FAEM OWNERSHIP AND TENANCY IN TEXAS. 
25 
Table 15. — Analysis of incomes of 3' f 3 black-land farms and farm operators, by 
tenure classes. 
Item of income. 
For 6? 
share 
croppers. 
p nr9fi For 343 
For 179 *<£f For 76 operators 
share °™Jf s owner- of all 
tenants. t-Jtii operators, tenure 
nonaI classes. 
1. Farm income J 
2. Farm income plus value of family living furnisher! 
by farm and minus value of operator's Tabor l 
3. Ratio of net return to the total farm capital 2 
$1,217 
1,255 
13.4 
SI, 678 , SI, 609 
1,812 
11.4 
4. Operator's labor income (interest charge! on all 
farm capital at 1\ per cent) 
5. Operator's labor income, plus family living from 
farm (interest at 1\ pe: - cent deducted) 
6. Operator's labor income plus family living from 
farm (interest on capital in equipment at lh per cent 
and on capital in land at 4£ per cent deducted) 
7. Operator's rate of net return on his share of farm 
capital 
8. Landlord's rate of net return on his share of farm 
capital 
9. Actual disposable net income from labor of oper- 
ator and family and from farm investment (interest 
and rent when paid out not included 5 ) 
10. The family's net accumulation of wealth for the 
year ... I 
528 
775 
3 775 
(*) 
.1,094 
149 
702 
1,120 
1,128 
45.7 
291 
8.2 
SI, 757 
1,911 
10.3 
SI, 607 
M 
1,734 
11.3 
-61 
731 
11.2 
7.2 
213 
317 
1,293 
10.7 
2,429 
613 
906 
1,081 
33.7 
5.9 
1,649 
327 
1 No interest on farm capital, whether borrowed or not, is deducted in these figures, and the data are 
based on the operated farm as a. whole, regardless of the tenure of the operator. Each tenant or cropper 
farm is here considered a farm as defined by the Census. The value of family labor on farm is considered 
a farm expense. 
2 Calculated on the basis of item 2. 
s Since rent instead of interest is deducted in calculating the income of tenants, these figures are the same 
as item 5 above, except for share tenants, 36 of whom had 831,824 invested in improvements on the farms 
they operated which caused their labor income to be increased $8 on an average in item 6. 
* Croppers own no farm capital, hence no calculation was made for them. 
5 In this figure no allowance is made for rent and interest on farm capital unless these are actually paid 
out. Therefore, the figure for an owner-operator whose farm is not mortgaged has no rent or interest on 
farm capital deducted, but for operators who actually paid either rent or interest, or both, these items were 
not included in the figure. 
On the other hand, the ratio of net return to the capital invested in 
the cropper farm (item 3) was more than the ratio of net return to 
capital for any of the other tenure classes, and in this regard share 
tenant farms also exceeded the farms of owners. It would seem, 
therefore, that net social wealth is increased proportionally most 
when land is operated in the black land by tenants. 27 However, it 
should be remembered that material wealth is sometimes created at 
a loss to the intellectual, social, and political life of people; and, 
judging from the effects of tenancy on the education of tenants' chil- 
dren (see pp. 56-60). such losses would far outweigh any possible in- 
crease in social wealth that might result from an extension of tenancy 
in the black land. 
The rate of net return on the capital invested in the farm can not 
well be used as an indication of the relative efficiency of the operators 
27 Tenant farms, as has been shown, bave a higher percentage of their acreage in crops, 
a smaller proportion of farm capital in buildings, and no doubt less land is used in yards, 
dwelling sites, and other nonproductive purposes than is the case with farms operated by 
owners, tending to give a higher ratio of net return on the capital invested in the tenant 
farm. With this exception, however, it is doubtful if the less diversified farming of the 
tenant yields a greater net social gain on the capital invested over a long period of time 
than the more diversified farming of owners. 
90872—22 1 
