6 BULLETIN 1224, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
In order to study the long-time relationship between land income and 
land value further data were obtained from a questionnaire sent to 
cash-renting landlords. From this questionnaire data were obtained 
on cash rents for a period of years in several important areas. Data 
on land values to compare with rent series were then obtained, in 
part from recorded deeds, and in part from estimates of the Crop 
Keporting Board of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. 
RELATION OF LAND INCOME TO LAND VALUE IN 1920. 
The amount of cash rent paid on cash-rented farms is reported by 
the census for 1920. It is believed that these average cash rents 
furnish the best data obtainable to show land income. They reflect 
the total income yielded by farm real estate as no figure obtained 
by cost studies can do. Land income determined by cost studies, 
even if it were practical to obtain it by such a method, would show 
only the earning power of the land. The price paid for farm land, 
however, includes a payment for home and community advantages as 
well as a payment for the productivity of the real estate. Cash rents 
reflect the annual value oi both, hence give the best basis for a study 
of the relation of land income to land value. 
The first of the two accompanying maps (fig. 1) shows the average 
cash rent per acre for each of the 567 counties included in the study. 
The second map (fig. 2) shows the average value of the land and 
buildings for the same counties. The county average values were 
obtained directly from the census publications, but the map showing 
the rents is not a county average of all cash rents. In the first place, 
it is based upon the rents paid by the white tenants only. Also, 
when the tenant farmer was probably a relative of the landlord, as 
indicated by identity of name, the farm was excluded from this 
group. 3 
Of the remaining farms only those were used which had been 
occupied by the tenants at the time the census was taken, one year or 
less. Therefore, out of the total number of cases tabulated, only a 
part was used in determining the county average rents. The number 
of cash-rented farms per county so reduced is often rather small, 
so that they may not be typical of all the farms in the county. On the 
average, they may be either better or poorer farms than the general 
run of farms in the county, with the result that the average rent of 
these farms would not be a true average for all farm land in the county. 
To get the county average rent, the ratio of rent to value was com- 
puted on the one-year year tenant farms. Then, assuming that 
this ratio would hold true for aU farms in the county, the average 
rent for the county was obtained by multiplying the county aver- 
age value by this ratio. The average rents shown in the map (fig. 1) 
are these adjusted rent figures. 4 A table showing the average rents 
on the one-year tenant farms will be found in the Appendix. Table 
1 shows the same data by county groups. 
3 Kinship between the landlord and tenant was assumed if their names were similar. This will be more 
fully discussed on pp. 53-55. 
4 In making the maps showing average rents and average values, it was thought better to show county 
averages rather than averages based on rented farms only, because many readers will be interested in 
knowing what the true average rents are. Averages based on the rented farms would, however, be 
as useful for purposes of comparing rents and values if compared to values on the rented farms. 
