments in livestock were less on cropper
than on tenant units (Table 5). Exceptions were recorded in
the Hamilton-Madison area and for the untyped farms (Table
6).
Real Estate.-Real estate investments on cropper units ranged
from $440 to $10,600; on tenant farms from $265 to $7,435. The
median real estate values for cropper units were $2,500, $1,920
and $1,350 for the Holmes-Walton, Jackson, and Hamilton-
Madison areas, respectively, and $2,500, $1,250 and $1,915 for
tenant farms for each of the three areas in the order named.
The majority of the farms were valued at less than $3,000
(Table 9).









Rental Arravgements on Crop-Share Farms


TABLE 9.-PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF REAL ESTATE VALUES ON SE-
LECTED CROPPER AND TENANT UNITS, FLORIDA, 1949.


Landlord's Real Estate


$1,000
1,001
2,001
3,001
4,001
5,001


o r less .............................................................
- 2,000 .... .............. ...........
- 3 ,000 ............. ..... ... .... .... .... ....
- 4,000 ................ .... ........ ........
- 5,000 ....... ..... .... ........... .............
an d ov er ............. ...... .................


T ota l ................... .. .. ..... ......... ... ...


W eighted number of farms ......................... .......



Livestock.-On both cropper and tenant
of croppers and tenants owning different
and the average number owned per family,


Values
Cropper Tenant
Unit Unit
(Pet) (Pet)
20 9
35 41
22 23
4 13
11 6
8 8


100


97


units the proportions
classes of livestock,
was small. Approxi-


mately 62 percent of the tenants and 22 percent of the croppers
owned family cows. The principal classes of food livestock kept
by croppers and tenants were hogs and chickens. Only small
percentages of the croppers and tenants owned livestock worth
in excess of $600 (Table 10).

TABLE 10.-PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL LIVESTOCK INVESTMENTS
ON SELECTED CROPPER AND TENANT UNITS, FLORIDA, 1949.


Value Groups


N one .................. ..
$ 1 200 ..-.....-
201 400 ....... .
401 600 ...........
601 800 ............
801 1,000 ............
1,000 and over ....


Total


Distribution
Cropper Tenant
(Pct) (Pet)
2
28 15
38 20
i4 40
10 12
5 8
3 5


100 100


Machinery and Equipment.-The average cropper owned little
more than one or two hoes; the tenant frequently little more
than essential horse-drawn equipment. The size of the farm
and the amount of machinery owned was not in direct relation-


---------- --------------- ------------ -----------
------------------------
-------------- -1
-----------------
------------------ --------- ------------------
------------------------------------------
---------------------------- .............


-----------------------------------------------








Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


ship. Neither was the amount of machinery owned directly
correlated with the gross farm income. Undoubtedly, type of
farming and personal preferences, as well as limitations in in-
come, influenced the types of equipment owned and the invest-
ments made in them. The majority of the investments were
under $250 (Table 11).

TABLE 11.-PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED FARMS REPORTING
BY VALUE OF MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT, FLORIDA, 1949.

Value Groups Units
Cropper | Tenant
(Pct) (Pct)
$ 1 to 99 ............ ...... ...... ....... .............. 39 29
100 to 249 ......... .. .......... ..... ........... ........ 51 42
250 to 499 ............ ............................... ................ 4 20
500 to 749 .... ............ .................. ................ ... 4 3
750 to 999 .......... ................................ ...........
1,000 to 2,499 ....... ............ ......................................... 2 3
2,500 and over ............................................ .. ...... 3

Total ... .. ... ......... ...... ...... ..--- ........ .. ... ......... ... 100 100


From the standpoint of farm capitalization, the average in-
ventory values for feed, seed and miscellaneous supplies were of
little importance.

GROSS RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES

In all three areas combined crop receipts (including family-use
products) represented 73 percent of all farm receipts on cropper
units and 65 percent on tenant units (Table 5). In the Holmes-
Walton area the value of crop receipts (Table 5) per cultivated
acre (Table 7) was approximately the same for cropper and
tenant units, or $29 and $32. In the Jackson area tenant units
averaged highest, or $51 as against $32 on cropper units. The
reverse situation prevailed in the Hamilton-Madison area, where
cropper units averaged $40 and tenant units $22. Cotton was
the major crop in the Holmes-Walton area and the proportion
of cropper to tenant units was about equal. Tenant units pre-
dominated in the Jackson area, where peanuts were a specialty,
and cropper units in the Hamilton-Madison area, where em-
phasis was on the production of flue-cured tobacco. Differences
in crop receipts per acre by tenure were thus associated with
both type of farming and type of tenancy.







Rental Arrangements on Crop-Share Farms


Livestock and livestock products (including family-use pro-
ducts) as a source of farm receipts were more important on
tenant units in all areas than on cropper units. For the Holmes-
Walton, Jackson and Hamilton-Madison areas, in the order
named, receipts averaged per acre of cultivated land 89, 87 and
$7, and 815, 812, and S12, for cropper and tenant units, re-
spectively. Production of crops and livestock for family use
was an important source of farm receipts for both cropper and
tenant units in all areas, although many croppers and tenants
failed to take full advantage of this source of income.
Receipts from miscellaneous sources were derived chiefly from
off-the-farm work. Some off-farm employment was non-
agricultural. About 26 percent of the croppers and 25 percent
of the tenants reported some non-agricultural employment,
although their annual earnings were generally relatively low.
Increases in capital on all units combined accounted for about
9 percent of all farm receipts, or 8 for croppers and 9 for tenants
(Table 5).
Gross farm expenses, including cash expenses, depreciation
and decreases in inventories of feed, seed and other supplies,
averaged $955 on cropper units and $1,116 on tenant units (Table
5). For each dollar of gross farm expenses cropper and tenant
units grossed about the same proportional returns (Table 5).
Livestock purchases, as a proportion of all farm expenses,
varied among areas. On cropper units in the Jackson County
area the average was 2 percent, as against 4 percent in the other
areas; on tenant units, under 6 percent in the Hamilton-Madison
area and about 8 percent in the Jackson and Holmes-Walton
areas.
Fertilizer purchases were approximately 40 percent of all land-
lord expenditures on cropper units and 45 percent on tenant units.
The cost of farm labor (excluding the operator's) which was
met by croppers and tenants approximated, as a proportion of
all their farm expenses, 67 percent for croppers and 60 percent
for tenants.
Costs for ginning cotton and picking peanuts were fairly
uniform within a given area. The landlord shared these costs
with the cropper or tenant. For all units they amounted to less
than 2 percent of the total farm expenses in the Hamilton-
Madison area, under 13 percent in the Holmes-Walton area and
about 15 percent in the Jackson County area.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Expenditures for automobile, truck and tractor use varied
widely between farms, but tended to be fairly uniform by tenure
within the same area.
Landlord expenses were relatively more fixed than were cropper
and tenant expenses. Per acre costs of seed, insecticides, fungi-
cides and contract labor were determined largely by price per
unit, as average requirements were fairly well established by
community practices, soil fertility and other factors.

INCOME COMPARISONS
Income comparisons are based upon one year's operation only.
This prevents measuring 1949 results against "normal" returns
or long-term averages. However, the relative efficiency of the
tenure groups may be compared on the basis of income, without
regard to the distribution of income.
Farm Income.-The difference between farm receipts and
farm expenses represents a combination of income for labor,
management and capital. It presents the business as a whole
before any payment for rent or interest or earning for the labor
of the operator (landlord and cropper or tenant) is made.
As shown in Table 7, within a given area there was no con-
siderable difference in the total size of farm or in the number
of planted acres between cropper and tenant units. Hence, dif-
ferences in farm incomes between cropper and tenant units
were not attributable to differences in the size of farm. The
data thus seem to imply that tenants have demonstrated a
higher ability to make a farm pay than have croppers. However,
data are not sufficient to indicate to what extent farm organiza-
tion is determined by the leasing method, nor to what extent
farm incomes are dependent upon the leasing arrangement.
Nevertheless, for all areas combined, tenant unit incomes were
26 percent higher than cropper units, or $1,696 as compared to
$1,349 (Table 5). When compared by types of farming, tenant
units earned farm incomes consistently higher than cropper
units (Table 6). The only exception to this rule was in compari-
sons by area (Table 5). In the Hamilton-Madison area cropper
unit incomes exceeded tenant unit incomes by 23 percent, or
$1,636 to $1,330. This higher income undoubtedly arose from
the average acreage of cash crops. The cropper unit had nearly
one acre more tobacco and 1.5 acres of cotton than the tenant
unit.







Rental Arrangements on Crop-Share Farms


Labor Income.-Interest on total farm capital was subtracted
from farm income to obtain the farm labor income. This was
the return to the operators (in this analysis to the landlord and
his cropper or tenant) for their labor and management, subject
to the limitations previously referred to (p. 8).
In all instances the labor income on tenant units (Tables 5
and 6) exceeded that on cropper units, except for the Hamilton-
Madison area (Table 12). Gross receipts for cash crops usually
were divided equally, but expenses of production were not equal.
The nature of the leasing arrangements as to cash crops was
partially responsible for this; the growing of subsidiary crops
in which the landlord shared very little or not at all was a con-
tributory cause.

TABLE 12.-PROPORTIONAL DIVISION OF FARM LABOR INCOME BETWEEN
LANDLORD AND OPERATOR ON SELECTED CROPPER AND TENANT UNITS,
FLORIDA, 1949.

Amount Pronortional Distribution
Area and Cropper Tenant
Type of Farming Crop- Ten- Units Units
per ant Land- Crop- Land- Ten-
Units Units lord per lord ant
-$- -$- (Pct) (Pct) (Pct) (Pct)
Area: I
Holmes-Walton ........._..... 1,033 1,338 40 60 30 70
Jackson ............................... 965 1,925 44 56 46 54
Hamilton-Madison .............. 1,478 1,238 47 53 28 72
Type cf farming:
Cotton ............................ ... 946 1,020 38 62 30 70
Peanuts .......... .................. 868 2,073 43 57 49 51
Tobacco ............................... 1,627 1,711 48 52 32 68
Untyped ................................ 1,335 1,465 34 66 29 71

All farm units .................... 1,285 1,652 45 55 37 63


The proportional distribution of the farm labor income, as
shown in Table 12, was calculated from the share of the gross
receipts received by the landlord and cropper or tenant, respec-
tively, and the amount of contributions, including interest on
capital at 6/', made by each. It will be observed that the
distribution of the labor income in each of the three areas
followed very closely the distribution made for each of the three
cash crops cotton, peanuts and tobacco. This was true for
both cropper and tenant units, although there were some differ-
ences as between tenure.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Assuming labor income as herein calculated to be correct,
landlords on both cropper and tenant units received substantial
proportions of labor income for their shares (Table 12). How-
ever, the extent to which their seemingly large shares resulted
from low returns to capital investments or to their superior
bargaining position was undetermined.
Non-farm Income.-Nearly half of the croppers and tenants
reported some form of non-farm income. About a fourth of
them received their incomes from non-agricultural employment
and the remainder from pensions and other public sources.
Of all the non-farm cash receipts received by croppers and ten-
ants, about 45 percent was derived from actual employment
and the balance as transfer payments from Federal and State
sources (Table 13), but transfer payments were not added to
farm receipts.

TABLE 13.-DISTRIBUTION OF PRINCIPAL SOURCES OF NON-FARM INCOME
FOR SELECTED CROPPERS AND TENANTS, FLORIDA.

Income Sources Distribution
Cropper Tenant
(Pct) (Pct)
Non-agricultural employment ........... .......-..... 45 46
Veterans Training Program .-............... ........ 44 41
Pensions and welfare payments ...................... 11 13

All ...............- ....................................... 100 100


Value of Items for Family Use.-On an average the value of
farm products produced for family use was an important part
of the farm income. On cropper units in comparisons by area
and type of farming the values ranged from $225 to $390; on
tenant units from $388 to $485. They averaged $271 for cropper
units and $429 for tenant units (Table 14). For all cropper
units combined the average landlord received 17 percent of the
home products and the cropper 83 percent; for tenant units the
landlord received 12 percent and the tenant 88 percent. For
most of the landlords involved, however, home products were
more important than would appear from these data, as most of
them operated farm land not included in this study.
Perquisites.-The value of perquisites was not included in the
farm business summaries. They were omitted for two reasons.
First, they were usually not produced on the units under study










TABLE 14.-PROPORTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF VALUE OF ITEMS PRODUCED FOR FAMILY USE ON SELECTED CROPPER AND TENANT
UNITS, FLORIDA, 1949.

Cropper Units Tenant Units
Area and I
Type of Farming Value Proportional Distribution I Value Proportional Distribution
of All | Livestock | of All [Livestock
| Items Crops Livestock Products Total i Items Crops Livestock Products Total
-$- Percent i -$- Percent
Area: ||
Holmes-Walton .... 390 335 5 30 100 485 26 31 43 100
Jackson ................. 238 8 64 28 100 388 24 32 44 100
Hamilton-Madison 225 25 45 30 100 435 16 28 56 100
Type of farming:
Cotton ............... 258 32 39 29 100 443 31 28 41 100
Peanuts .................. 337 19 50 31 100 398 23 34 43 100
Tobacco .................. 243 25 47 28 100 451 16 26 58 100
Untyped 259 27 37 36 100 427 26 27 47 100

All farms .................. 271 23 48 | 29 100 429 22 30 48 100
_II- I .







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


and, second, they were not produced with labor contracted for
under the leasing arrangements. Also, credit for the rental value
of the tenant dwelling was allowed the landlord by crediting
him with interest earnings on his total farm capital. A method
of including perquisites in an analysis of leasing arrangements
is shown subsequently under the section, ANALYSIS OF COM-
POSITE RETURNS.

TRACTOR-POWERED TENANT UNITS
An examination of farm and labor incomes for the cropper and
tenant units included in this study (Tables 5 and 6) emphasizes
the limited amount of money remaining for the individual crop-
pers and tenants for their 1949 farming accomplishments (Table
12). The majority of these farms were powered by mules.
However, some landlords provided limited tractor power to their
croppers or tenants on a cost-of-operation basis or on lower-than-
custom-rate charges. Comparatively few croppers or tenants on
the 141 farms studied had changed from mule to tractor power
exclusively. Yet it remains a truism that increased production
per worker is required if the majority of the croppers and
tenants are to make their farm operations profitable. Tractor-
pulled equipment has steadily increased the efficiency of labor,
yet because of limited land resources, difficulties in obtaining
credit or psychological barriers, among other things, mechaniza-
tion has been retarded in many areas of the state.

ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE RETURNS
A farm business summary reveals the net income or net loss
for the business as a whole (Tables 5 and 6). Such an analysis
provides information that can be used in changing a farm
organization. It does not show the comparative efficiency of
tenure groups, as the farm income comprises total receipts, in-
cluding those from both farm and non-farm sources. When the
income-yielding ability of the farm alone is to be analyzed with-
out reference to the allocation of income, another type of analysis
is required.
One such analysis provides income comparisons for the farm
as a whole, before any allocations are made to the landlord for
the employment of his land, capital, management and such
labor as he supplies, or to the tenant for his labor and such
management and capital as he contributes. In this study, this







Rental Arrangements on Crop-Share Farms


analysis is referred to as "Analysis of Composite Returns," which
measures the effectiveness with which resources were used in
the farm business alone.
For both landlord and tenant, composite returns represent the
difference between all sources of farm income and out-of-pocket
expenses. Sources of farm income consist of the values for farm
products sold during the year or held for sale, items produced
for family use, inventory increases and perquisites. Out-of-
pocket expenses are all payments made for the operation of the
farm business during the year and decreases in inventory values.
They include the cost of hired labor but exclude the value of
unpaid family labor.
An analysis of composite returns is particularly useful on
small crop-share farms where bookkeeping accounting by enter-
prises is impracticable. It is (1) comparatively easy to make
and (2) the results are meaningful to persons inexperienced in
methods of farm accounting. For the most part, unallocated
income, or composite returns, is the actual cash from the farm
business which landlords, croppers and tenants have for them-
selves and for their families throughout the year.

COMPOSITE RETURNS BY TENURE
Composite returns averaged nearly 8400 higher on tenant
units than on cropper units (Table 15). As already pointed out,
variations between acreages of cultivated land by tenure and by
area were not wide (Table 7). Hence, it can be inferred that
the tenants were better farmers than the croppers. Their re-
spective composite returns were 81,359 and 81,054.
Composite returns for cropper units exceeded returns for
tenant units only in the Hamilton-Madison area and for tobacco
type of farming (Table 16). The influence of tobacco farming
was reflected in the Hamilton-Madison area results, as farmers
in this area specialized in the production of flue-cured tobacco.
However, in each comparison the cropper received for his share
of the returns a smaller amount than did the tenants, or 81,086
to 81,134 for the area, and 81,180 to 81,359 for tobacco farming.
The cropper's share of the returns was 56 percent as compared
to 74 percent for the tenant in the Hamilton-Madison area, and
56 to 67 percent for tobacco farming. The low proportional
returns for tobacco croppers as compared to tenants undoubtedly
reflected the close supervision croppers received. Usually, as








Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


TABLE 15.-COMPOSITE RETURNS FOR SELECTED CROPPER AND TENANT
UNITS, FLORIDA, 1949.


Item



Income sources:
Sale of farm
products ........
Items for family
use ........ .....
Increase, inven-
tory values ....
Rental, tenant's
house ............
Perquisites, ex-
cept rental ....


Total ..........


Out-of-pocket
expenses ........


Composite
returns --..........


Cropper Units Tenant Units

Unit Shares Unit I Shares
Values Landlord I Cropper I Values ILandlord Tenant
Dollars


1,925

271.

149

104

23


2,472



669



1,803


1,074



325



749


344



1,054


2,379

429

205

113

26


3,152



966



2,186


1,190

53

85


1,189

376

120

113

26


.,328 1,824



501 465



827 1,359


TABLE 16.-COMPOSITE RETURNS BY AREA AND BY TYPE OF FARMING FOR
SELECTED CROPPERS AND TENANTS, FLORIDA, 1949.


I
Area and
Type of Farmingl



Area:
Holmes-Walton--
Jackson ..............
Hamilton-
Madison .......

Type of
farming:
Cotton ................
Peanuts ..............
Tobacco .........
Untyped ..........


Composite
returns -....--......


Cropper Units


Tenant Units


I I I
Entire I Shares I Entire I Shares
Unit ILandlord Cropper I Unit Landlord Tenant
Dollars


1,738 646 1,092 1,805 582 1,223
1,397 570 827 2,568 1,059 1,509

1,934 848 1,086 1,539 405 1,134


1,417 537 880 1,572 459 1,113
1,592 555 1,037 2,824 1,193 1,631
2,123 943 1,180 2,021 662 1,359
1,660 587 1,073 1,711 571 1,140



1,803 749 1,054 2,186 827 1,359
S I ,i








Rental Arrangements on Crop-Share Farms


previous research has indicated, the landlord devoted a consider-
able amount of time to the production, curing and marketing
of tobacco.7

COMPARISONS RELATING TO RETURNS AND EXPENSES

Under crop-share arrangements farm labor costs usually ex-
ceed interest credits on farm capital. Consequently, over the
years croppers and tenants have bargained for and have received
higher proportions of the composite returns than landlords.
Most adjustments made in existing leasing arrangements are
for the purpose of raising the operator's returns to labor.
The amount of composite returns received by landlords, crop-
pers and tenants for each dollar of out-of-pocket expenses
reflects current practices in the sharing of expenses and returns
(Table 17). Landlords on cropper units received higher returns
per dollar of out-of-pocket expenses than on tenant units; and
croppers higher than tenants. By types of farming, the ratio
of expenses to returns was highest on cropper units for peanut
farming and highest on tenant units for tobacco. The ratio was
highest for landlords in tobacco farming, regardless of tenure.
A number of influences probably account for the differences in
the out-of-pocket expense-composite returns ratios by types of
farming, but undoubtedly compensations for investments, risks
and costs of family labor and management are important con-
siderations.

TABLE 17.-COMPOSITE RETURNS PER DOLLAR OF OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES
FOR SELECTED CROPPER AND TENANT UNITS, FLORIDA, 1949.

Cropper Units Tenant Units
Type of I
Farming Unit Shares Unit Shares
Values Landlord Cropper Values Landlord! Tenant
-$- --- -$- -- -$- --$- --
Cotton ................ 2.43 1.56 3.64 2.23 1.13 3.75
Peanuts ......... .. 2.90 1.85 4.16 2.05 1.75 2.35
Tobacco ........... 2.84 2.85 2.83 3.03 2.27 3.61
Untyped ............ 2.26 1.88 2.55 2.16 1.33 3.15

All units .......... 2.69 2.30 3.06 2.26 1.65 2.92



Current Farm Leasing Practices in Florida, Southern Cooperative
Series Bul. 13, Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. June 1951.








Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Family Labor.-Values given to labor performed by members
of cropper and tenant families, and excluding the operator's, is
referred to as unpaid family labor. Unpaid family labor was
valued at $330 by croppers and $365 by tenants (Table 18).
Croppers estimated the value of their time at $670 and tenants
at $725. When the costs of unpaid family labor were added to
the estimated value of the operator's time, family labor costs
were $1,000 for croppers and $1,090 for tenants.8 When these
costs (Table 18) were charged against composite returns (Table
16), croppers had only $54 remaining; tenants $269. After al-
lowing for small interest costs on capital, compensation for
management was negligible for croppers but of some importance
to tenants.

TABLE 18.-ESTIMATED VALUES OF FAMILY LABOR BY TENURE AND COM-
PARED BY AREAS AND TYPES OF FARMING, FLORIDA, 1949.


Area and
Type of Farmingi



Area:
Holmes-Walton..
Jackson ...........
Hamilton-
Madison ........

Type of
farming:
Cotton ...............
Peanuts ............
Tobacco ..............
Untyped ...........


All units .......... |


Cropper Family Labor


All




1,226
1,007

951


971
1,117
986
1,005


1,000


Cropper



727
760
664


698
625
653
750


670


Other
Family
Members
Dollars


Tenant Family Labor


All


499 1,138
247 1,129
287 918


273 1,094
492 1,161
333 875
255 1,114


330 1,090


IOther
Tenant Family
Members



843 295
699 430

656 262


835 259
729 432
663 212
692 422


On cotton and peanut farms croppers did not earn their family
labor (Tables 16 and 18), according to the value of labor as
estimated by the croppers themselves. On tobacco and untyped
farms, however, they had favorable expenses-return ratios. The

SFor both (a) the values of cropper and tenant labor and (b) the values
of cropper and tenant unpaid family labor, the difference between the
means (Table 18) was more than twice the standard error of the difference.
This indicates that the differences between the means was not due to
chance. For discussion of method, see Introduction to Statistical Analysis,
Dixon and Massey, McGraw-Hill, New York. 1951. pp. 108-109.


|







Rental Arrangements on Crop-Share Farms


ratios for tenants were more favorable than for croppers. Only
on cotton and untyped farms were returns barely sufficient to
meet labor costs. The average cropper or tenant estimated his
time at 83 per day. The amount of family labor was adjusted
to a man-equivalent basis, with the value determined from the
wages paid to hired labor for similar tasks in the locality where
the farm was located.
Very often cropper and tenant families functioned as indi-
vidual work units. In some families women and children worked
in the fields for several months out of the year. Their pro-
ductive efficiency was adversely affected through maintaining
the unit during periods of slack needs. Lack of full-time pro-
ductive agricultural employment, however, is not peculiar to
tenancy. It rests in an industry which is characterized by both
underemployment and high peak labor requirements.
Cropper operators reported about nine months annual farm
employment and tenant operators 10 months, based upon a
three-dollar-per-day wage rate and the annual value of the
operator's time (Table 18), as reported by the operator. On an
average, unpaid family labor (man-equivalent basis) on cropper
farms equaled four months employment (8330) and on tenant
farms about five months (8365). Composite returns for crop-
pers (Table 16) about equaled their combined family labor costs
(Table 18) ; returns for tenants (Table 16) exceeded labor costs
(Table 18). Generally speaking, however, composite returns
for labor tended to approximate the average value estimated for
family labor.
Landlord Management and Labor.-The amount of income
received by landlords as compensation for management and labor
is ascertainable only to the extent to which all pertinent data
relating to the farm business are accurate. Theoretically, re-
muneration for management and labor is the income that remains
after the yearly costs of capital are deducted from the composite
returns. In table 19 are shown the amounts of income which
the landlord had remaining for his management, labor, and such
out-of-pocket expenses which were not obtained from the field
surveys (taxes and insurance), as pointed out previously.
On the basis of these data, interest costs were nearly 25 per-
cent of the composite returns for both cropper and tenant units.
Although they varied by type of farming they varied little by
tenure, except for peanut farms (Table 19). Unpublished data







30 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

(farm-management farm business summaries) at the Florida
Agricultural Experiment Station lend support to the assumption
that 25 percent of the landlord's composite returns would also
amply cover unrecorded expenses. Thus probably 50 percent
of the composite returns, and possibly as much as 60 percent,
are rewards for landlord management and labor.

TABLE 19.-COMPOSITE RETURNS LESS INTEREST COSTS RECEIVED BY LAND-
LORDS ON SELECTED CROPPER AND TENANT UNITS, FLORIDA, 1949.

1 Cropper Unit Tenant Unit
Area and L'lord's I I L'lord's
Type of FarmingI Cor- Interest Returns Com- Interest Returns
posite on Less I posite on Less
SReturns Capital Interest I Returns Capital Interest
Dollars
Area:
Holmes-Walton.. 646 228 418 582 183 399
Jackson .............. 570 142 428 1,059 169 890
Hamilton
Madison ........ 848 149 699 405 64 341
Type of
farming:
Cotton ................ 537 178 359 459 156 303
Peanuts ............ 555 181 374 1,193 185 1,008
Tobacco .............. 943 162 781 662 121 541
Untyped .......... 587 139 448 571 143 428

All units .......... 749 176 573 827 199 628


On cropper units the returns to landlord management were
largest on tobacco farms and least on the partially diversified
(untyped) farms; for tenants, returns were higher on peanut
farms and least on cotton farms. For every type of farming,
however, the landlord earned something for his management
and labor, whether operating with croppers or tenants. This
is in contrast to croppers, who frequently failed to meet the costs
of family labor (Tables 16 and 18).

SHARING CONTRIBUTIONS AND RETURNS

Local custom greatly influences the leasing practices followed
in Florida. Traditionally, two types of leasing arrangements -
share tenant and share cropper have become established in
the state (page 9). Under both the landlord supplies land and
buildings, cash to operate the farm, seed or plants for cash






Rental Arrangements on Crop-Share Farms


crops and material for building and fence repairs and pays
property insurance and taxes on real estate; the cropper and
tenant supply all production labor and jointly with the landlord
share 50-50 in the production of pork and in costs incurred for
custom work, such as picking peanuts. The essential difference
between croppers and tenants rests in the ownership of the
work power, machinery and equipment, and the way in which
fertilizer, insecticides and fungicides are shared. Under cropper
arrangements, work power, machinery and equipment are sup-
plied by the landlord; under tenant arrangements by the tenant.
The landlord furnishes all fertilizers and disease and insect
control materials to the tenants but the landlord and cropper
share the costs of these items equally. Thus, the way contribu-
tions are divided becomes clearly a matter of major importance.
In determining contributions to the farm business for this
analysis, each item of out-of-pocket expenses was included and,
in addition, values were given to cropper and tenant labor, ac-
cording to their estimates (Table 18) ; also to landlord's manage-
ment at 50 percent of the landlord's composite returns (page 30),
and to interest on capital investment, including land.
Receipts included all farm receipts as previously defined (page
8), except for those from outside work, rent of buildings, etc.

DETERMINING CONTRIBUTIONS AND RETURNS
Tables 20 and 21 are illustrations of the method used in calcu-
lating landlord and tenant contributions. These illustrations are
based on actual farm practices within areas included in this
study. Values given, however, are from unpublished data at
the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station and do not repre-
sent the specific farms included in this analysis. This was done
to illustrate more clearly the use of this form, as such items as
taxes on land and buildings and several miscellaneous items were
not obtained for the farms studied. As previously explained,
some farm owners in Florida paid little or no taxes on real estate,
because of homestead exemption rights.
In addition to the acreages in Table 21, 10 acres of corn and
16 acres of peanuts were planted for hogging off; 30 open acres
were lying out or pastured, making a total of 106 acres. On the
basis of this illustration, the landlord would have received 46
percent of the farm receipts and the tenant 54 percent. In
principle, the Florida crop-share agreements aim toward sharing







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


TABLE 20.-METHOD FOR CALCULATING LANDLORD AND TENANT CONTRIBU-
TIONS FOR CROP-SHARE FARMING.*


Esti-
mated
Item of Expense Total
SValue
| -$-

Interest charges:
1. Land and buildings .... 2,500
2. Tractor and workstock 300
3. Machinery and equip-
m ent .............................. 550
4. Productive livestock .. 100
5. Feed and supplies ...... 50
6. Other (cash for farm
use) .............................. 500

7. Total ............................ 4,000

Farm operating expenses:
8. Labor:
(a) Tenant ... ................. ..
(b) Landlord ... ............. .........
(c) Unpaid family ...-..............
(d) H ired ............. ...- ....
9. Repairs:
(a) Buildings, fences, etc .....
(b) Machinery ..........................
10. Depreciation:
(a) Buildings, fences, etc. ......
(b) Tractor and workstock .....
(c) Machinery ...........................
11. Tractor fuel ............................
12. Machine work hired ..................
13. Seed purchased ....--- -- ....
14. Fertilizer and lime ..................
15. Other crop expense ..................
16. Feed purchased ........................
17. Other livestock expense ..........
18. Insurance:
(a) Buildings .......--- ...... ...
(b) Personal property .......-..
19. Taxes:
(a) Land and buildings ..........
(b) Personal property ...
20. Miscellaneous:
(a) Wood for making syrup ..
(b) Cans for honey ..................
(c) Honey foundation ...-..
(d) Hauling bees and honey ...


21. Total interest charges and farm operating
expenses ... ..................----- -------

22. Percentage division ..... ... ... .--- .. .......---


Esti- I
mated Estimated Annual Cost
Interest Whole L'lord's Tenant's
Rate Farm Share Share
Pet. IDollars


0.06 150 150
0.06 18 .... 18

0.06 33 33
0.06 6 3 3
0.06 3 .... 3

0.06 30 30 .





.. .. 900 .... 900
.... .......- 250 250
... ... ..... 350 .... 350
....-....- 100 .... 100

..... .... 100 100
... -. ... 30 .... 30

.- ..- ..-.....-- 150 150
........ ..... .. 30 .... 30
..- ....- ..- ..... 60 .... 60

. .... 218 109 109
...-. 240 240
S 400 200 200
.--....... 160 100 60

30 10 20

.-.. 20 20
.. ..... .....
.... .....- 32 32


3,434

100


7 7
10 10




1,451 1,983

42 | 58


Table construction, items 1 through 21, adopted from Yor Fanrm Releasc, BAE,
USDA, June, 1949; values are from unpublished sources in files at the Florida Agricultural
Experiment Station.






Rental Arrangements on Crop-Share Farms


total farm receipts in the same proportions as all farm contribu-
tions are shared. However, this goal is not always achieved, as
is shown by comparing the proportional expenses of the tenant
to the proportional receipts (Tables 20 and 21).

TABLE 21.-METHOD FOR ESTIMATING FARM RECEIPTS FOR CROP-SHARE
FARMING.

Acres Estimated Shares
Item in I
Crops Production Receipts Landlord Tenant
Dollars

Commercial peanuts ..... 20 8 N. T. 1,520 760 760
Cotton ............................. 4 900 lbs. 396 198 198
Corn .................................. 20 16 N. T. 400 200 200
Peanut hay .......... ...... .... 20 N. T. 240 120 120
Cane for syrup ................ 1 200 gals. 100 50 50
Sweet potatoes ................ 5 250 bu. 500 250 250
Pecans ............................. .... 300 lbs. 60 30 30
Livestock ........................ .... 12 hogs 360 180 180
Livestock products ...... .... ... 450 150 300
Other ............................. 238 138 100
Value of items for
home use ......... ....... ... ... 362 30 332

Totals ............................ 50 XXXX 4,626 2,106 2,520

Percentage division ... XX XXXX 100 46 54

CONTRIBUTIONS-RETURNS RATIOS
In farm management and tenure comparisons, analyses of
contributions and returns usually involve lengthy calculations
and numerous summary tables. It is not always easy for the
mind to retain various proportional relationships. A measure
developed in this publication to overcome this difficulty is a ratio,
henceforth referred to as a contributions-returns ratio, or simply
CR ratio."

Formula for calculating the CR ratio, expressed in terms of the land-
r
lord: CR Ratio = x 100, where r equals the percentage of the total farm

receipts (Table 21) received by the landlord, and c equals the percentage
of the total contributions (Table 20) made by the landlord. To illustrate,
let equal 46 and c equal 42. By substituting values,
46
=1.10 x 100 or 110, which is the ratio.
42
Care should be exerted, however, in drawing conclusions from CR ratios.
In effect, they are designed to give statistical preciseness to a verbal defini-
tion for comparative purposes. As with most indexes, the validity of the
CR ratio rests on the value assigned to the component parts; hence the
reader is cautioned against the indiscriminate use of the ratios.






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


The ratio is useful in comparisons in which the objective is to
ascertain to what extent the sharing of contributions deviates
from the sharing of receipts in an exact proportional relation-
ship. In this study it is expressed in terms of the landlord in all
instances. Thus, a CR ratio of 100 indicates that landlord and
tenant have divided their returns in direct proportion to their
contributions, which many participants held to be a test of
fairness.
Research writers have frequently concurred in this same
view.10 Such an assumption does not necessarily indicate
equitability as defined in economic theory." It does establish a
bench-mark, however, against which landlord-tenant relation-
ships may be examined. In this respect the CR ratio is a con-
venient tool for making empirical tests. The ratios used in this
study in comparing farms by areas and by types of farming
(Table 23) and by social factors of croppers and tenants (Tables
25 and 26) were determined from the aggregate and not from
an average of a series of ratios. A very low or very high ratio
indicates provable imbalance in the existing leasing arrange-
ments, which invites a more refined analysis of the causes of
such imbalance. Subsequent analyses may lead to recommenda-
tions for changes in the leasing provisions, or in the farm
organization.

CR RATIO ANALYSES
The extent to which the cropper and tenant units in this study
failed to meet the empirical test of fairness (sharing in receipts
according to contributions) is observed in frequency distribu-
tions of CR ratios (Table 22). The median cropper ratio was 17
points higher than the median tenant ratio, or 126 to 109.
Ratios reflect influences other than the actual leasing arrange-
ments. It will be remembered that croppers and tenants were
not productively employed throughout the year (Table 18), the
annual farm employment of the cropper being about 9 months

Farm Tenancy in California and Methods of Leasing, Cal. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bul. 655, p. 40. 1941.
Farm Leases, La. Agr. Exp. Sta. Mim. Cir. 93, p. 66. 1949.
Better Farm Leases, U. S. Department of Agriculture Farmers Bul. 1969,
p. 15. 1945.
Leasing Washington Farms, Wash. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 385, p. 39.
1940.
1 Economics of Farm Leasing Systems, by Earl O. Heady, Journal of
Farm Econ., XXLX, pp. 659-678. 1947.






Rental Arrangenients on Crop-Share Farms


and the tenant 10 months (Page 29). Long periods of under-
employment tended to raise CR ratios. Also, better than average
incomes were frequently associated with low ratios. For ex-
ample, for the upper 10 percent of the croppers, arrayed accord-
ing to the cropper's share of the composite returns, the ratio
was 95; for the lower 10 percent the ratio was 170. Composite
incomes of tenants were higher than those of croppers (Table 16),
which helps to explain the comparatively low tenant CR ratios
(Table 22).

TABLE 22.-UNWEIGHTED FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF CR RATIOS FOR
SELECTED CROPPER AND TENANT UNITS, FLORIDA, 1949.

CR Ratio Classes Midpoint of Number by Class
Classes Cropper Tenant

75 or less ........................ Below 80.5 2
76 to 85 ......................... 80.5 2 6
86 to 95 .................. .. ... 90.5 6 8
96 to 105 .......................... 100.5 10 13
106 to 115 .. ................... 110.5 6 18
116 to 125 ........... ............ 120.5 10 6
126 to 135 .......................... 130.5 14 4
136 to 145 ...................... 140.5 6 6
146 to 155 .......................... 150.5 2 2
156 to 165 ......................... 160.5 2 2
166 and over ................. Over 160.5 12 4

Total .... .......... ............. ........... ..72 69

M edian ratio ...................... ....... 126 109


Area and Type of Farming.-Variations were noted in CR
ratios by areas and by types of farming (Table 23). For both
cropper and tenant units the relationship between composite
incomes (Table 16) and CR ratios was positive, the higher in-
come giving the lower ratio. By types of farming, composite
incomes and ratios were inversely associated for croppers but
not for tenants. For instance, on tenant peanut and tobacco
farms ratios were identical, but incomes were higher for peanut
than for tobacco farms (Table 16) ; the CR ratio was higher on
untyped than on cotton farms (Table 23) and so was the average
farm income (Table 16). This probably arises from the lower
returns per unit of labor on cotton and untyped farms as com-
pared to peanut and tobacco farms (Tables 16 and 18).






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


TABLE 23.-CR RATIOS BY AREA AND BY TYPES OF FARMING FOR SELECTED
CROPPER AND TENANT UNITS, FLORIDA, 1949.

Area and Type of Farming Leasing Arrangement
Cropper Tenant
(Ratio) (Ratio)
Area:
Holmes-W alton ........... ..................... ...... 118 112
Jackson ........ .... .............. ........... 131 109
Hamilton-Madison ......... .......... ............-... 117 119
Type of farming:
Cotton ........... ...-.. ....- ..... .. .....- 126 114
Peanuts ......... ........ ...... ...... ....................... 125 105
Tobacco ........................... .... ..... 116 105
U ntyped .................................-........ 123 116

All farm units ...............-...... .....-.... ....... 120 109


Race.-Contribution-returns ratio variations were observed
between the white and negro races (Table 24). Differences were
distinct between cropper units but very slight on tenant units.
For whites, the ratio was 108; for negroes 120. There was some
evidence, however, that ratio differences were not attributable
to race alone but rather to other factors associated with race.
For example, ratio differences by tenure were pronounced (Table
22), and about 58 percent of the negroes were croppers (Table 2).
Moreover, the average white cropper and tenant had more formal
education than the average negro cropper and tenant (Table 2).

TABLE 24.-CR RATIOS BY RACE AND TENURE FOR SELECTED CROPPER AND
TENANT UNITS, FLORIDA, 1949.

Type of Tenancy White Negro

Cropper ..... .... ..........- .....-- ...-.... ....- ... 109 134
Tenant ...-...- .. ........ ...... 108 110

A ll .... .... .. ....... ............- 108 120


Education.-The relative importance and priority of educa-
tional influences on income was demonstrated in CR ratio
analyses as low ratios and higher than average incomes were
associated (Tables 16, 23 and 25). The complexity of the eco-
nomic forces affecting life makes causal analyses of farm data







Rental Arrangements on Crop-Share Farms


difficult, yet Table 25 indicates that education is more important
in income-producing potential than years of residence on the
same farm, type of tenancy or differences in age. In nearly all
comparisons croppers and tenants who had higher than average
education for their groups (Table 2) had lower CR ratios (Table
25) than those with less than average education. The importance
of education thus apparently overshadows most of the other con-
siderations examined here that surround the success of cropper
and tenant farmers.

TABLE 25.-LENGTH OF TENURE, AGE AND EDUCATION RELATED TO CR
RATIOS FOR SELECTED CROPPERS AND TENANTS, FLORIDA, 1949.

2 Years or Less 3 Years or More
Formal on Farm on Farm
Education 40 Years Over 40 40 Years Over 40 Average
of Age Years of Age Years
or Less of Age or Less i of Age
Aggregate CR Ratios
Croppers:*
Under 5 years.. 132 128 131 126 129
5 or more years 112 111 101 114 110

Total ................... 117 120 111 121 118

Tenants:
Under 5 years.. 127 120 109 103 110
5 or more years 105 117 100 109 107

Total ................... 109 119 106 104 109
Education for 4 croppers unknown.

Length of Tenure.-The desirability of security of farm ten-
ure has long been stressed in agricultural literature. It has been
held that secure tenure is essential in planning and developing
a balanced farm operation. These data indicate that, so far as
the croppers in this study were concerned, length of tenure was
no assurance of success (Table 26). In fact, for the older crop-
pers the CR ratios were highest. and became progressively
higher with increased length of tenure. Data were not available
to indicate to what extent the older croppers continued to farm
because of paternalistic concessions, but such concessions are
not unusual in the South.
Tenants, on the other hand, profited by continued residence
on the same farm (Table 26). This held for all age groups, as






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


shown by CR ratios. The reasons for variations in CR ratios
between croppers and tenants could not be specifically enumer-
ated, but it was shown that on an average tenants were better
farmers than croppers (Tables 5 and 6). Tenant investments
in operating capital (work power, machinery and equipment)
doubtless added to their stability of tenure. The white tenant
was also better educated than the white cropper (Table 2).

TABLE 26.-LENGTH OF TENURE AND AGE RELATED TO CR RATIOS FOR
SELECTED CROPPERS AND TENANTS, FLORIDA, 1949.

YAgears on Farm Ave
Age 1 I I 5 Average
or Less 2-4 or More
Aggregate Ratios
Croppers:
Under 36 years ............ 111 129 87 112
36 through 45 ............. 126 102 106 111
46 and over .................. 125 134 173 146

Total ............................... 119 117 123 120

Tenants:
Under 36 years .-......... 108 113 101 108
36 through 45 ........... 114 104 101 107
46 and over .................. 128 107 110 112

Total .............................. 114 107 104 109


APPRAISAL OF ANALYTICAL METHODS

The farm business summary (Tables 5 and 6) is useful in
pointing out differences among farm units. The object of most
farm-management studies is to summarize the farm business
in order to find out why some farms pay better than others and
to suggest to farmers how they may increase their incomes.
Farm-management studies are especially applicable in analyzing
the farming success of the farm family and to emphasize those
factors that are important in influencing farm incomes. Thus,
size of farm, acreages planted, kinds of crops grown and live-
stock organization become important considerations. The ulti-
mate objective is to determine how a farmer may obtain the
highest income consistent with the current or potential earning
power of the farm.







Rental Arrangements on Crop-Share Farms


Within limitations the net farm income, as arrived at through
a farm business summary, comprises income to land, capital,
labor and management. Although the summary includes re-
turns to capital (interest on total capital) and returns to labor
and management (labor income), no separation between labor
and management can be made, except arbitrarily. The net re-
turns also contain non-farm sources of income, so they cannot
be used to measure the effective use of the resources which are
employed in farming alone. This method, therefore, becomes
a difficult one to use in analyzing the contributions and returns
made by landlords and tenants to a farm business. However,
the farm business summary measures for cropper and tenant
units, at least to a considerable degree, the success or failure
which stem from sound or questionable farm management
practices.
A composite-returns analysis is a comparatively simple and
useful appraisal for small farm units. The limited education of
Florida croppers and tenants precludes the use of involved ac-
counting procedures. Hence the composite-returns analysis
becomes a useful tool for the small farmer but, like the farm
business summary, unallocated income is included in composite
returns. Allocations to capital, labor and management are,
therefore, omitted.
Most croppers and tenants, as well as their landlords, can
estimate out-of-pocket costs (feed, seed, fertilizer, etc.) fairly
accurately for the units they operate, as well as the amount of
family labor required; also probable returns from the production
of crops and livestock in which they are experienced. Thus, by
simple subtraction of out-of-pocket expenses from estimated
gross receipts, they can appraise their probable success under
average conditions. If the amount of their composite returns
equals, exceeds or is less than the amount of their estimated
family labor, the fact is readily ascertained. Thus, operational
decisions can be quickly made.
The landlord can determine his returns with equal facility.
If he wishes to estimate probable returns for his management
and labor he needs only to deduct his cost of total capital from
his returns. In this study the cost of management (Page 30)
was assumed to be half the landlord's composite returns, or
about 16 percent of the gross farm receipts (Table 5) on cropper
units and 14 percent of -he receipts for tenant units. But many
landlords, as well as croppers and tenants, are primarily inter-







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


ested in the amount of money they have remaining over and
above expenses at the end of the year. When this is the in-
formation desired an analysis by the composite-returns method
is ample.
An analysis of contributions and returns by the method used
in this study is difficult (Tables 20 and 21). The difficulty arises
because assigned values are only as reliable as (1) the input-
output data obtained from farmers, (2) decisions made by the
researcher as to what to include and what to exclude and (3)
the values assigned to such items as interest. On small farms
on which costs by enterprises are not kept this analytical pro-
cedure becomes considerably weakened without other support-
ing evidence, such as the normal labor and material requirements
for individual enterprises. In this study the writer was con-
fronted with the task of appraising the value of inputs with
insufficient evidence. The tests were not supportable within
the framework of economic theory. As a result of technical
difficulties, two conclusions were reached. One conclusion was
that the procedure was a method by which farmers could
examine input estimates item by item without checking them
against normal requirements, the second that the analytical
procedure was a tool for the theoretical economist to set up
models for farmers to follow when input-output data are known.
Thus under well-defined conditions the method lends itself to
establishing a concept of equitability. It facilitates bargain-
ing between landlord and tenant when costs are to be shifted or
adjusted to make leasing provisions mutually satisfactory.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
SUMMARY
1. The usual crop-share arrangement in the general farming
arca in Florida was a 50-50 sharing agreement, oral and on an
annual basis. Customarily, landlords, .! -!i'i i., and tenants
divided the gross farm returns in proportion to their respective
contributions.
2. The numbers of white and negro croppers were about
equal in the areas of study but were not equally distributed
throughout the areas. White tenants were twice as numerous
as negro tenants. The mobility of croppers was higher than
for tenants and higher for whites than for negroes. Mobility
was largely an intra-county phenomenon.






Rental Arrangements on Crop-Share Farms


3. Average total acreages planted by croppers and tenants
did not differ materially. Such differences as occurred were
in the way the acreages of cash crops were varied. On the
whole, the per acre yields of the principal cash crops about
equalled or bettered the average for the counties under study.
4. On the average, landlord investments on both cropper and
tenant units were under 82,000. Croppers invested little or
nothing; tenants about 8750 in work power, machinery and
equipment.
5. On the basis of income comparisons, tenants were better
farmers than croppers. Items produced for family use were sub-
stantial contributions to the farm income. Non-agricultural
income was important to both cropper and tenant families.
6. The average cropper devoted about nine months to pro-
ductive farm employment: the tenant about 10 months. The
value of unpaid family labor was about 8330 on cropper units
and 8365 on tenant units. Composite returns for croppers ap-
proximated the value of out-of-pocket expenses, the operator's
time and unpaid family labor; for tenants they also provided
small rewards for management.
7. Rewards to landlord management under cropper arrange-
ments were largest on tobacco farms and under tenant arrange-
ments on peanut farms. The data gave some evidence that both
croppers and tenants earned larger returns when supervised by
their landlords.
8. A contributions-returns ratio was developed to measure
the extent to which the landlord's share of the gross receipts
was not exactly proportional to the contributions creating the
receipts. The CR ratio was also useful in measuring multiple
relationships simultaneously. By such tests, education was
found to be more directly associated with low ratios than length
of tenure or age of operators.
9. Data indicated that the 50-50 crop-share leasing arrange-
ment tended to be fair to the cropper and tenant according to
their rating of fairness, when net incomes were more than enough
to pay all operating expenses, including the value of family labor.
This conclusion applied to single year operations only. Con-
ceivably, further adjustments would be necessary when long-
term soil-building and soil-conserving practices were to be fol-
lowed.






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


CONCLUSIONS
Total farm receipts on most crop-share farms were too small
to provide adequate family incomes. This was reflected in high
mobility rates and in the proportion of operators receiving sub-
sidiary non-agricultural incomes. Thus, many croppers and
tenants were faced with operational decisions relating to farm
organization and systems of farming. First, they could choose
to be full-time farmers and organize farm operations accordingly;
second, part-time or seasonal farmers, engaging in non-agricul-
tural employment to supplement their family incomes; or third,
withdraw from agriculture completely. That all three courses
are being followed is substantiated by census data. The number
of farms of larger acreages has increased during the years; the
number of farm operators employed in off-the-farm work has
been rising also; and the number of tenants in Florida dropped
by 3,000 from 1945 to 1950.
All too frequently efficiency of farm operation can be achieved
only through recombinations of productive resources. For the
landlord, for example, one tenant may suffice for two or three
previously retained. For the tenant, success may mean farm-
ing larger acreages of cash crops, diversifying the farm enter-
prise or placing more emphasis on livestock production. If.
however, the average farm size is increased, not all croppers
or tenants who may want to remain in agriculture will be able
to get farm leases.
Upon society falls the responsibility of providing alternative
work opportunities for the unemployed or partially employed
members of the agricultural labor force. When agricultural
labor is relatively immobile, at least inter-regionally, under-
employed and redundant, the income of an area is depressed.
Croppers and tenants in northern Florida have continued to
accept low farm incomes because of redundancy and other reasons.
Many of them have consistently failed to accumulate savings
and capital originates from savings. Without savings, attain-
ment of cash renting becomes difficult and farm ownership soars
virtually beyond grasp.
Unfortunately, economic considerations envisaging the con-
solidation of farm land for efficiency of operation are unrealistic
if they cannot be integrated with the daily lives of the people.
The individual may prefer residence on an inadequate farm to
living elsewhere. Owner operators, as well as croppers and







Rental Arrangements on Crop-Share Farms


tenants, accept this choice. Many landlords, however, have the
instruments through the resources which they control to enforce
corrective measures, insofar as tenancy is concerned. As a prime
requisite for entering into crop-share leasing agreements they
may insist that croppers and tenants operate farms capable of
providing reasonably acceptable incomes. Once the impedi-
ments created by custom, social conditions and inadequate in-
comes are removed, farm management and other technical aids
can resolve the leasing problems confronting farmers.

COMMITTEE PUBLICATIONS

This publication is the ninth of a series published under the sponsorship
of the Southeast Regional Land Tenure Committee. Previous Committee
publications are:
No. 1. The Farm Tenure Situation in the Southeast. S. C. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bul. 370.
No. 2. Farm Inheritance and Settlement of Estates. Va. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bul. 413.
No. 3. Rural Land Ownership in Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 460.
No. 4. Farm Land Ownership in the Southeast. S. C. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul.
378.
No. 5. Current Farm Leasing Practices in Florida. Bul. 13, So. Coop.
Series, Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta.
No. 6. Rental Arrangements on Tractor and Non-tractor Farms in the
Southern Piedmont. Bul. 21, So. Coop. Series, S. C. Agr. Exp.
Sta.
No. 7. Some Factors in Farm Organization and Returns to Tenants and
Landlords by Type of Leasing Arrangements West Tennessee,
1947. Tenn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 217.
No. 8. Father-Son Farm Agreements. Bul. 1l, So. Coop. Series, Va. Agr.
Exp. Sta.




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

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