A study of the tenant systems of farming in the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta

Historic, archived document

Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

v

i.

%

ear

4 «
ee
i :
fj
- i i
_
: .. :
Ps
x
- a -" o ;
- i “
;
7 , ‘
Ba at "oe
: A
7 ; 2
‘ 7
ie
aS 7 a
a :
sits a] -
y _— a
a a
ae
= of UI

ee STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE |

WY
a\iZ \
LENSS ;
PT. Wy,
S

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Contribution from the Office of Farm Management
W. L. Spillman, Chief

Washington, D. C. PROFESSIONAL PAPER January 13, 1916

A STUDY OF THE TENANT SYSTEMS OF FARMING
IN THE YAZOO-MISSISSIPPI DELTA.

By E. A. Borcer, Agriculturist, and E. A. GOLDENWEISER, Statistician,
Office of Farm Management.

CONTENTS.
Page Page
Bumimary of results... ....2.-.-.-052--------- ie| actorsofproduction==*. --52------4-c-eeeee 7
ormtonyStudied:. 02. -:22s22-es22--2-2 28 -- 2 {|p ADOLINCOMS jy awe) base sae oe 10
_ Method of investigation..................-.-- AN wandlords: PLOuts ! so s-ea.< sec Sone aes 12
Methods of renting land...........----.----- 6 | Acreage and yield of cotton............-..-.. 13

SUMMARY OF RESULTS.

This study, made in 1913, is based on 878 records relating to the
business of tenants on plantations in the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta.
Comparison is made between share croppers, who supply nothing
but their labor and receive one-half of the crop; share renters, who
supply their own implements and live stock and receive two-thirds
or three-fourths of the crop; and cash renters, who supply the same
items as share renters but pay a fixed rent in cash or lint cotton.

The principal facts brought out Dy this investigation may be
stated as follows:

The share cropping system is the safest for the tenant. The share
cropper is practically assured of average wages for his work, but he
rarely makes a large income.

The share renter fails more frequently to make even a bare living,
but has a better chance to make a good income than has the share cropper.

The cash renter runs still greater risk of failure, but has the greatest
opporitumty of making a labor income of not less than $1,000.

The average labor income for share croppers was $333; for share
renters, $398; and for cash renters, $478.

From the point of view of the landlord the situation is reversed.
13654°—Bull. 337—16——1

2 BULLETIN 337, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

He is assured of a return of between 6 and 7 per cent on his invest-
ment where the land 1s operated by cash renters, no matter what the
vield or the tenant’s labor income may be.

Where the land 1s worked by share croppers or share renters the
landlord’s rate of interest often falls below 6 per cent, but when the
yield is good and the tenant makes a good return, the rate of interest
sometumes rises to more than three times that amount.

It appears that the landlord can make better money, on the aver-
age, when he rents his land on some system of shares. The average
rate of interest received by the landlord from share croppers was
13.6 per cent; from share renters, 11.8 per cent; and from cash
renters, 6.6 per cent.

The holaiaes of share croppers are considerably smaller, on the
average, than those of share renters or of cash renters, and there are
few share croppers having as much as 25 acres in cotton, while about
one-third of the share renters and of the cash renters have at least
that acreage. The labor income of tenants increases directly with

the increase in cotton acreage, but the rate of interest on the land- —

lord’s investment appears to be but little affected by the size of the
holdings.

The principal factor in determining the amount of the tenant’s
labor income and the rate of the landlord’s profits in this region is
the yield of cotton per acre. The relationship between yield of
cotton and labor income, however, is much closer on cash renters’
farms than on those of share croppers, while the effect of yield on
the landlord’s profits is more apparent under the share cropping
than under the share renting or the cash renting system. The
tenant’s incentive for securing a good crop is consequently greater
among those who rent for cash, but, on the other hand, the landlord

is more directly interested in the magnitude of the yield per acre on

the land of his share croppers.
TERRITORY STUDIED.

The agriculture of the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta! is conducted largely
on the plantation system. Under this system white owners let their
holdings in small tracts among negro tenants, and are very largely
guided in determining the number of acres assigned to each tenant,
and in deciding on the terms of the contract, by the known character
of the tenant, his reliability and his industry, and the size of his
family.

The problems of farm tenure in the Delta are not unlike those
prevailing in other portions of the cotton belt, but are decidedly

. The Yazco-Mississippi Delta includes the following nine counties in Mississippi: Bolivar, Coahoma,

Tssaquena, Leflore, Quitman, Sharkey, Sunflower, Tunica, and Washington, and adjoining parts of Holmes,
Tallahatchie, Warren, and Yazoo Counties.

—

FARMING IN YAZOO—MISSISSIPPI DELTA. 3

different from those prevailing in other sections of the United States.
Broadly speaking, it may be said that the different methods of tenure
in this region represent the various attempts on the part of planters
to secure a satisfactory supply of labor to grow their cotton, and on
the part of tenants to secure the best return for their ability to
produce that crop.

This region, which comprises about 6,400 square miles, is bounded
on the west by the Mississippi River and on the east by a line of
bluffs, and extends from just below Memphis on the north to Vicks-
burg on the south. Prior to the erection of the levees the Delta was
frequently subject to inundations. ‘The soil of the region is as fertile
as is to be found anywhere on the continent. The value of farm
Jand per acre is between $25 and $50 in these counties, according to
the census of 1910, as compared with an average of $14 for the entire
State. This fertile soil, together with a suitable climate, makes the
Delta an excellent cotton region, and, in 1909, 76 per cent of the crop
land in the nine counties was devoted to this crop, 21.2 per cent being
in corn and only 2.8 per cent in all other crops.

The problem of tenancy is especially important in the Yazoo-
Mississippi Delta, as will be seen from Table I.

TABLE I.

[From the Reports of the Thirteenth Census.]

Yazoo-
United | Missis- | Missis-
States sippi. ‘ sippi
Delta.
oucentmenants orm ofall farmers. 25-2 02050 5.082.222. deca 37.0 66. 1 92.0
Average acres per farm operated by—
Owners—
NOT B ss Goce Bo eis Ce Seti i coat Ore med Oe aa eet Ay ee ae a ena 151.6 127.3 123. 4
JIT ORRON BCLS e etre sel eens Ors exc Gis ese esa es ee am a I Lana a 78.5 45.8 54.8
Tenants—
INOW 65565 bo RUSE IS Oe aoe oe rel eens a eet i Meme 5h ae, eee an | 96. 2 34. 5 Zeal
IPR OIRON Ce Be Se bE etre aig = aes 13 meee eee es nee 66. 4 25. 5 21.6
Eercent negroes form of rural population ¢...........................-.-..-- 14.5 57. 5 88. 3
ericent negro tenants form of all tenants......-.-......02..0..2.-..-2.2--- 235i 59. 1 | 95. 4
Per cent of negro farmers that are— |
Owners (including part owners and managers)...-..........-.-...---- 24.7 15. 2 | 5.5
OREMIIS . S68 SRE SLES CUE NEE SARS S & Meola: meinem EAs Sp a seen aie aa | 75. 3 84.8 | 94.5

4 Population outside of places having at least 2,500 inhabitants.

Ninety-two per cent of the farms in the Delta were operated by
tenants. The average size of farms operated by owners was 123
acres, of which about two-fifths was improved land while the average
size of the tenant farms was only 23 acres, nearly all improved. The
average investment in land and buildings on farms operated by owners
was $5,326 and on farms operated by tenants $1,230. Seven-eighths
of the rural population is negro, and negroes form 95.4 per cent of all
the farm tenants.

oe

= BULLETIN 337, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION. |

This investigation is based on 878 records which were secured from
planters or from managers of plantations and refer to the business of
several representative tenants on each plantation during the year 1913. |
The information sought was comparatively easy to secure because the —
transactions involved were few; nearly all of the cash income was
derived from the sale of cotton and of cotton seed and sometimes of corn,
while the items of expenditure were very largely confined to those for |
feed and for hired labor, together with depreciation, repair, and insur-
ance charges on buildings and machinery. The investigation did not
cover loans or advances by planters to tenants, but was confined to the |

study of the agricultural returns under the different methods of renting. —
~The location of the farms from which records were secured is shown —
by figures on the accompanying map (fig. 1). |

The records were secured in March and April, 1914, and referred to
the crop year 1913. The cotton crop for that year was better than
the average, and the corn crop was about average, being rather poor
in the extreme southern part of the territory. Table II shows the
average yield of cotton and of corn in each of the nine counties wholly
included in the Delta, as reported by the Census for 1909, as estimated —
for 1910, 1911, 1912, and 1913, and as found on the plantations visited _
during this investigation. For the entire territory the cotton yield on
the land investigated was 0.66 bale per acre as compared with 0.47, the
average for 1909-1913, while the corn yield was 24 bushels per acre in’
each-case.

Taseno ld.

Yield per acre of cotton (bales).

County | Estimates. eee
| Census Average |/™ ¥

| 1909. 1909-1913, tenants

1910 | 1911 | 1912 | 1913 Inv esi

gated
|
Bolivar tee are eet ements | 0.38] 0.80] «0.33/ 0.58] 0.64] 0.49 0.57
Coshomans 262s es eee 48 45 36 | 48 a0 46 71
ISsAquenas tease Se soe Sse so oas 8 . 49 - 61 49 50 .35 47 51
WeMOTehckk cocker sce see eee a ek eS -38 44 - 40 | -d9 . 64 . 49 . 69
Quitman ea ee ae eine nena -50 .41 . 46 - 62 . 66 ag: . 6
Sharkéys toc < \ eie eeS SeS ae | +45 Bb Daly tet 269 42 .56 45 63
Sunflower. ...--.---- We eae eee a eraieinres oa ee - 40 47 -33 59 . 67 .49 78
BF aTGA ese cea ee NE ls oa .33 45 .39 .42 41 52
Washtne lone s ss. 24s a Sea ee 49 53 -30 | -50 59 48 Th
Average for 9 counties............. | 243 | 46 | .35 .53 59 AT 66
Yield per acre of corn (bushels).
Bolivaret) se esses oer ee eer ee [ee Gy | = oe |e oes eae 26 19
CoahOma nse a5 Sekt cee | 23 (2) 20 35 22 25 28
TSSAQUCNIA gs See es eae eee ok os meee 19 (a) 27 20 10 19 23
Leflore... 3 see oS ee bee ee 18 (2) 25 28 20 23 23
Qinciian Gate eee 22| (a) (b) (>) (b) 29 22,
Ghapkeyesin eon ke Bt Su re ee 19| (a) 33. | (0) 18 23 21
SUNT OW ET os oes eee oe le ee 22 a) 28 25 35 28 22
Manica ete eo ee ee eee 22] (2) | () (>) 20 22 32
Wiashinghonee. =. 2 ot ee ae ee ere 2 See 20 (a) (0) 19 22 20 28
Average for 9 counties -—- 2.2... .2._.- 20 | (2) “I 26 | 26 | 24 | 24 24
a No figures available for 1910. b No data.

FARMING IN YAZOO—MISSISSIPPI DELTA.

S, TENNESSEE

MARSHALL

LAFAYETTE

APRAANSGAS

¢ C7 ’ Se
GREENWOOD ©
9
8 2
9 i,

wh

ATTALA

(SEGUE
MAYERSVILLE 6 4 /
75 4 ee LEAKE
7 Y/FALISON
Tt 2 {
< > ,
ae
NS } 77
Ny Uh u SCO!
|
oP
Q HiNDS | . -
| /
NX 7 /

Fig. 1.—The Yazoo-Mississippi Delta. Figures show the number of records taken in each locality.

6 BULLETIN 337, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
METHODS OF RENTING LAND.

Three general systems of renting land, with many variations, are
practiced in the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta, each of the systems having |
advocates among planters and among tenants. On large plantations
all three of the systems are sometimes found side by side. The main
points of the three systems are described in the following paragraphs: —

Half-and-half system (share croppers).—Under this system the tenant —
supplhes the labor and one-half of the fertilizers, when any are used, |
while the landlord furnishes the land, a cabin, a garden plot, all the |
tools, the work animals and their feed, the seed, one-half of the ferti-
lizers used, and the tenant’s fuel wood, which the tenant cuts from |
the nearest available woodland, using the landlord’s mules for
hauling. Each party under this system receives half the crop and
each pays for his half of the gimning, bagging, and ties. If, as hap- |
pens occasionally, another crop besides corn and cotton is grown, it |
is also divided equally between landlord and tenant. Cowpeas are
frequently planted in the corn at the last cultivation with the seed
usually furnished by the landlord. In this case all the hay, if cured,
goes to the landlord. The tenant is often allowed to pasture it if he |
has a cow or other stock. The landlords exercise careful supervision —
over the share croppers, who are locally not considered as tenants at —
all, but as laborers hired to do the work in return for half the crop and —
the use of a cabin. |

Sometimes under this system the tenant pays cash for the use of |
the land not planted in cotton and for the use of the planter’s equip- _
ment in working it. In such cases the tenant receives all the crops
raised in this manner.

Share renting system.—Under this system the tenant furnishes his
own work stock and feeds it, and also supplies tools, seeds, and all
labor, while the owner provides the land, the buildings, and the fuel.
If fertilizers are used under this system, they are paid for in the ratio
of each party’s share of the crop. The tenant pays as rent a share of
the crop, one-fourth in some sections and one-third in others. The
use of the land in corn is sometimes paid for in cash and the tenant
then retains all the crop. Each party to this agreement pays for
ginning and bagging his part of the cotton. The landlord is interested
in the crop and oversees the tenant’s operations, but is not so much
concerned about the economical use of mules and machinery, since
they belong to the tenant.

Cash renting system.—This system is similar to the share renting
system, except that in lieu of a share of the crop the tenant pays a
fixed rent per acre in cash or in lint cotton. Since the cotton is sold
through the planter, he is sure of his rent provided a crop is raised,
but since he can not collect his rent if there is no crop, and since also ~
the tenant is usually indebted to him for supplies advanced, the

FARMING IN YAZOO—MISSISSIPPI DELTA. |

landlord exercises supervision ove

r the cash renters, except in the

case of renters whom he knows to be dependable.
Table III summarizes in convenient form the principal terms of

the three systems of tenure:

TABER OUI.

Method of renting.

Share cropping. Share renting. Cash renting.
Landlord furnishes....--. MMe; nT CL as thes ee ae Paar WGC WS eee sees ecesdde Land.
House or cabin........-- HiouUSeIOr Cabin... ..--- 4. House or cabin.
Moolsian sd ssee eee ee es UO Maae a seeeee ne nee ae [manele
Works stockssaae ase. One-fourth or one-third
Feed for work stock..... of fertilizers.
CSTE 0 bes ey EO iy OOS OES OT IE EIS Oe OIG OI One oy cries Seer mes
One-haltvohiertilizerseaa|ee ses eee yee ee te
HYUTG eapreare sya ees ofS ciat eal a WOME MEY Or yaa at A ee VS
Tenant furnishes. .......- PNM eawores sae ororesos Wa bOrseeks kosk yee Labor.
One-half of fertilizers....| Work stock.......-.---. Work stock.
Feed for work stock....| Feed for work stock.
LOOMIS cee eee eee ee Tools.
SGedSia. is aarodce eee Seeds.
Three-fourths or two- | Fertilizers.
thirds of fertilizers.
Landlord receives. ....-.-| One-half of the crop..... One-fourth or one-third | Fixed amount in cash o1
of the crop. lint cotton.
Tenant receives. ....-...-.- One-half of the crop...-.- Three-fourths or two- | Entire crop less fixed
thirds of the crop. amount.

FACTORS OF PRODUCTION IN RELATION TO METHOD OF RENTING.

Table IV presents the relationship between the principal factors of
production and the method of renting land.

TABLE IV.

All Share Share Cash
records. |croppers.| renters. | renters.
NOME OTROLER OC OF Siete sc jartyaye leet fay aa\- care Pate ons sya Sas os /SrSeters ep opeea 878 445 136 297
Acreage in crops per tenant:
Otal.... 2-2-2. -e eee eee eee 23.4 1 27.1 28. 0
WOTTON MR as ime tN een eo eee eS ae eee EY 19.5 17.0 20. 2 22.6
Rencent MyCot vom a tems uay selina ioc t ema cess 83.0 88.0 71.0 81.0
COMM. .2o5 cost oathdbsessoncbesuedsstgas comusetasscsaconaree 3.9 Og) 6.0 5.3
Naieldvoncotton per acre (bales)... ---.2.--2-2.-- S22 ena cee 0. 66 0.69 0.69 0. 61
Naeldotcorn per/acre/ (bushels)... 2222) 2522202222 eee at 24.0 24.0 23.0 24. 0
Average value of farm property per tenant:
pi Gt at eee eelaatcfe eee ae ep a i ee eee G2, 1 OK00 (G1) S11. 009/$22504 00) e205 74500
LEING sj eo og mormon Jddadd > Sob 6sbc08 obese bease me schol ecccon 1,674.00 | 1,378.00 | 1,929.00 | 2,001.00
AES Unt GUT Se eer seas cte ce uence re tees ated je: avan c, 2) ART Mercere 240. 00 210. 00 273. 00 269. 60
WTEC, he pes ee Se at ca RU Se SS RR os 222. 00 194. 00 248. 00 253. 00
LON DIGITS s 3 Shots acme e Seco tens) eee peer oe) Seer 40.00 29.00 54.00 51.00
Average value of farm property per acre:
ROUB. oo santos BER e dese es ee ot Gas Aes DORE gees tae ce sa 92.92 93.95 92. 40 92. 09
WUBIN. Goa deb cunt cepec nee 7h Aa8 Hee Soe Ae Beane Seseec Se ecoer 71.47 71.49 71.16 71.59
SSSA gy hy ee i a i Nhl a 10. 23 10. 87 10. 09 9.64
ATTN at a A Rle ed Aaa a ee a e e| 9.49 10.07 9.15 9.03
PIAGLOMMOMES ei te te nein eee See san? ok cee menoiens 1.73 1.52 2.00 1.83
Average number of mules per tenant......-.....--------------- 1.36 1.03 1.69 1.68
BEV ORISOR Ale OleIMUNES <2. 5 hci dona s oa ie cia ssn ee eee crea $164.00 | $187.00 | $147.00 $150. 00
Averace mumiber, of crop acres per mule................-..-.---- 17.3 18.5 16.1 16.7
Average number of bales of cotton per mule..............-.---- 9.5 2, 8.5 8.2
eens ona norm ames.. i) hie) wai as Seed ee $392.00 | $333.00 | $398. 00 $478. 00
Average amount earned by outside labor..............-...-.--- 23. 00 27.00 25. 00 15. 00
Swericonaluierontamily labor... og 118. 60 103. 00 139. 00 132. 00
Eavenavemaluo of hired labore... ..-.---2--25--2+---42cseeeeee! 58. 00 31. 00 72. 00 85. 00
Proportion of total income received by labor (per cent)...-..... 73.0 67.0 70.0 82.0
Average rate of interest on landlord’s investment (per cent)... 10.6 13.6 11.8 6. ¢

8 BULLETIN 337, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

it will be seen that cash renters and share renters had, on the aver-
age, 28 and 27 acres of cultivated land, respectively, while share
croppers had only 19 acres. The share croppers’ land was more
exclusively devoted to cotton than that of the renters.

The yield of cotton per acre was 0.69 bale for share croppers and
share renters, as compared with 0.61 for cash renters, indicating that
the cash renters produce smaller crops than the share renters or share
croppers, in the magnitude of whose crop the landlord is directly
concerned. The assumption. that the landlords sometimes assign the
poorer land to cash renters since yield per acre does not directly con-
cern the landlord, is not borne out by Table IV.

The average investment was considerably less ($1,811) in holdings
of share croppers than in those of share renters ($2,504) or of cash
renters ($2,574), but the difference was due very largely to the fact
that the share croppers’ holdings were smaller, since the value of land
and of buildings per acre did not differ materially for the different
types of tenants. The average value of tools, however, was only
$1.52 per acre on share croppers’ land, as compared with $2 on share
renters’ and $1.83 on cash renters’, indicating that less machinery is
used on share croppers’ holdings. Owing to cooperation, the ma-
chinery is generally more fully utilized by share croppers than by the
other tenants.

_A difference worth noting is that for share croppers, where the
mules are supplied by the landlord, the average value of mules was
$187, while for share renters it was $147 and for cash renters $150.
The landlords supply better mules than do the tenants and see to it
that good use is made of the mules, the average number of bales of
cotton and the average number of acres cultivated per mule being
considerably greater where the mules belong to the landlords than
where they belong to the tenants.

The labor income of tenants was $333 for share croppers, $398
for share renters, and $478 for cash renters. By labor income is
meant the amount the farmer gets for his individual year’s work
exclusive of the use of a house and the food and fuel furnished by
the farm. It is computed by subtracting from the net receipts all
expenses, including value of unpaid family labor, as well as interest
on investment a allowances for fantesniica and repairs.’ It

1 The items of expenditure were determined by obtaining estimates from the 160 planters interviewed,
each planter’s figures being used on the records for his plantation. The averages of the estimates given
by the pianters for the various items of expenditures were as follows:

Hepreciation and: msuranceiom buildings. 252 ee Se. je ee per cent-- 6.0
Repalrsionm buildings gk Sos cae See ee i Ae ee Ree ee do...- 4.5
Depreciation of mules sae eee toe = eee re eee ee do.._-. 10:4
Depreciation of implements and: tools. 222-2) eee e eee ees bee a eri OS 22050
Repairsiotinip] ements ard Ochs aire syste ee re ne rea DO sais ESS Z
Costioifeedizis one mules: maces eh. esr en eae ST oe a ae ey nee ee $94. 00
Caostofjginninge and wrappme per bales : >a. sya a SL eee $3. 50

CostiohOVversceime Per acret see awe So Say Paes ieee eee eee so ap ae ee ae $1. 51

FARMING IN YAZOO—MISSISSIPPI DELTA. 9

appears that the tenant, on the average, receives more for his labor
on land rented for cash and on the share renters’ land than on land
' operated by share croppers. ‘This difference is probably influenced
~ but not entirely accounted for by the size of holdings, the labor
~ income being $18 per acre for cash renters, $17 for share croppers,
- and $15 for share renters. The relationship between labor income

~ and type of tenure is further considered on page 10.

_ A question of importance is, what share of the total income pro-
_ duced on the land rented by the different methods remains in the

hands of the persons who work the land, after the landlord has been
' paid? The total amount received by labor is the sum of the labor

~ income, including money earned by work outside of the farm, plus

- the value of the unpaid labor of the tenant’s family, and the cost of
- hired labor. Out of every dollar earned by the farms included in
_ this study 73 cents went to labor. This amount is much higher
_ than corresponding amounts in other sections of the country studied
by the Office of Farm Management; in the corn belt labor receives
about 50 cents out of every dollar of income, and in some of the
intensive farming regions of the east, 53 cents. The cash renters
in the Delta retained 82 cents out of every dollar earned; the share
renters, 70 cents; and the share croppers, 67 cents.

The average rate of interest on the landlord’s investment was
13.6 per cent on land rented to share croppers, 11.8 per cent on
land in the hands of share renters, and 6.6 per cent on land operated
by cash renters.

No allowance has been made in these rates for taxes paid by the
landlord on his land, so that about 1 per cent should be subtracted
from the above figures to obtain the net earnings on the investment.
The relationship between the landlord’s profits and the system of
tenure is further discussed on page 12.

A measure of the productivity of the tenants’ labor under the
different systems of tenure may be obtained by comparing the
amounts produced by the tenants, after subtracting the value of
the labor of the tenants’ families and of hired labor. (Table V.)

TABLE V.
All Share Share Cash
Per tenant. : tenants. |croppers.} renters. | renters.

Value of cotton sold:
TNE SS SO IE RSET eee Se eat eT uae a te a ne yee $845 $757 $940 $932
SOOG oc Soda AUN SUN ES Aes UNS Fea See ee meee UN ns greene ter 139 126 151 153
Mia Ineronconneraised syne) eine nae oc ek RO 72 40 100 100
Value of labor performed outside of farm.....................-. 23 27 25 15
Total value of products and of outside labor.............- 1,079 950 1, 216 1, 200
> Value of family labor and of hired labor..............---.---+-- 174 134 211 217
Waluemroduced pyitemant so. aks oe 3 eee eee 905 816 1,005 983

13654°—Bull. 337—16——2

10 BULLETIN 337, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

The share cropper produced $816, the share renter $1,005, the cash
renter $983. This difference in productivity may be duc in part to
the relative size of the holdings cf the different classes of tenants, but
is more directly attributable to the greater amount of family labor
and hired labor employed by the renters, since the value of the addi-
tional crop produced by the labor is greater than the wages paid. It
may also be that cash renters and share renters, as a class, are more
industrious than share croppers.

EABOR INCOME IN RELATION TO METHOD OF RENTING.

Table Vi shows the number and the percentage of each class of
tenants whose labor income fell in each specified group, and the aver-
age labor income for each group. The accompanying chart (fig. 2)
presents the percentages graphically.

“Taste VI.

Labor income.

_ Class of tenants. Total.| _ _,.| Un- | $100 | $200 | $300 | s400 | $500 | $600 | $700 | sso0 | $900 | s1,000
= der | to to to to to to to to to | and
- 1$100. | $199. | $299. | $399. | $499. | $599. | $699. | $799. | $899. | $999. | over.

Number having each income,

Alb iensnis 878| 18] 35| 105| 194] 209|-123] 62] 39] 34] 19 9 31
Share croppers...-..- 445 1 12 57 123 143 61 26 12 6 YW ieacin Se 2
Share renters....... 136 4 7\ 20°} = Sth 954 4 0 8 8 5 1 4
Cash renters........ 297-1. A311, 464 28 |. 50 S0pl a 26) 1 ON eb ed 8 25

Per cent having each income.

All tenants. ........ 100.0] 2.0} 4.0] 12.0 | 22.1] 23.8] 14.0] 7.1] 4.4; 3.9] 2.2] 1.0 3.5
Share croppers...-..-}| 100.0 SQN Qed | AZ5S [52766 s2k 1327) SyS 25 7a ads 50 theese a)
Share renters. .....- 100.0] 2.9] 5.1|14.7]15.4]18.4)16.9] 7.4] 5.9] 5.9) 3.7 7 3.0
Cash renters .....-.- 100.0} 4.4] 5.4] 9.4/]16.9]13.8] 13.1] 88] 6.4] 67] 4.0] 2.7 8.4
Average income for each income group.
All tenants. -....---- $392 | $64 | $63 | $156 | $249 | $345 | $447 | $542 | $649 | $746 | $857 | $950 /$1, 344
Snare croppers......} 333] 126 68} 162] 250) 342) 447 | 536 | 648 | 752] 887 |.-.... 1, 455
Share renters. .-..-- 398 77 62| 154) 256] 3438] 447) 542) 626] 750) 847 910 | 1, 220
Cash renters -...---- 478 56 59 | 146] 245] 354| 448 | 547 | 656] 743] 856! 956 | 1,355

Only one of the share croppers had a deficit during the year, that
is, received less for his share of the cotton than the value of his family’s
labor, and only 2.7 per cent of them made less than $100; the great
majority of the share croppers (86.3 per cent) had labor incomes of
between $100 and $499, and only one-tenth of them made as much as
$500. Of the share renters 2.9 per cent reported deficits and 5.1 per
cent positive incomes of less than $100; about two-thirds made
between $100 and $499, and more than one-fourth made $500 and
over. In the case of cash renters 4.4 per cent lost money and 5.4

FARMING IN YAZOO—MISSISSIPPI DELTA. 1h

er cent made less than $100; but only a little more than one-half
(53 per cent) had labor incomes of between $100 and $499, and 37 per
cent made $500 or more, as many as 25, or 8.4 per cent, being in the
$1,000 and over class. Thus the share croppers run a smaller risk of
losses or of incomes below $100, but on the other hand only one-tenth
of them rise above $500 and almost none above $1,000. In the case
of the share renters there are more failures, more very small incomes,
but also more incomes of over $500; while of the cash renters about

- one-tenth make less than $100, a little more than one-haif make
between $100 and $499, and more than one-third make $500 or more.
Table VII brings out the differences between the earnings of the
three classes of tenants in a different manner. This table shows what

SHARE G3 CROPPERS SHARE 233 RENTERS CASH ==] RENTERS

LABOR DEFICIT UNDER #10 oT S S200 eee SrGaiomitecaToNsoaoIo eon Labor}

INCOME, $100 S109. $599 8699 $799 $899 $999 OVER _ INCOME}

Fia. 2.—Percentage of tenants in each labor income group.

proportion of each class of tenants made labor incomes of not less
than $100, not less than $200, etc. Of the share croppers 84.3 per cent
_ made at least $200, as compared with 77.3 per cent of the share renters
and 80.8 per cent of the cash renters, but of the share croppers only
24.6 per cent made as much as $400, of the share renters 43.5 per cent
and of the cash renters 50.1 per cent; so that cash renters had twice
as good a chance of making not less than $400 for their labor as did
share croppers. The difference in favor of the cash renters becomes
even greater in the higher income groups, the share renters always
occupying an intermediate position between the other two classes.
Por instance, only one share cropper in a hundred made as much as
$800, as compared with 7 share renters and 15 cash renters; only one
share cropper in 200 made a labor income of as much as $1,000, as

12 BULLETIN 337, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

compared with one in 33 share renters and one in 12 cash renters.
The risk in share cropping is the smallest, but so is the possible reward,
while in cash renting both the risks and possible rewards are much
higher. When all the cases are averaged, however, it appears that
cash renters make one-half again as much as share croppers, while
share renters make about one-fifth more than share croppers.

TaBLe VII,

Percentage having a labor income of not || Percentage having a labor income ofnot

less t each specifi m : | i :
Amount s than each specified amount |" Amount less than each specified amount
sent Seats. ye Tene pT Te pe ag eel
ancome- {| All | Share | Share | Cash || ™°OM®- |. an | Share*| Share | Cash
tenants. |croppers.| renters. | renters. tenants. | croppers. | renters. | renters.
USS - 98. 0 98. 8 7-3 95. 6 $600... - 15.0 5.1 19.2 28. 2
$100..... 94.0 97.1 92. 0 90. 2 (OOEo =: 10. 6 2.4 12.3 21.8
ZOO Ess 82. 0 84. 3 77.3 80. 8 800...- 6.7 1.0 7. 4 15.1
300....- 59. 9 56. 6 61.9 63. 9 900... - 4.5 0.5 3.7 1nd
4002 2.5 \- 36. 1 24. 6 43.5 50. 1 |] 1,000.-.-. 3.5 0.5 3.0 8.4
500... - 22.1 10.1 26. 4 37.0

LANDLORDS’ PROFITS IN RELATION TO TENANTS’ LABOR INCOME.

Table VIII shows the rate of interest received by landlords on their
investment in farms whose tenants made each specified labor income.
The accompanying chart (fig. 3) shows the relationship graphically.

Tasie VIII.
Labor income.
Class of tenants. | $1.000
All |neges, | Under | $100 to | $300 to | $500 to | $700 to | 745
tenants.) ~ “| $100. $299. $499, $699. $999. Buee
Number of tenants in each labor income group.

INTE PENT kes Be a dO 878 18 35| 299, 332 101 62 31
Siiare Coppers. 22 fae eee es 445 1 $2) 1.52480 204 38 8 2
share Tenters.2<) Sens ee Gee ee See 136 = 7 | 41 48 18 14 4
Cashirenterss ese) come mee erences 297 13 16 | 78 80 45 40 25

Average rate of interest on landlord’s investment on holdings of
tenants in each labor income group.

- | }
AULT CNANTSE ee eee cee ae ate ere 10.6 7.0 5.5 | 8.2 iPAY/ 13. 2 9.6 10. 2
Sharecreppers = 2o.6 peas Lee ae ke 13.6 iA 3.1 8.7 15.5 19.8 18. 2 25. 7
HHAre TENterss- see ee ae ee eee 11.8 fia 8.0 9.2 12. 4 13.3 14.8 16.6
Washi TERLETS sss sec cae eee | 6.6 8.0 ad 6.8 6.7 €.4 6.0 dak
|

The landlord made only 1.1 per cent on his investment in the case
of the share cropper who lost money and only 3.1 per cent where
the tenant made under $100, but the rate increased rapidly with the
tenants’ labor income, and in the cases where the tenant made as
much as $1,000 he gave the landlord a return of over 25 per cent

FARMING IN YAZOO—MISSISSIPPI DELTA. 138

on his investment. In case of the share renters the landlord in no
group averaged less than 7.1 per cent and his rate of interest rose as
high as 16.6 per cent where the tenant had a labor income as high as
$1,000. In the case of cash renters the landlord’s rate of interest
varied within much narrower limits, the lowest being 5.7 per cent,
where the tenants made less than $100, and the highest, 8 per cent,
where the tenants reported a deficit.

The variations in the rates of the landlords’ interest are somewhat
irregular owing to the small numbers involved, but in general it is clear
that the landlord takes the greatest chances and, when successful,
reaps the highest rewards from share croppers; with share renters the

AVERAGE] -
Pato] SHARE CROPPERS __ SHARE RENTERS CASH RENTERS RATE OF |

Fig. 3.—Rate of interest on landlords’ investments in relation to tenants’ labor income.

risks are less, and so are the possible rewards; while with cash renters
the landlord takes a mmimum risk and is assured of a return of 6 or 7
per cent on his investment, which is less than he would ordinarily
receive for money loaned in this locality with land as security.

TENANT’S LABOR INCOME AND LANDLORD’S PROFITS IN RELATION
TO ACREAGE IN COTTON AND YIELD PER ACRE.

it has been seen (page 7) that the share croppers averaged 17 acres
im cotton, as compared with 20.9 acres for share renters and 22.6 acres
for cash renters. Table 1X shows the actual number and the per-
centage of each class of tenants that had a cotton acreage within
each specified size group. A derivative table showing the percentage
having not less than each acreage in cotton is also presented (Table X).

14 BULLETIN 337, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

TasBLe IX.
Number of each class of tenants that | Percentage of each class of tenants that
have each specified acreage in cotton. have each specified acreage in cotton.
Acres in cotton.
All Share Share Cash All Share Share Cash
tenants. | croppers.| renters. | renters. | tenants. | croppers.| renters. | renters.
Sec ARES We || ns RR See Mme EUW eon ene brig Ly ie
Mo tales een 878 445 136 297 100. 0 100.¢ 100.0 100.0
Winder OIACreSeyaacers sal eee eres losin a iyaee | eal iesre coer Bee esa sie Stel] S cpaie wists See eee eee eter ete ree eres eaneeae)
5) tO. 9 AaCheS aa 4-eeeieoe 30 22 1 7 3.4 5.0 0.7 2.4
10 to 14 acres.......-- 205 139 25 41 23.4 ole, 18. 4 13.8
il SybOslOjaCreseees tees 291 167 39 85 Bard BHGO) 28.7 28. 6
20'to 24 acres: 2.22222 173 79 28 66 19.7 17.8 20.6 22.2
25:to 29 ACCS o-4- hee 70 17 25 28 8.0 3.8 18. 4 9.5
30 to 34 acres....----- 51 8 13 30 5.8 1.8 9.6 10.1
S511) SO GVOR Soon casss- 23 5 1 17 2.6 ileal atl 5.
40 to 44 acres.....---- 15 4 3 8 Taig 9 2.2 2.7
45 to 49 acres.....---- OT epee eer Sie Bere dn 9 1 ONES Gee | SSE 3.0
50 acres and over..--.- iit 4 | le) 6 1.3 9 ad 2.0
| | i H 1 I
TABLE X
Percentage of each class of
tenants having not less than
each specified acreage in
‘ cotton.
Acreage in cotton. |
Share Share Cash
croppers.| renters. | renters.
Not less than— |
RCT OS re ee oak I ae GA VER a ee | Se ag 2 a es 100. 0 100.0 100. 0’
A QIACLOS sos Ses ees tee erick eisai e oe cae 6 od aU ere cy eS 95.0 99. 97.6
WP SRACH OSE jirastsiccevs Ste c eeyere erons olers ie ei Sgaee 2 ais wa a ie ORS OES Bt ae mee 63.8 80.9 83.8
DACHOS HS lhe ee Me ee Os eS ee aa ee | 26.3 52.2 55.2
ZOIACT OSS ae eae re hans ae ret aa TO ee eee eee eerie el 8.5 31.6 33.0
SOPACEOS TEs oN Utercanscr aa recaie ie ae eats wie) ccd a re Ln EU re etc eet en en 4.7 13. 2 23.95
DOMAGLESEME eee a, ET SE SS SOS SL EN Ral oe ED ae 2.9 3.6 13.4
A (NACHOS Ear Se epoca can tes oe eras nial se States astra en ee nee re 1.8 2.9 lente
A NACHOS Sara ste) siesta ee per oe os Reape edia = eine 6 I Sere eon crs ee .9 oul 5.0
DOIACRES 3s eee ERs Sock SARS RG Sis Bae eels ee oe 2 alt an en ere Rise e at ep | 9 eit 2.0

Each of the tenants studied had at least 5 acres of cotton; of the
share croppers 95 per cent had 10 acres or more, of the share renters
99.3 per cent, and of the cash renters 97.6 per cent. Less than two-
thirds of the share croppers had as much as 15 acres, and only about
one-fourth had 20 acres or more, while of the share renters and of
the cash renters the majority had 20 acres or more and about one-
third had 25 acres or over. The proportion of share croppers having
as much as 30 acres was only 4.7 per cent, and in the groups above
that acreage the proportion was insignificant. Of the cash renters
nearly one-fourth had as much as 30 acres in cotton, more than one-
eighth had 35 acres, 7.7 per cent had 40 acres, 5 per cent had 45
acres, and 2 per cent had 50 acres or more. Relatively nearly as
many of the share renters as of the cash renters had 25 acres or over,
but considerably fewer share renters had a larger acreage, and only
one had as much as 50 acres.

Table XI shows the relationship between size of cotton acreage,
tenant’s labor income, and rate of interest on landlord’s investment.

\

FARMING IN YAZOO—MISSISSIPPI DELTA. 15

TasLe XI.
Tenants having each specified acreage in
eotton.
Class of tenants. |
25 acres
2 Under | 15-19 | 20-24
Total. |15 acres.| acres. | acres. and
over.
All tenants:
Number having each acreage. ....................-....---- 878 235 291 173 179
Pencentmavineeaech acreage. 2 ee a 100. 0 26.8 33.1 19.7 20. 4
PART CLAS CH AO THT COMO ape y ee crete Seep eo aia aaa ete cue $392 $293 $332 $387 $622
Rate of interest on landlord’s investment.............. Ue ea 10.6 12.0 10.5 11.4 9.4
Share croppers:
Number having each acreage...............-..22.---2--5-2 445 161 167 79 38
er cent navan'eeachtaereag@es 22-26 ee. 2 eee an ee 100. 0 36. 2 led ars 8.5
PASViCRa Ce AD OTs COMM! users see creer erelar ete iata ciara ate $333 $285 $314 $388 $493
Rate oi interest on landlord’s investment.............--.-- 13.6 13.8 12.6 lbyal 1353
Share renters:
Numibeniavanie'eachiaeneagemn: ke. 0 Vee eis eee ee 136 26 39 28 43
Per cent having each acreage. ............-...--..--..----- 100. 0 19.1 28.7 20.6 31.6
IAWV.CE ACO] AMOR TN COMMS eee Mey tN ts 2 52) eee Soa 2 a $398 $334 $308 $386 $525
Rate of interest on landlord’s investment................-- 11.8 10.8 10. 4 Dee 12.6
Cash renters: |
Niimibeninavine each acreagenmer. 5s... 8s ee | 297 48 85 66 98
Per cent having each acreage. ................--..--------- 100.0 16. 2 28.6 PSP 33.0
MVierac cla bOnimcOmMmessa oer cece ec sone cee cc ee ae. | $478 $295 $380 $386 714
Rate of interest on landlord’s investment ................-- 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.5

The labor income of the tenants increases steadily, with but one
exception, with the increase in the acreage of cotton. The principal
reason why the cash renters make a much higher average labor income
is that one-third of them have 25 or more acres in cotton. The
difference in average labor income between the classes of tenants is
not so marked on the smaller holdings, but becomes very decided on
holdings of 25 acres or more. This point is brought out in Table XIT,
in which the average labor income in each size group is figured for
share renters and cash renters on the basis of 100 for share croppers.

TABLE XII.
Average labor income in holdings falling
within each size group (on basis of 100
for share croppers).
Class of tenants.
Under 15] 15 to 19 | 20 to 24 | 25 acres
acres. acres. acres. |and over.
STOOPS GROID DA RGSS eI ERs STRUM RRe ae ah Pa 100 100 100 100
ISIDAROMGOMICCES HAY wes meee hanna IMR Nace SOR a RE Oe 117 98 99 107
WaShROMILEHS sae ne ee he ee op ee Dist CARO SAAMI hc ARNEL. 7 RINE A 104 121 99 145

The figures suggest the conclusion that the method of renting land
is comparatively unimportant on small holdings where the labor in-
come of all classes of tenants is low, but where the tenant has as
much as 25 acres in cotton, the cash renters have a decided advantage
over the other tenants.

16 BULLETIN 337, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

The rate of interest on the landlord’s investment varies but little
with the acreage in cotton, but there seems to be a tendency for the
rate to be slightly higher on the larger holdings of share croppers and
share renters and on the smaller holdings of cash renters.

A study of the relationship between size of holdings and yield of
cotton per acre seems to indicate, as is shown in Table XIII, that the
yields vary but little and rather irregularly in holdings of different
sizes, with a tendency for somewhat larger yields on smaller holdings.

TABLE XELE.

Average yield of cotton per acre for tenants whose
cotton acreage falls within each size group.

Class of tenants.
All Under 15} 15 to 19 | 20 to 24 | 25 acres

classes. acres. acres. acres. |and over.
UTE EQTI IIE sree CURE oN a SEONG Se ee a ee ae 0. 66 0.73 0. 64 0.65 0.65
DHALC CLEPPOlS sea. cee. | see ch ee eee 69 275 65 . 69 65
Share renters ...---..----------------+---+---+-+------- 69 275 63 “70 "69
CASH-PENLCES q sc7s ee elem ice Se sc eo aawantns eee 61 . 64 -61 LOT .63

‘Table XIV shows the relation between yield of cotton per acre,
tenant’s labor income, and landlord’s profits.

The two accompanying charts (figs. 4 and 5) show this relationship
graphically.

TABLE XIV.
Tenants having each specified yield of
cotton per acre (in bales).
Class of tenants.
Under | 0.6 to | 0.8to | land
Potal: 0.6, 0.8, 1 over

All tenants:

Numiber:hayingeach yleldo..: ..\. 2.23225... : 4 eee. - 878 235 291 173 179

Per cent having each Viel soe oo. es Cee eer 100. 0 26.8 33.1 19.7 20.4

EMVCEACO LADODINCOMCSS ©. Bs cca cmc. oe See aceasta $392 $246 $435 $504 $624

‘Average rate of interest on landlord’s investment (per cent). 10.6 7.0 10.3 15.8 16.4
Share croppers:

Num bemhavin sjeachsytel de xen eser 2 = ae ene eens 445 161 167 79 38

Per cent having each yields. oso ak yet: 2 ee een 100.0 36.2 37.5 17.8 8.5

Atverage labor INCOME 2s) o 8 eke nee nece = eee se eee $333 $235 $321 $426 $458

Average rate of interest on landlord’s investment (per cent) | 13.6 Teh 13.4 19.6 19.9
Share renters:

Number having each yield... 22-2... 25s eS 136 26 39 28 43

Per cent having reteXh oli ya (2) (o Peed 2 gad a eel ale i oc 100. 0 19.1 28.7 20.6 31.6

Average laborimcome 3. 222 2ica2: <2 sase sect see eee $398 $194 $437 $526 $753

Average rate of interest on landlord’s investment (per cent). fee EIS 8.3 12.6 13.4 14.5
Cash renters: |

Number having each yields. 42.2. Sse 2 ee Ree =| 20% 48 85 66 98

Per cent having eachtyieldsoyescs See aaeh et te Senet 100.0 16.2 28.6 22.2 33.0

Average labor income.......-._.-..- ea See 3 SS man baie i $272 $577 791 | $1,256

Average rate of interest on landlord’s investment (per cent). 6.6 6.7 6.4 6.0 1

The yield of cotton per acre is the determining factor in the profits
of farming in the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta. Where the yield was as
much as a bale of cotton per acre the tenant made $624 for his labor

FARMING IN YAZOO—MISSISSIPPI DELTA. 17

and the landlord received 16.4 per cent on his investment, while
where the yield was less than 0.6 of a bale the tenant had a labor
income of $246 and the landlord only made 7 per cent on ‘his money.

T TENANTS] "TENANTS i
LABOR | SHARE CROPPERS | SHARE RENTERS CASH RENTERS LABOR §
INCOME | pn

a

YIELD =
COTTON
PER ACRE

UNDER 6TO TO IBALE | UNDER. 6 TO 8TO IBALE | UNDER 6 TO 8TO IBALE Sie OF
6BALE 8 BALE | BALE & OVER | 6BALE.8BALE LBALE & OVER S BALE 8BALE IBALE BOVER |peR On

Fic. 4.—Tenants’ labor income in relation to yield of cotton per acre.

The labor income goes up with the yield of cotton for all classes of
tenants, but the rise is least pronounced for share croppers and most
pronounced for cash renters. Thus the labor income of a share

AVERAGE
RATEOF | SHARE CROPPERS | SHARE RENTERS CASH RENTERS RATE OF
—— ae ice

: : ape
By ai t a5 =

UNDER 6TO TO IBALE
GBALE BBALE IBALE GOVER

COTTON
PER ACRE

eaten. UNDER 6TO 8TO IBALE | UNDER 6TO TO IBALE |
PER ACRE] -OBALE 8 BALE 1 BALE GOVER | .6BALE BALE IBALE BOVER |
Fig. 5.—Rate of interest on landlords’ investment in relation to yield of cotton per acre.

cropper was not quite twice as great where the yield was a bale or
more as where it was under 0.6 of a bale, while the labor income of
a share renter was nearly four times as great, and that of a cash

18 BULLETIN 337, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

renter more than four and one-half times as great where the yield
was high as where it was low.

The situation is reversed as regards the interest on the landlord’s
investment. ‘The rate on share croppers’ holdings was nearly three
times as great where the yield was a bale or more as where it was
under 0.6 of a bale, on share renters’ holdings it was one and three-
fourths times as great and on cash renters’ it was about one and
one-fifth times as great.

Thus, while the landlord is interested in good yields for his tenant,
no matter what the nature of his contract, the landlord gains a great
deal more by higher yields in the case of share croppers than he does
in the case of share renters or of cash renters.

The landlord, it will be observed, has a greater object to serve by
keeping a close supervision over his share croppers, and, furthermore,
his supervision is the more necessary for this class of tenants, inas-
much as they themselves are not so greatly benefited by a higher
yield as are the other types of tenants.

ADDITIONAL COPIES
OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D. C.

8 AT

5 CENTS PER COPY
V

WASHINGTON : GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1916