FARM MANAGEMENT STUDY OF COTTON FARMS. 
15 
siderecl, the land rented out being eliminated -entirely from the busi- 
ness of the farms operated by the owners. 
No farms were encountered in this survey which were rented 
entirely for cash, all rented land in cotton being operated on the 
share basis. This condition may be accounted for as follows: A 
glance at the curve in figure 9 (p. 32) shows that from 1903 to 
1914 three crops of cotton were failures or nearly so, namely, those 
of 1905, 1907, and 1909, which is a failure once in four years on 
the average. Where there are frequent failures, and where there is 
such a wide variation in yield (310 pounds in 1906 to 125 pounds in 
1909). as indicated by the curve above referred to, it is impossible 
to establish any cash rental value that will be equitable to both land- 
lord and tenant. Thus it has come about that practice has estab- 
lished that land rented for cotton is on the basis of one-fourth share 
to the landlord. By this system there is less hardship on either the 
landlord or tenant from a failure of the crop, a matter over which 
neither has any control. Where a large yield is secured, the land- 
lord makes a high rent and the tenant gets proportionately high 
returns. When the yield is poor, both share the misfortune, but the 
tenant's rent is low in proportion to his returns. 
The three leading tenure systems, i. e., owner-operator, share 
renter, and share-cash renter, were found on a sufficient number of 
farms to justify the drawing of certain conclusions from their 
aYerages. 
Table III. — Percentage of crop area in different crops under different tenure 
systems (7!) farms, Ellis County, Tex., in 1914). 
Number 
ol farms. 
Ter cent of crop area in specified crops. 
Per cent 
of crop 
Tenure sj-stem. 
Cotton. 
Com. 
Oats 
(grain). 
Oat hay. 
Other 
crops. 
acreage 
in sec- 
ond 
crops. 
37 
24 
18 
79 
67.2 
73.7 
79.0 
72.5 
15.2 
14.9. 
12.1 
13.3 
2.7 
2.6 
1.2 
2.S 
5.2 
4.6 
2.7 
3.8 
9.8 
4.3 
5.1 
6.5 
1.3 
.6 
.6 
.8 
Table III shows the percentage of crop area in the principal crops 
under these three leading tenure systems. It is seen that the owner 
farms have less cotton and more feed crops than farms under either 
of the tenant systems. Further, the table shows that the owners 
grow second crops slightly more than do the tenants. On the tenant 
farms all cotton is share rented and a part or all of the grain and 
feed crops on the share-cash rent farms' is cash rented. 
Table IV shows that of the 9,781 acres of cotton produced on these 
farms. 10.1 per cent is raised by owners with wage labor, 22 per cent 
