+-----------------------+------------+------------+------------------+ | | | Payment in | | | Arable land yearly |Payment in | share of | In all. | | under cultivation. | money, | crops, +------------+-----+ | |Dessiatines.|Dessiatines.|Dessiatines.|Per | | | | | |cent.| +-----------------------+------------+------------+------------+-----+ | | | | | | |In small peasant tenure| 24226 | 1083 | 25309 | 40 | | | | | | | |Cultivated by the large| | | | | | farmer | 37183 | 1028 | 38211 | 60 | | +------------+------------+------------+ | |Total[159], dessiatines| 61409 | 2111 | 63520 | | | +------------+------------+------------+-----+ | Per cent. | 97 | 3 | .. | 100 | +-----------------------+------------+------------+------------+-----+ Another reason for the prevalence of large farming over small peasant tenure is to be found in the greater economic dependence of the farm laborer as compared with the tenant, while the laborer, being a farmer himself, saves his employer the investment of fixed capital. Nevertheless a certain outlay of capital for the payment of wages was necessitated by the development of money economy in agriculture. This has drawn the line between the smaller and the larger estates. While on the smaller estates peasant tenure is practiced to the extent of excluding landlord agriculture, on the larger estates, on the contrary, peasant tenure plays but a subordinate part: +-----------------------------+--------+-------------+-------+ | | |Total extent.| | | | Number +-------+-----+Average| | I. System of management. | of |Dessia-| Per |Dessia-| | |estates.|tines. |cent.| tines.| +-----------------------------+--------+-------+-----+-------+ |Estates without arable land | 14 | 5117| 4 | | |Estates exclusively in small | | | | | | tenure | 64 | 15605| 12 | 244 | |Estates with large farming | 190 | 109615| 83 | 577 | |Management not stated | 11 | 1616| 1 | | | +--------+-------+-----+-------+ | Total | 279 | 131953| 100 | 473 | +-----------------------------+--------+-------+-----+-------+