OCR Text |
Show FARMER'S INCOME FOR WORK Question as to Whether Advantages of Tenancy and Ownership Can Be Combined Is Discussed. Most people in this country believe that the tenant is a menace and that the owner is more desirable because he maintains soil fertility by live stock farming and other good systems and manifests more public spirit. Others believe that with a system of long leases, such as pre vail in England, Eng-land, the tenant would be able to conduct con-duct his operations with a much smaller investment, and without many of the objectionable features of tenancy ten-ancy as it now exists in this country. We will have to readjust our ideas somewhat radically to reach the present pres-ent English condition, but many of the advantages of ownership and tenancy ten-ancy can perhaps be combined without with-out any revolution in our present Ideas, according to 0. H. Johnson of the farm management department of the University of Missouri. In a survey of the western part of Johnson county thq, department found that the size of a farm .justness has a close relation to the Income which the farmer receives foi '.lis vork and that small owners mas often enlarge their operations by rertthg additional land. This part ownjr stands with the owner in the social matters, both from the standpoint of tne individual and that of the community which he is helping to improve. In fact, In the region surveyed, he spent even moro for his family living than the man who was renting no land. This includes what he grew on the farn, and he was much more nearly self-sustaining because be-cause he produced a greater portion of his living on the farm and bought less of It at stores. The interest chargeable on his total investment was less than two-thirds as great afl in the case of the owner, for the total Investments were $7,633 and $12,555 respectively. It must be remembered that even after renting some land from others, these part owners had only about seven and one-half acres more land apiece than the owners, and ten acres more than the tenants with whom they are compared. The actual figures were 143.6, 136 and 133.5 acres respectively. To a considerable extent the matter may be summed up by saving that the owner made a labor Income of $314 a year on 136 acres, the part owner $456 on 143.6 acres, and the tenant $531 on 133.5, but many people v,ould be willing will-ing to pay the additional $45 a year for the advantage of knowing that it would not be necessary to move in a year or two, make new friends and establish a system on a new farm. The difference between labor income the part owners have and tenants have Is more than counterbalanced by the higher standard of living of the part owner, who spent $64 a year more on family living. The average owner in that region probably does uot realize that his labor income is ay, far below that of the tenant or part owner as Mr. Johnson's figures show. He does not realize that so great a portion of what he regards as income is not income in-come from his labor, but from tng money investment which his land represents. |