44 
BULLETIN 1400, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
a territory where land was frequently sold without the buildings, 
that would give some basis for appraising separately the market 
values of land and of buildings, but such sales are so rare and unrep- 
resentative that they give no adequate basis. 
Fortunately, statistical methods are available for determining 
what part of the farm value is represented by the buildings, and 
what part is represented by the land, even where neither can be 
directly measured separately. These methods have been applied 
successfully in other areas (4, 11). By the analysis of these farm 
records by this same method, as described in detail in the following 
section, it was possible to determine what part of the total farm 
value was contributed by the dwelling house, and what part was 
contributed by the land and farm buildings. The distribution, 
previously shown in Table 17, is as follows: 
Group of farms 
Dairy farms 
Small dairy 
Mushroom dairy 
Mushroom 
Crop farms 
Total real 
Part due to 
estate 
dwelling 
value 
value 
Dollars 
Dollars 
12,650 
3,228 
10, 189 
3,178 
16, 097 
3,797 
13,842 
4,326 
14, 389 
3, 310 
Part due to 
real estate 
used in 
farm pro- 
duction 
Dollars 
9,422 
7,011 
12,300 
9,516 
11,079 
On the assumption that the rental would be at the same rate on 
both the part of the value represented by the dwelling and on the 
part of the farm used in production, the 4 per cent gross rate was 
applied to the values shown in the last column — the sales value of 
the farm less that part of its value due to the dwelling — to obtain 
the total charge to be made for the use of land and equipment. If 
anything, this assumption errs in the direction of making the charge 
to the farm business too high, as repairs, depreciation, and insurance 
borne by the landlord, are certainly relatively heavier expenses on 
the dwelling than on the other buildings and farm land lumped 
together. In a region where cash renting was a common practice, 
it would be possible by statistical analysis to measure the relative 
importance of dwelling and productive plant in determining the rent 
paid, and to determine what rates should be applied to each indi- 
vidually. In the present survey, however, not enough cash rent 
records were available for such a study, nor would the results ob- 
tained have been of enough importance to justify making it. In 
other areas, where land values are higher and the deduction for the 
use of land makes up a larger part of the charges than it does in this 
area, such a further study might be well worth while. The assump- 
tion as stated, however, was used as a sufficiently accurate working 
hypothesis for the present case. 
The final charge for the use of land, as shown in Table 37, page 40, 
was therefore computed at 4 per cent of the " value of the real estate 
used in the farm business." As shown in this table, the average 
charge for the use of land in the different groups on this basis varied 
from about $600 to $1,000 less than it would have been if made on 
the basis used in " labor income" studies. For individual farms, of 
course, the variation between the two would be much wider. This 
