40 BULLETIN 874, U. S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
including large numbers of farmers who had prospered during the 
war, who had been intending to purchase farm land, but who for one 
reason or another had postponed action. Fearing that their desires 
might not be realized before values rose too high, these people 
hastened to buy. On the other hand, there were shrewd landowners 
who had long held land for an increase of value who believed it a good 
time to take their speculative profits by sellmg. There were many 
farmers who found themselves able to retire on a comfortable com- 
petence by selling their lands at the increased level of values. 
The professional land dealers did their part to increase the activity | 
and intensify the excitement. They rode from farm to farm per- 
suading farmers to sell and encouraging others to buy, sometimes 
stimulating the movement by fictitious sales. As already noted, a 
large proportion of high-grade farms were sold in the early months 
of the year, and the high prices received were widely advertised. 
Inveterate optimists and professional ‘‘boosters”’ found their opti- 
mism confirmed by the fact that Iowa farm land had ‘‘never gone 
back.’ Stories of sales at unheard-of prices and of large profits 
made over night were prevailing topics of conversation and occupied 
much space in local newspapers. The press made much of the high 
prices of farm products and helped to create the widespread impres- 
sion that high prices of products would continue for a long time. 
Thus there sprang into being among many people a supreme con- 
fidence that prices of farm products would remain at the present 
high levels and that land would continue to increase until $500 and 
$600 per acre would be prevailing values of Iowa farms. Conse- 
quently the great activity in buying and selling land reacted on land 
values, pushing them up more rapidly than they would have increased 
otherwise, while the rising values stimulated increased activity in 
buying and selling. 
IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES. 
One of the most important immediate consequences demonstrated 
by this study is that the increased activity in buying and selling farm 
land resulted in increasing the proportion of farm owners operating 
their farms avhile correspondingly reducing the number of farms 
owned by urban dwellers and operated by tenants. While a con- 
siderable number of farm operators seized the opportunity to sell 
out and retire, this reduction in the number of farms operated by 
owners was more than compensated by the number of farms pur- 
chased by tenants or by owner operators who increased their holdings. 
It is probable, however, that this tendency will not affect to a marked 
_ extent the percentage of tenant farmers, because probably not more 
than 10 per cent of the farms of the State changed ownership during 
the “boom.” On the other hand, this small percentage of change in 
