4 BULLETIN 13822, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
The percentage valuations of buildings per acre were less in the 
case of the selected farms than in the case of county, State, and 
National averages. It may be assumed, therefore, that the propor- 
tion of real-estate valuations that was in land rather than in build- 
ings was higher in the case of the selected farms. In the case of 
farms in the county, State, and Nation, the rate of increase of the 
land valuations was less than that of the valuations of buildings. 
In the selected farms, however, the rate of increase of the valuation 
of buildings was less than that of the land. 
Although the selected farms had a smaller investment in build- 
ings per acre relative to the land valuation, the investment per farm 
was larger than that of the average farm of the State and Nation. 
In 1920 the average valuation of buildings per farm was $4,212 in 
the case of the selected farms, $2,693 in North Dakota, and $1,781 
in the United States. In Cass County, however, the 1920 census 
showed an average farm to have buildings worth $4,456, or $244 
more than the valuation shown here for the selected farms. 
. GROSS v. NET RENTS 
To distinguish between the gross benefits and the net benefits 
that accrued to these owners it is necessary to separate the gains due 
to appreciation of property valuation from the income derived from 
rents.2. Both types of gains will be expressed in annual terms, al- 
though often thought of best in terms of rotation periods or longer 
spans of time. To make the distinction between gross rent and in- 
crement and net rent and increment, the burdens and costs charge- 
able to each source of gain, so far as permitted by the data, will be 
distinguished and apportioned. 
The contracts used on the selected farms were uniform and un- 
changed, except in minor respects,* throughout the period since 
bonanza farming was replaced by tenancy in 1893. ‘Tenants were 
not restricted from keeping livestock on their own account, but 
neither the natural increase nor the products were shared with 
the landowners. Crops having an aggregate value of $2,246,686 
were divided between tenants and landowners, the half-share basis _ 
being applied, with minor exceptions, to all crops raised, and being 
modified only in years of smallest yield. According to Table 3, less 
than 2 per cent of the aggregate of tenants’ credits on the land- 
owners’ books took the form of pasture rent paid in cash and of 
miscellaneous items. ‘The balance resulted from delivery of crop 
shares. 
3The term “rent” as employed here is not to be confused with ‘‘ economic rent of 
land.” Used here it comprises returns for use of the farm buildings, including tenant 
houses, as well as for use of the land. It is an annual return reduced to terms of 
money, except where otherwise indicated, and is over and above all costs borne by the 
owners, including among costs supervision and general expense. No taxes are deducted 
except when so indicated, and then only real-estate taxes, these including road taxes 
when not otherwise stated. 
4The owners relieved the tenants of paying road taxes after 1913. Between 1896 
and 19138 these taxes had aggregated $3,829, or about 2 cents an acre per year, 
