EQUWABELETY CF MICHEGAN §?lF"‘""‘?iFTY CROP A’QD .1156? CK fiHARE LARM 1.8.1. 51.. 'E‘hosis {01' 'ha 30313-1. :31 M. 13. :‘Iigku’gf‘; I EGAN SY‘ATBV “ 254:..3'0?! ‘3' \ W11 131-111- 39111. 1.11.1 Q’ '3 tin-cab If“ “13‘...“ 1.1.rli.s.1 1.1;...15111 . ...”.,|.1.1., .I. H , Ill. .1 .JI‘I .I.-lizd 1.111.111.1111- .. 1 . l . : .1. 1.1.11 I. 1 1 1 1 1 1 .1 .I.- . .1 .1 1| .4- 1 1. ..... .11. . . ..- . , _ . 1 , . 1 1 1. 1 1 . . . . . .1 1 , , . . . . . .... .. ,.1 r 1... . ,1. . . 2.1:.111 1 f .1 . .1. 1 1 . ... .. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 . .1 . ., .. .. . . . .. .. . , .... .... .. . 1.. . ...:r.._1...1, 1.... - 1....11.111.113.43:w.........d.p..«..... ......11nv...1...a.: .. .. . . . . . _ .. 1 .. . .. 1. . . , .. . . .1 . . . , 1, ._ , , .. _. _ 1 , . . . .W. . . v4.. rte-10%.“. ..,..LMMQr - . 1 . . 1 . 1 n . ... ...fl . 1 . u . . . . n w v % m...1vu_~.r¢.1*g ... .1; ...w... 11...“. 1 . 11. .1 l. _. . 1 Ca . 1. .n ‘1... ... 1 . 1w 1 7...“... 11.. . 1.. _. . .53.. 1 s 1 1 1 1"V ......Jw ... . . H1 . 1. .. . ., Yucatan...“ ,.. 1 . . 1 /1_ . _ . 1,. _. ,1 ..1; I.” . 1 1 . .1 ., . p 1. . .. p v . . . o .u..v11... .1 .1... ....rUH . .1... 11.. 1.11 1 .. .,.. c ....1 . 1. . .1 . . ..,.«ufifl— ..10“ ...... .1. .. 1 s . . .. _ “a... 1. 1. .v. .3 .11¢J.u.".q..:.v.1.a .. .1. «3 ...,. 5.77.2)... T. 1. . 1. . 1 . . 1.. .VJ.. ... 1 . a . g ...:o -..»...7...».fl15.111 . 1 , , - .04 . . _ 1 ..-, . . _ . _ . 17:2? u c (a . 1 . J!) N.» 1 . 1 u“ 5 .... Mao .,.,th. 1.. -nwyrgmvwWo 1am; fin” \l..... on. ”an . g . . .. .1 . . . .4 1 . . . , .. 1 _. ,1. . . .- ,..l. A... ...-.. ...,.... 95.11516? 1.1.1 1.1.111 1.11%. J... -11.. .1 .. . , '1’} . ’. .I. \ u . x. . . .J , . 1 a w .1. . I. QWW‘t. ¢ .ng;n.1’1 kIQ..v~.. .r Vd.\1lu.. . ; 1.9V” .. .(1. JQWAI‘flM.) 1 I , .: .1 o s .1. . .1 1 .r‘ ...1$..1$111 % . 11.11.15. .. . ..-...Kymmmh u... ._ 1...»... .15.. .1 . . .1 . . 1W7... .1. . .. ,. .11 11.11% . . . 1.... 1. 1. . .. . .1 1...... . 1.4 1. I. .v . 1.37.1. . .. Ikm‘g. . 1. ..tv;..'f1 ...... . ......11111m...11..111m...1r i. _ ,, .1 .. 7....1 . 1.. 11...: .Io 1‘ A. a .| 1 . 1 .... .4 ... 1 .1 .. 1 . -.....~.$.119 .. .. .. . ...” . _. ..nh1¢.mmfiym1fihw§ 1.. . ...... 1 . . 7...- . _ . . .1 . . . . _ . .1..n...hf-...»Lur..\.\..-flu.11$.-... ..,,13 - . .1 .11.”. “....w ...jufl. . 1.. .... . 1.1 . {“1 1 . .11. ...n. ..v; 1b,...mo..m.1o"flt A 1 . 1 1 .11. v p r. f .r. 1 .l i .. 1.” . .. . . . .5 . 1 u. . .. . ... . 1 an” “.I..AH1_..1 . .1. . ... ot..\,-\\~v. 31 \.. .. 3112...... 1.1 .- .v. 1.. .11 . ..ZMulfibwfl ‘ kW‘.1 .41.. 1 Kn. 1:. .DP ..,. I .. , .. ..h. .1111... at .. - . . ..,....wv....1.....,._1... .., 1. .14 .ulqvlJa . 1 {I A: . .l ' ' . I ' I I ' -‘.- ufla‘ c v‘ ’ . n” U , n _ ‘.l‘\\ , 1 . ... 1. 1. ,1. ~ . 1 - . I. 'l l‘ J t“! ”L 1. .L 1‘1...” Y‘ ‘ . . J... \ I pt.“ (.91 . & 1.:1. 1 \ .. L K o 1 . - . .QI 1’ .. . >14 . . d I . at.” .11. v A. r ‘ .4 a. 1.11.1.3... I” 11‘ . ....1 *1‘3. 1? 1.171.111 4. 1 - In 01“} 1 .I.. A . . _ 1.1%,.1VW V. .. .1 . ...... . . 1...! .,. met A -. 5.x 1. . a .- 5.“ . ..,....l\ . . . . 1 1 . .1 .. . _ . 1 .. . .1..’... . n .. .1 . . . 1 1 . .n . ... . .. . . ... ... 1 -. .... ...,. .0. H , . .. _ 1 .. . _. . . . . . .1 .. 1.. , , 1. . .. ., . _.. ......1. .....,......,1 1 {KR-w , . _ . . . . . . . .. . . . , .....wb.........(....¢r..t. . .. . . . . . . 1 . .. . 1 . .. ... . 1. ‘11! . . 1 . . . 1 . 1 . 1. . 1 » . . 1 . 1 .,. .1 1 . - 117111131 . bf . A. ' _.a .._;1- - . - \_ .11». This is to certify that the 7.; thesis entitled 1 'Iqutt'ubuny of lichigen nay-rue: '. Crop and Livestock Share Furl Lone. ' “5;; 3" j presented by wnbu- J. Lohr £23.: ‘ has been accepted towards fulfillment a #1". of the requirements for w». I. 3. degree inJMl‘aufl I '2 Major professor '1 ' .7 ‘ f 4 ~\ 1. ' ‘ '6 1. 1 ‘» V 1 ‘ ‘r. 1 5' ‘ , \‘I ‘ 1 ff 1 V J u' r l i e i ‘ 1- C l J" ’ . .. 1 ‘ ' ‘ ’f LF‘ 1‘ k ' A. ‘V 1 1 . \ \ - N z ,‘ 1... ‘ “... ‘wu \ J . ‘4' '0 I’. ... '4 , / r“ W“ - 1 ’ _ ‘ - . l_ d- .1 1/. ‘4, r 1 1 t; EQUITABILITY OF MICHIGAN FHTY-FIFTY CROP AND LIVESTOCK SEAHE FARM LEASE By WILBU'R JOHN W A THESIS Submitted to the Graduate School of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of. Farm Management 1946 'V'HESIS 7/1g/qb VITA Wilbur John Lohr PERSONAL: Age - 29 years. May 8. 1917 Religion - Protestant Birthplace - Maybee. Michigan Height - Five'-nine" Nationality - American Weigit - 1'75 pounds Marital status - Married Health - Excellent EDUCATION: High School - Dundee, Michigan; graduated 1935. College - Michigan State College. East Lansing. Michigan; grad- uated June 1939. B. S. Degree in Vocational Agriculture. June 1946. M. S. Degree in Farm Liamgement and Economics. COILEGE ACTIVITIES: Member of Agricultural Education Club, Dairy Club, Student Grange, and Lutheran Student Club. AFFILIATION: Alpha Gama Rho Fraternity and Alpha Zeta Agricultural Honorary. PRACTICAL TRAINIICG AND WRENCH: Farm - Raised on a farm in Monroe County. Michigan and worked there summers while attending high school and college. Teaching - Vocational agriculture at Peck High School 1939 to 1940. Graduate Assistant - In Farm Management Department, Michigan State College 1940-1941 and 1945-1946. by duties have been aid- ing the instructor in teaching farm management to short course students. and checking in farm account books throughout the state for one winter. United States Navy - 1941 to 1945. Two and a half years on a combat cargo ship handling and administering a boat division of 125—150 men. One and a half years as training officer represent- ing Newport Naval Training Station aboard a combat transport. My rank upon discharge was a full Lieutenant. 18-18531 AC HECR‘HUEHNTENPS The author is indebted to the Extension Service and the Farm Management Department of Michigan State College for permission to use the farm records. that had been summarized for Central and South- ern Michigan. as the basis of this research study. The writer wishes to express his gratitude to Dr. K. '1'. Wright for his counsel and suggestions on the preparation of this manuscript. Credit is also due Professor 3. B. Hill for his advice in this work. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Tenancy in.Michigan Importance of farm leases Lease agreement desirable MaJor considerations of a farm lease Principal kinds of leases in.Hichigan Purpose of study Method of procedure Map of Michigan.with.type of farming areas PNQNNNHH FIFTY-FIFTY CROP AND LIVESTOCK SPARE MSE Importance in Michigan Reasons for popularity Explanation of Contributions and income of tenant and landlord Lease sample QC) 0101 FIFTYFIIFTY CROP AND LIVESTOCK SHARE LEASES IN MIDWESTERN ST.TES Comparison of contributions and income of tenant and landlord H \I LANDLORD'S AND TENANT'S CONTRIBUTIONS AND RETURNS WITH 50-50 LEASESD AREAS 1 AND 5 - 1939 TO 1944 Some organization factors Investments Receipts Expenses and.charges Financial summary $8888 COMPARI SON OF 50-50 Rim-OPERATED FARMS W ITH OMEN-OPERATED FARMS IN AREAS 1 AND 5 - 1939 AND 1944 Purpose of comparison Some organization factors Cropping program Livestock:program Financial summary SEEKS 03 N SUMMARY APPENDIX TABLES 67 N BIBLIOGRAPHY WEWM‘MMWW wmmm Wilbur John Lohr Mueller; Farm tenancy is apparently a permanent part of our agricul- tural system and for this reason satisfactory leasing agreements are important. The percentage of tenancy in Michigan is low compared with the high valued cornbelt land areas. The 1940 census shows that 17 percent of all Michigan farms were Operated by tenants. The degree of tenancy varies greatly within the state ranging from 5 to 10 per- cent in‘ the northern portion of Michigan. 10 to 20 percent in the central portion of lower peninsula. and so to 30 percent in the south- ern and eastern counties. Thus. it would seem that there is a direct relation between tenancy and the better type of soil and more thickly populated districts. The 1940 census also shows that an additional 11 percent of all Michigan farmers rent part of the land in their farms. So long as practically every fourth farmer in Michigan rents land, the importance of farm leases cannot be overemphasized. Many changes in Michigan agriculture have been brought about by the war. Older men, who continued to farm during the war. are turning over their farming to younger men. Many service men and war employed industrial workers, if they lose their Jobs. are returning to farms. With the price of land h1g1 in most sections of the state most of these prospective farmers will prefer at first to rent land rather than to buy at inflated prices. Many farm leases now in use are inadequate. Largely the outgrowth of customs in the community. they frequently are not adJusted to present conditions brought about in shifting from war to peace. To fit these changing conditions numerous farm leases need to be revised and new leases made. A lease agreement serves as a good memorandum of understand- ing between the landlord and tenant. It enables the landlord and tenant to consider many features of rental such as division of re- ceipts and expenses. and items to be furnished by each. before the farm is rented, rather than after. as is too often the case. Its use eliminates reliance on memory of verbal agreements. Although a written lease is desirable on a rented farm. no lease contract will assure a satisfied landlord and tenant if the farm is not productive and large enough to provide. when prOperly managed, adequate returns to the landlord and tenant. Agoodlease is one which is drawnup in suchaway. that both parties receive a Just and equitable compensation for the labor and capital contributed, that a system of farming be maintained to keep the productivity at a high level, and as much assurance as possible to a good tenant that his lease will be continued through a period of years. Different types of farm leases have been developed to meet the conditions found in the various type farming-areas in Michigan and on individual farms in those areas. The leases most commonly used are (1) Cash farm lease (2) CrOp-share cash farm lease (3) Field leasing on the crop-share basis (4) Landlord's two-thirds share cr0p and livestock farm lease (5) Fifty-fifty crop and live- stock share farm lease (6) Tenant's two-thirds amp and livestock share farm lease and (7) Father and son farm-partnership agreement. The 50-50 crop and livestock share lease is the most common type of share lease in Michigan. With this in mind the purpose of this study is to determine the equitability of Michigan 50-50 crop and livestock share lease by comparison of landlord's and tenant's contributions and returns with 50-50 leases used on farm account farms in type of farming areas y l and 5 for the years 1989 to 1944. The study of the equitability of the 50—50 lease was divided into four parts (1) Explanation and use of 50-50 lease (2) Comparison of Michim 50-50 lease with livestock share leases of other mid- western states (3) Comparison of landlord's and tenant's contribu- tions and returns with 50-50 leases - Areas 1 and 5 for the years 1939 to 1944 inclusive. and (4) Comparison of 50-50 renter-operated farms with owner-operated farms in Areas 1 and 5 for the years 1939 and 1944. As a means of comparing 50—50 leases used by farm account farmers the contributions. income, and expenses of both tenant and landlord was obtained. As a measure of equitability of 50-50 lease the returns of both tenant and landlord was analyzed to see if each is receiving a fair share in proportion to his contributions. For the comparison of farm account farmers using 50-50 leases with owners. the size of business. organization of crop and livestock enterprises. and financial aspects was obtained. map of Michign. page 4. showing type of farming areas 1 and 5. TYPE or FARMING llamas IN MICHIGAN 1‘ Natural Line Basis ' m"!- o d -1 . .1 m f‘“ ' u A _ —— | . L. 47755! a p 17 a g ' 'cmpptm \.\ ' Eh“ i .B’cinotwrr L— 11 o t ’5”. .- . 4“"LI Jan 3 V. e W Area Name "“ -...J ' 1. Corn and Livestock J' _ -....- 2. Small Grains and Livestock , °’ ...»... 3. Southwestern Fruit and T . I 1’4 Truck Crops , ....__- 14. Poutry, Dairy and True}: ‘ An” W Crops 1 .12 . 13 , 5. Dairy and General Farming _ __ ____-___.:- 6. Dairy and Cash Crops "‘ ”’0‘” . WWW?“ 7. Dairy, Hay, and Special L : Crops .. _. .. - - - - a " H 11 MM N ARM 8. Beans, Sugar Beets, and Dairy ' , , 9 9. Cattle, Sheep, and ,_ _ .---- '. Forage .mmm .fltcosm . - 10. Central Potato and l '10 ' J m Dairy _ ' “J. .. W / 0 7 ll. l’orthern Fruit and Dairy 0 (”WW “’W’" ' s n 12. Torthern Potato and Dairy 1' ‘1 ' h 13. General, Self—Sufficing, - , c — - aim "‘ and Part—Time "M s 6' . lu. Cattle, Potatoes, and Self— _ _ Sufficing _ | '9 15. Cattle, Hay, and Spring W” 5 ’ 5 . i Grains ' ‘ 16.. Dairy-and Potatoes , I _J_ - f m 17. Potatoes, Dairy, and “I Part—Time 3 . . ' ' “gr- wm imp» 'R '- I ' "' J I a J g; i 1 i j7 ‘ " ' "' ._ J_ _ _l I] Figurel-LocationonypeoframingAreasland5. I. .1 . C V I v . I. . . a, J — O . . __ u l n O c . o n ... o I .l u a l“ A. . A . . D n . . . a, ’ . ,u u . o "#4 m-mmmmmm The 50-50 crop and livestock share lease is the most common type of share lease in Michigan. The 50—50 type Of lease is more satisfactory than other forms because the farm can be more adequately equipped, a greater interest is taken by each party and a more equit- able distribution Of risk between the two parties is possible than with the cash rent type. The 50-50 lease meets the needs of tenants who want to engage in livestock farming but who either do not have sufficient capital to fully stock a livestock farm or do not want tO assume all the risk involved in Operating a livestock farm. This enables a tenant to gain experience in livestock farming under the guidance of a successful owner. The tenant owns his own equipment and is in a position to furnish the labor. half of the productive livestock and half of the Operating capital for a livestock farm. This lease also meets the needs of landowners who desire to exercise some control over the livestock enterprises in addition to the land use and cropping program on their farms and is willing to share the farm Operating expenses. risks in fluctuating amp and livestock production and prices. farm income and. management with the tenant. The sharing Of investment and Operating expenses make it possible to increase the number Of livestock. which in turn furnishes an additional outlet for craps produced on the farm and also helps to maintain the productivity of the land. Since both parties have a share in the livestock they are mutually interested in all phases of the farm business. The landowner is more willing to make more pemanent improvements. . \ n ' . o \ i D . u . . . _ .. . , . , . , _. ..,_ - . e I w I ' t ' c. . ' .v 0‘ J I. ‘ n I 2 § 1 ' ‘ . o ,D‘ ‘ .,. b e i. . . . ‘ D . - . . . . . e ‘ - 6“ 0t .,. '. c f . .1 ’ ' ‘ .- f I . ...- . , . , . h . i I . . ~ . . . ...... ‘ . econ 0., *- . . _ . . n I o a r l U I q . D . . . I . . ,. . . . . ‘. -: . . . . f e ,. . I , . .i . l: , 'l I .. ' I .. . . , . . . . . . o ..- ———‘_,~ m-mmmmmammaa The 50—50 crop and livestock share lease is the most common type of share lease in Michigan. The 50-50 type Of lease is more satisfactory than other forms because the farm can be more adequately equipped, a greater interest is taken by each party and a more equit- able distribution Of risk between the two parties is possible than with the cash rent type. The 50-50 lease meets the needs of tenants who want to engage in livestock farming but who either do not have sufficient capital to fully stock a livestock farm or do not want to assume all the risk involved in Operating a livestock farm. This enables a tenant to gain experience in livestock farming under the guidance of a successful owner. The tenant owns his own equipment and is in a position to furnish the labor. half Of the productive livestock and half of the Operating capital for a livestock farm. Thislease also meets the needs of landowners who desire to exercise some control over the livestock enterprises in addition to the land use and crOpping program on their fame and is willing to share the farm Operating expenses. risks in fluctuating amp and livestock production and prices, farm income and management with the tenant. The sharing Of investment and operating expenses make it possible to increase the number of livestock, which in turn furnishes an additional outlet for crops produced on the farm and also helps to mintain the productivity of the land. Since both parties have a share in the livestock they are mutually interested in all phases of the farm business. The landowner is more willing to make more permanent improvements. The following table gives the contributions Of the tenant and landlord under the Michigan 50—50 lease: Table 1. Contributions and Income Of Tenant and Landlord under the Michigan 50-50 Crop and Livestock Share Lease .41;le Investment gmnses Real estate Machiner and Equipment Work animals - Productive livestock"l Poultry Feed cher emses Farm improvements Lime Machinery and equipment Tractor fuel and Oil Feed purchases Livestock expense Crop expense Hired labor Taxes and insurance Farm share electric and telephone figceiptg Livestock income Poultry and eggs Milk sales Crop sales TananL all all designaged no. spreading 81111 i all own property MP Merger landless..— M" MP on property (01H MP MHDIH *Does not include poultry. The tenant and landlord share the ownership Of all produc- tive livestock except poultry. Usually the tenant has the privilege of keeping for his own use. not to exceed a designated number of hens. All purchased feeds for such poultry would be paid for by the tenant. With the poultry enterprise as a major item the owner- ship is usually 50-50. The proceeds from crops, livestock and livestock products, other than dairy products and eggs (and poultry when all poultry is owned by the tenant) is divided equally between both parties. He- turns from intensive crops, dairy products and eggs (when poultry is a sizable enterprise) which require a large amount of man labor for their harvest or production frequently are divided so that the tenant receives more than 50 percent of the income. The Michigan fifty-fifty crop and livestock share farm lease sample is reproduced On the following pages. FIFTY-FIFTY CROP AND LIVESTOCK Shim? FARM LEASE This lease is entered into this______day Of____,l9_,between___, landlord, Of_____, and___. tenant. Of . (A) Description of Farm In consideration Of the agreements and stipulations herein- after set forth to be kept and performed by the tenant. to occupy and use for farming purposes his farm of about____acres situated in the County Of . and the State of and described as follows: (B) Term Of the Lease The term of this lease shall be years (3). from . l9__. to , 19—. This lease shall continue in effect from year to year thereafter until written notice Of termination is given by either party on or before the__day Of (month) before the expiration of this lease. (C) The Landlord Agrees as Follows: 1. Buildings, Fences. and Water Supply: TO furnish materials for normal maintenance and repairs. and for improvements to buildings. fences and wells; also labor for new fences and major repairs on buildings. fences. tile drains and wells. The following repairs and improvements to the tenant house. other buildings, fences. and to the well or water supply system are deemed necessary and they shall be made and completed on or before the date indicated after each item: 2. Repairs by Tenant: The tenant may without further authorization from the landlord. purchase materials for necessary repairs and im- provements in a total amount not exceeding $ . within each month, and not to exceed $ at any one time or for any one repair Job and deduct the cost from the landlord's share Of the farm receipts. 3. Liming Materials: TO furnish and deliver to the farm such liming materials as may be used on the farm. Exceptions. if any. are as follows: (D) The Tenant Agrees as Follows: 1. Labor: To furnish all labor necessary to Operate the farm efficiently, except contract labor on sugar beets and in which case the landlord shall pay a and the tenant a. 2. Power and Machinery: TO furnish the work horses. tractor. and all the machinery. equipment and repairs thereon which are required to prOperly Operate the farm. Exceptions. if any. are as follows: The expenses and maintenance Of any machinery or equipment such as a milking machine. etc. . which my be supplied by the landlord. shall be paid by the tenant. 3. Hauling Materials: To haul all materials for the ordinary repair and improvements to buildings and fences. TO haul all fertilizer. To spread lime or marl used on the farm. To haul to market the pro- ducts tO be marketed with the following exceptions: The costs of hauling livestock. sugar beets and are to be paid % by the landlord and :1,- by the tenant; the cost or hauling milk is to be paid—by the landlord and_____by the tenant. 4. Maintenance of Improvements: TO provide the necessary labor for normal maintenance of the buildings. fences. and other improve- ments and to keep them in as good repair as they were when he took possession. (loss by natural wear and depreciation, fire. or other unavoidable losses excepted). except that necessary skilled labor shall be furnished by the landlord. 5. Feed at the Beginning Of the Lease: To purchase or provide at the beginning Of the lease a one-half interest in the feed on the farm at that time. Exceptions. if any. are as follows: 6. CrOpping program: To follow as closely as possible the following crOp program: 7. Subletting. Right to Enter. Yielding Possession: (1) To not assign this lease or sublet any portion Of the farm without the consent Of the landlord. (2) To permit the landlord or his agent to enter the farm at any reasonable time for repairs. improvements. and inspection. (8) To yield-possession Of the farm at the end of 10 the term Of this lease or any renewal or extension thereof. (E) The Landlord and Tenant Mutually Agree As FOllows: 1. Ownership of Livestock: Each party shall own a one-half interest in all livestock kept on the farm. except work horses and chickens. Should the parties agree to raise foals. the landlord is to acquire a one-half interest in the mares raising them and shall share equally in costs and proceeds Of such enterprise. (If. at the beginning Of this lease. there is an unequal ownership of livestock, other than horses and chickens. it is suggested that each party buy a one-half interest in the livestock owned by the other party in order that each may on an equal share. The poultry flock shall be handled as follows: (a) The ten- ant to have the privilege Of keeping for his own use not to exceed hens and to raise not to exceed chickens each year. All purchased feeds for such poultry to be paid for by the tenant. or (b) the poultry to be owned on a 50-50 basis. (Draw a line through the part which will not be followed in this agreement.) Exceptions. if any. are as follows: 2. Salas and Purchases: The time and place where the farm products shall be sold shall be mutually agreed upon by the landlord and the tenant. but no sale or purchase for the Joint or Opposite party account exceeding $ per item or $ for any one month is to be made by either party before Obtaining the consent Of the other party. 3. Expenses that are Shared: The parties shall share equally in the following: Crop expenses such as purchased seed. fertilizers. ll spray material. binder twine. etc.; machine costs for threshing. com- bining. silo filling. corn husldng. hay baling and clover hulling; cost of tractor fuel and oil; livestock expenses such as breeding fees. veterinary and medicine; insurance on livestock and crops owned in common; electric lightand power bill up to $ . the balance to be paid entirely by the tenant: farm share of the telephone; feed purchases. feed grinding and pasture rent. All livestock is to be fed out of the undivided feed. Exceptions. if any. are as follows: 4. Renting Additional Crop Land: The tenant shall obtain the land- lord's consent before renting additional crOp land. If such land is rented it shall be handled by one of the following methods: (a) In case the landlord is to share in the crops obtained on the additional crop land rented. he shall pay the cash rent and also share in the expenses in the same manner as is done on the "home farm. N (b) In case the landlord is not to share in the crops produced on the addi- tional crop land rented on either a cash or share basis. the tenant shall pay all the expenses. all the fuel and oil for tractor power and all feed for horses while working on such crOps. If any of the feed crepe so produced are to be used on the "home farm" the landlord shall pay the tenant for one-half of such feed. 5. Farm Records and Monthly Settlement: Farm inventory and cash records shall be kept and settlements as far as possible shall be made on the of each month. An inventory statement showing numbers or amounts. values and ownership of the livestock. machinery. feed. growing crops. and supplies on the farm is to be made at the beginning of this lease agreement and at the end of each 12 year thereafter during the period of the lease and recorded in the account books of the respective parties. (F) Division of Farm Income 1. CrOps: The usual field crOps produced. except those listed in Article 8 of this section and those used for seed or feed. shall be divided equally between both parties. It is agreed that the intensive crOps such as potatoes. mint. tomatoes. snap beans, cucumbers. canta- loupes. onions and . which require a large amount of man labor for their production and harvest shall be divided as stated below: 2. Livestock and Livestock Products: The proceeds from livestock and livestock products. other than dairy products and eggs (and poultry when all poultry is owned by the tenant). shall be divided equally between both parties. The proceeds from the sale of dairy products shall be divided % to the landlord and i to the tenant: eg sales (from poultry owned in conmon) % to land- lord. and % to tenant. 3. Farm Produce for Tenant: For the use of his own family and board for hired labor. the tenant my use such of the following as the farm affords: potatoes. garden truck. fruit. eggs. and milk. The tenant may cut from the dead timber or from trees designated by the land- lord such wood as he may need for fuel up to cords each year. Exceptions. if any. are as follows: (G) Tenant' s Right to Make Improvements and Receive Reimbursements For Unexhausted Values 1. Growing Crops: (a) At the beginning of this lease the tenant 13 shall purchase a one-half share in the following acreages of growing crops on the farm at that time: Wheat : rye ; barley : spelt_______. (b) At the end of this lease. the tenant shall be reim- bursed by the landlord or his agents for his one-half share in the growing Wheat. rye. barley or spelt. Settlement in each instance shall be made on the following basis per acre: plowing $ : pre- paring seedbed and drilling $ : seed at market value and f ertil- izer at cost. Exceptions. if any. are as follows: 2. Seedings. Sod. and. Fall Plowing: Acreages at the beginning of this lease are as follows: Alfalfa. lst yr. , 2nd yr. 3rd yr. and over : clover : Mixed : and fall plowing . If the acreages of seeding, sod or of fall plowing at the end of the lease are more than at the beginning. the tenant shall be reimbursed for his share of the seed for the excess seeding. and he shall be reimbursed for his share in the excess of fall plowing at the rate of $_____ per acre. If the acreages of these items are less. the landlord shall be reimbursed. 8. Removing Temporary Improvements: The tenant may. at his own expense. put up fences or buildings of a temporary character upon the above described land for the purpose of confining livestock; storing feed. grain or hay: or housing livestock. tools. or machin- ery. He shall have the right to remove such buildings or other improvements at any time during the term of this lease. 4. Labor in Applying Lime or Marl: The tenant shall be reimbursed at the rate of $ per ton or yard for his labor expended in hauling and applying ground limestone or marl if a cr0p has not been harvested following the application of such material. If this lease l4 terminates after one crop has been harvested, the tenant shall be reimbursed at 4/5 of the foregoing rate. If after two crOps 3/5 of the rate. etc. (H) Liability of Tenant and Landlord l. Willful neglect. failure. or refusal by either party to carry out any material provision of this lease shall give the other party the power to terminate the lease. in addition to the right to com- pensation for damages suffered by reason of such breach. Such termination shall become effective thirty (30) days after written notice of termination specifying the delinquency has been served on the delinquent party. unless during such thirty (30) day period the delinquent party has made up the delinquency. The landlord shall have the benefit of any summary proceedings provided by law for evicting the tenant upon termination under this paragraph. or at the end of the term. 2.. This lease shall not be deemed to give rise to a partnership relation. and neither party shall have authority to obligate the other without written consent. (I) Division of PrOperty at End of Lease l. Crops: At the end of the term of this lease an accounting shall be made between the respective parties hereto. The hay. corn fodder. grain. and farm produce upon said farm belonging Jointly to the landlord and the tenant shall be equally divided. by measurement or througi the proceeds from the sale thereof ; the tenant having the right to remove his share from farm. The straw and manure are the prOperty of the landlord and shall remain on the farm. The landlord agrees to buy the tenant's share of the corn silage left on the farm at the end of the lease period. (As a 15 suggestion. a fair price per ton for corn silage may be considered to be 1/8 of the local price per ton of loose alfalfa.hayu) 2. Livestock: The division of the livestock owned in common shall be made by either of the following methods: (a) The tenant shall divide each kind.of livestock into two equal lots. as near as can be done. and the landlord shall have his choice of lots of each kind of livestock. This division shall be final and.binding on both parties. If it is impossible to divide each kind of livestock into two equal parts (in the case of an odd number of animals or animals of unequal value). then a cash adjustment will be made to.make the two lots of equal falue. Or (b) the tenant shall divide the live- stock into groups of two animals each of as near equal value as can be done. Each party will then.alternate in having first choice from each successive group. (J) Arbitration The parties hereby agree to submit to arbitration all diff- erences they themselves cannot settle Which may arise under this lease. The arbitration hereby agreed.to shall be made by a board of three men, one chosen by each.party and the third'by the two so chosen. The decision.of a majority of the arbitrators shall be final and.binding upon both parties to this contract except if a matter of law or a sum exceeding $ is involved. In.Witness Whereof. the parties hereto have affixed their signatures the day and.year first above written. Witness Landlord Witness Landlord Tenant Form Suggested by the Farm Management Department Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science and U. S. Dept. of Agriculture COOperating R. J. Baldwin. Director of Extension Division Printed and distributed under Act of Congress. May 8. 1914 16 17 .Eiiil?!§112i§£221flag.LIZ§§£2£Eifibfl££LLfidéééulaugiéfléiflflfll issues: A comparison of the contributions. and sharing of the income of tenant and landlord under the 50-50 cr0p and livestock share lease in six midwestern states shows that the livestock share leases of each of the six midwestern states are very much alike. (table 2) A few relatively minor differences may be noted. In the Michigan lease the tenant is allowed to keep a stated number of hens for his own use. and they can be fed out of undivided feed. With poultry a major enterprise. the flock would be treated 50-50. It is suggested in the Michigan lease that the tenant may receive more than 50 percent of the egg and milk sales. because of the large amount of labor involved on these enterprises. In the Ohio lease the tenant is allowed to keep 50 hens and above that number the ownership is shared. In this lease the tenant also is expected to furnish all the tractor operating expense. In the Indiana lease the landlord is supposed to furnish and pay for spreading the lime used on the farm. The poultry and dairy cattle are owned 50-50. however it is suggested that the tenant re- ceive a larger share of the egg and milk sales because of the large amount of labor involved in these enterprises. The tenant usually pays for three-fourths of the combining and all costs for harvesting the hay and corn craps. The Illinois lease has the landlord furnish the manure and lime Spreaders and upkeep on them. The landlord also furnishes all the fertilizer. however the tenant applies it. In the Wisconsin lease the tenant is allowed a stated number 18 .Eoeu 8» equate the no eeoSBfleooo the he? Nil all: «33» on W + I a modem flee Se m + Se a? .... ammo e3 redeem a m a A m. me. n. 8303 M03333” mg a. s ... h s x. e toss... a. ofipooao Benn sash 5.3an hon among baseman hfiomgm 52303 .3.“ omega 85 . 88 ES 86 EB 85 a 33.53.“ was mouse is due .Sd ads ..He is a “one.” 33m m m lm + M a 03898 mono w W W a 030% 33359 W , w a magnum doom w m o a do as 13 3389 a do tee do Se a a sameness. e hofieooe Meaghan m gouge o gees? 92.33% a 8.5 o o o o o o 9 3330535 sash mag ..,. m a. m. h m e ewe 33.3 33.3 m g M 28A an .35ku a aux—deem w w w m a 33325." gangeoum and ads Has Sum ad» Had a name—ado etc: do me as fie as no a engage. a roofless o o o o o o a 33mm Hmom Mala-aha 9.3 53°83 38:3 Roam one nomads“: 3:5 5335.“: so 398.” team hostess scene .eqoooa no Seam e5 8033380 .. m Sate of hens for his own use. The cost of lime is sharedequally by land- lord and tenant. The Iowa lease has Joint ownership of all productive live- stock and the income is shared equally. 19 Lagdlord'g and W Qontributions and Returns th 50 Leases - Areas .1. and .5. - 19.52 is 1.93:1. MWM The data for this study were obtained from farm account re- cords kept by farmers in connection with the Farm Business Analysis Extension Project of the Farm Management Department. Data from the records of farm account farms using the 50-50 lease in type of farm- ing areas 1 and 5 were used 1.; this study. There was a total of 181 records studied. with an average of 25 to 33 records each year for the two areas. The farms in this study averaged 180 acres in size for Area 1 and 191 acres in size for Area 5 (table 8). Over 75 percent of the farm land was tillable in Area 1 and 70 percent in Area 5. During the six years the tillable acres per farm for Area 1 showed a distinct tendency to increase starting atlZl tillable acres in 1939. and becoming 152 tillable acres in 1944. The tillable acres for Area 5 increased from 121 in 1939. to 138 in 1944. with two years 1941 and 1942 having 141 and 142 tillable acres respectively. The crOp yield index on the 50-50 crop and livestock share lease was 99 for Area 1 and 98 for Area 5 (table 3). The average of all farm account cooperators was 100 each year. Crop yields on the 50-50 lease farms were 1 to 2 percent below the average compared With all farms in the Farm Business Analysis Project in the two areas. The farms studied in Area 1 had 38.2 productive animal units and in Area 5. 29.7 productive animal units. This amounted to about 29 percent more productive livestock kept in Area 1 than Area 21 5. There was 3.6 tillable acres per productive animal unit in Area 1 as compared to 4.5 tillable acres per productive animal unit in Area 5. Farms in Area 1 increased the productive livestock kept from 35.8 productive animal units per farm in 1939 to 40.2 produc- tive animal units in 1944, however one year 1940 went up to 43.0 productive animal units. In Area 5 the productive animal units remained about the same. not varying over 2 productive animal units for any of the years studied. Table 3 - Some Organization Factors on Farms Under 50-50 Leases"l - Areas d 5 -- 039 to 19 3 ve Jreal Area §___. Number of farms“ 83 98 Acres per farm 180 191 Tillable acres 136 135 Crap yield index# 99 98 Productive animal units 38.2 29.7 Total P.M.W.U.## 536 502 P.M.W.U. per man 341 299 Average no. of men 413;? 1.2 *See appendix table A for details "Total mimber of farms for the years 1939 to 1944 inclusive. #Average of all farm account c00perators was 100 each year. HA productive man work unit is the average amount of work accomp- lished by one man with average labor efficience in a ten hour day. The farms studied in Area 1 averaged 536 productive man work units and in Area 5, 502 productive man work units. The aver- age number of men was 1.57 for Area 1 and 1.68 for Area 5. 22 Labor efficiency was high in Area 1, averaging 341 productive man work units per man compared with 299 productive man work units per man in Area 5. The 42 less productive man work units per man seemed to be tied up with 8.5 less productive animal units in Area 5 thus making for less productive work. The amount of tillable acres and man equivalent was about the same for the two areas. It would be desirable to increase the volume of business on these farms to get greater labor efficiency. No lease contract will assure a satisfied landlord and tenant if the farm is not productive and large enough to provide, when properly managed, adequate returns to the landlord and tenant. Investments The farms in this study with 50-50 crop and livestock share leases had an average total investment y of $20750 in Area 1 and $18784 in Area 5 for the years 1939 to 1944 (table 4). The average investment per tillable acre was $153 in Area 1 and $139 in Area 5. The total investment per tillable acre increased 13 percent in Area 1 from 1939 to 1944. For Area 5 the total investment per tillable acre remained the same for the six year period. Landlords in Area 1 contributed 79 percent of the total investment, and in Area 5. 80 percent (figure 2). During the six years the landlord's investment per tillable acre in Area 1 in- creased 3 percent while the tenant's investment per tillable acre increased 57 percent (figure 3). In Area 5 the landlord's invest- ment per tillable acre decreased 3 percent from 1939 to 1944. while the tenant‘s investment per tillable acre increased 17 percent (figure 4). The value of farm real estate per tillable acre was not allowed to increase on the farm account records studied. during the period of rising prices. while there was the tendancy for farm personal prOperty to increase in value. During the years 1939 to 1944 farm real estate values increased 46 percent according to the 1945 Anm1al Crop Report for Michigan. For the same period farm machinery values increased 17 percent. livestock values increased 70 percent. and feed crop prices 129 percent. according to the Agricultural Economics Department. Michigan State College. Real estate investment made up two-thirds of the landlord's 1] The value of the house was included in the total investment. 24 Table 4. Investment; Comparison of Landlord's and Tenant's Under 50-50 Leases"I - Areas 1 and 5 - 1939 to 1944 inclusive Item Total w Fagm Igndlog' s 225.123“ g Real estate*"(includes house) $13677 $13677 0 Machinery and equipment 1993 266 1727 Horses 315 81 234 Productive livestock# 2730 1362 1368 Poultry 147 66 81 Fead 4888 92§__ 96;_ Total $20750 1637 . 7 Item Total 41191.? Farm ord' s enant' 3 Real estate*"'(includes house) $12768 $12768 , 0 Machinery and equipment 1686 268 1418 Horses 303 52 251 Productive livestock# 2241 1137 1104 Poultry 90 37 - 53 Feed 4696 £38 &_ Total @784 M00 $3684 *See appendix table B and C for details “The value of real estate per tillable acre has been held nearly constant on leases studied for the six years. #Does not include poultry total investment with one-third in personal pr0perty (table 4). The tenant's investment was entirely personal pr0perty in the leases studied. The landlord's investment per tillable acre remained the 25 same in all leases and the tenant's investment per tillable acre in- creased 37 percent from 1939 to 1944. This increase of the tenant's investment per tillable acre from 1939 to 1944 can be explained.in the increase in value of farm.personal preperty on the leases studied. while the landlord's main investment was in real estate which was left at a constant rate per tillable acre in the records. Item Percen Real estate (includes house) Machinenyanklequipment Horses Productive livestock Poultny Feed Total Item Percent Real estate (includes house) Machinenyzumlequipment Horses Productive livestock Poultry Feed Total Landlord's share Z 7 Tenant's share Figure 2. Investments; percentage contributed by landlord and Ten- ant Under 50-50 Leases-Areas 1 and 5—1939 to 1944 incl. The machinery and equipment investment should.be furnished entirely by the tenant under the 50-50 lease. In the leases studies in Area 1 the landlord contributed 13 percent and the tenant 87 per— cent of the machinery investment (figure 2). In.Area 5 the landlord contributed 16 percent and the tenant 84 percent of the maChinery investment. Horses are intended to be furnished.by the tenant under the 50—50 lease. In Area 1, the landlord contributed 26 percent of the investment in.horses and the tenant 74 percent. In Area 5. the landlord contributed 17 percent of the investment in.horses and the tenant 83 percent. Productive livestock, except poultry. according to most 50.50 leases is to be owned.hy the 1andlord.and.tenant. In the farms studied flhis was the case. The poultry enterprise is handled as agreed.upon.by the landlord and tenant. It is suggested.in the Michigan 50-50 lease that the tenant be allowed to keep a stated.number of hens for his own use. to be fed out of undivided feed. If the poultry enter- prise is to be a major item. then the ownership is the same as the other productive livestock; under the leases studied.in Area 1 the landlord contributed 45 percent of the poultry investment and ten- ant 55 percent. In Area 5 the landlord contributed.4l percent and tenant 59 percent of the poultry investment. This indicates that most of the farms held a Joint ownership of the poultry enterprise. Ebed.investment is usually divided.equally'between both parties. Fbr the leases studied 49 percent of the feed.investment 'was contributed by the landlord and 51 percent by the tenant for the two areas. 29 The investment study shows that the landlord contributed $347 in Area 1 and.$320 per farm in Area 5 as his investment in machinery and.borses. In both Areas the landlord favored.the ten- ant by sharing a part of the investment in machinery and horses. Productive livestock (except poultry) and feed investment were div- ided.equa11y between the landlord and tenant. Poultry investment was contributed 56 percent by the tenant. This indicates that most of the farms held a Joint ownership of the poultry enterprise. 80 Receipts Receipts on the farms in this study averaged $5350 in Area 1 and $5046 in Area 5 for the six years 1939 to 1944 (table 5). The average receipts per tillable acre was $39 in Area 1 and $37 in Area 5. The total receipts per tillable acre increased 85 percent in Area 1 from 1939 to 1944. In Area 5 the total receipts per tillable acre increased 84 percent during the same period. The greatest single factor contributing to the increased receipts over the period studied has been the rise in price of farm products. The price of farm products in Michigan has risen 105 percent from 1939 to 1944 according to the Agricultural Economics Department. Michigan State College. Landlord's received 49 percent of the total receipts and the tenant's 51 percent in both Areas for the six year period (figure 5). During the six years the Landlord's total receipts per tillable acre for Area 1 increased 84'percent and the tenant's total receipts per tillable acre increased 85 percent (figure 6). In Area 5 the landlord's total receipts per tillable acre increased 92 percent and tenant's 77 percent from 1939 to 1944. The land- lord's total receipts per tillable acre each year averaged about a dollar less per tillable acre than the tenant's for all the leases studied. The livestock income other than dairy products and eg sales is usually divided equally under the 50-50 lease. For the leases studied livestock income was divided equally for both areas (figure 5). The dairy sales may be divided with the tenant receiving more than 50 percent because of the large amount of labor involved Table 5. Receipts; Comparison of Landlord's and Tenant's Under 50—50 Leases“ - Areas 1 and 5 - 1939 to 1944 inclusive Item Am Total Farm La_n_dlord' s Tgnant' g Livestock incomeM $2260 $1126 $1134 Dairy sales 1612 805 807 Poultry income 464 208' 256 Crop income 866 ‘ 450 416 Miscellaneous income 448 20 128 rote; 31350 $2609 $374;— Item Area 5 - Total Farm lagers? s leggy s Livestock income" $1475 $ 732 $ 743 Dairy sales 1877 929 948 Poultry income 254 111 143 Crop income 1188 585 603 Miscellaneous income f _252 41509 L ____T___otal M $222—— l"See appendix table D for details "Poultry is not included under livestock income in the dairy enterprise. 0n the farms studied in Area 1 the dairy sales were divided equally for the six year period. In Area 5 the dairy sales were divided 49 percent to the landlord and 51 percent to the tenant for the same period. Sharing of the poultry income depends on the ownership. The 50-50 lease suggests that the tenant be allowed to keep a des- ignated number of hens for-his own use. however. if the poultry enterprise is a sizable item then the ownership is shared. Under the leases studied in Area 1 the landlord received 45. percent of the poultry income and the tenant 55 percent for the six year period. In Area 5 the landlord received 44 percent of the poultry income and tenant 56 percent for the years studied. This indicates that for most of the leases the poultry income was divided equally. Percent Livestock income Dairy sales Poultry income Crop income Miscellaneous income Total Livestock income Dairy sales ‘ Poultry income Crop income Miscellaneous income Total mundlord's share , £3 Tenant's share Figure 5. Receipts; percentage received by Landlord and Tenant Under 50-50 Leases- Areas 1 and 5 - 1939 to 1944 incl. 84 Crop income is usually divided equally in the 50-50 leases. except for intensive cr0ps which may favor the tenant because of intensive labor involved. In Area 1 the crOp income for the years 1939 to 1944 was divided 52 percent to the landlord and 48 percent to the tenant. In Area 5 the crop income was divided 49 percent to the landlord and 51 percent to the tenant for the six years. Miscellaneous income is divided according to the nature of the income. For the leases studied in Area 1 the landlord received 14 percent and the tenant 86 percent of the miscellaneous income during the six years. In Area 5 the miscellaneous income was divided 43 percent to the landlord and 57 percent to the tenant for the same period. This study of the total receipts of farms using 50-50 leases shows that the landlord is receiving 49 percent of the total re- ceipts and the tenant 51 percent for the years studied. The increase in receipts per tillable acre of 85 percent in Area 1 and 84 percent in Area 5 from 1939 to 1944 has been largely due to the 105 percent rise in price of Michigan farm products during this period. I Livestock and cr0p income was divided very well for the leases studied. Dairy sales were divided equally between both! parties.’ Poultry income was divided 55 percent to the tenant for the six year period. This indicates that for most of the leases the poultry income was divided equally. although some tenants were allowed to keep a small flock for his own use. For both dairy and poultry the tenant was not favored with the greater proportion of the milk and eg sales as is suggested in the 50-50 lease. This suggestion takes into consideration the large amount of labor in- volved in caring for the dairy and poultry enterprises. ens chimeras Total expenses and charges averaged $4199 in Area 1 and $3847 in Area 5 for the years 1939 to 1944 (table 6). Total ex- penses include both regular farm expenses and charges for family labor. Operator's labor and interest on both landlord's and ten- ant's investment at 5 percent. The total expenses per tillable acre averaged $31 for Area 1 and $29 for Area 5 during the six years. The total expenses per tillable acre increased 54 percent in Area 1 from 1939 to 1944. In Area 5 the total expenses per till- able acre increased 52 percent from the low year 1940 to 1944. The charges for family labor. Operator's labor and interest on investment at 5 percent comprised about 50 percent of the total expenses and charges in Area 1 and 52 percent in Area 5. The index of wages paid hired help increased 137 percent during the six year period according to the 1945 Annual Crop Report for Michigan. Interest on investment has been held at 5 percent. The regular farm expenses other than the charges listed above comprise about 50 percent of the total expenses in Area 1 and 48 percent of the total expenses in Area 5 for the six year period. The prices paid by farmers for commodities used. taxes. and interest increased 36 percent from 1939 to 1944. Landlord's contributed 44 percent of the total eXpenses in Area 1 and the tenant's 56 percent. from 1939 to 1944 (Figure 7). In Area 5 the landlord contributed 43 percent of the total expenses and the tenant 57 percent for the same period (Figure 8). During the six year period the landlord's total expense per tillable acre in Area 1 increased 34 percent and the tenant's 73 percent (Figure 9). Table 6. Expenses and.Charges; Comparison of Landlord's and Tenant's gpder 50-50 Leases"I - Areas 1 and 5 - 1939 to 1944 incl. Item Area 1 Total Farm Igdlo gd' 3 nggnt' 3 Farm Improvements 247 243 4 Interest at 5% 1038 819 219 Taxes 113 108 5 Machinery and equipment 415 97 318 Horses 13 4 9 Operator's labor 857 - 857 Family labor 151 10 141 Hired labor 246 21 225 Feed purchases 691 344 347 Livestock expense 67 31 36 Crop expense 307 152 155 Miscellaneous eXpense 54 12 ‘_ ____Total £99 £1841 ELL—.5 Item Areaji, Total Farm ngdlord'g Tenant's Farm Improvements 220 215 5 Interest at 5% 939 755 184 Taxes 106 105 1 Machinery and equipment 427 80 347 Horses 28 6 22 Operator's labor 835 - 835 Family labor 222 84 138 Hired labor 265 19 246 Feed purchases 371 186 185 Livestock expense 50 24 26 Crop expense 343 174 169 Miscellaneous expense .__41 ’4_;0 4431 _.TL_a1t $351347 w 321L539 l"See appendix tables E and F for details In Area 5 the landlord's total expense per tillable acre increased 36 percent and.the tenant's 66 percent from.the low year 1940 to 1944. The landlord's total expense averaged from $2 per tillable acre in 1939 to $7 per tillable acre in 1944 less than the tenant's total expense per tillable acre for all leases studied. The'tenant's total expenses per tillable acre have been rising faster than the landlord's over the six year period. This may be explained in that the tenant's contribution of Operator's. and family labor and machinery expense per tillable acre have risen 54 percent and 95 percent respectively during the six year period. The tenant's labor charge for operator's and family labor increased 78 percent from 1939 to 1944. however there was .25 less man equiv- alent handling 15 percent more tillable acres. Hired.labor in— /creased with the going rate. The landlordis main contribution of Percent Farm improvements Interest at 5% Taxes Machinery and equipment Horses“ Operator's labor Family labor Hired labor Feed purchases Livestock expense CrOp expense Miscellaneous expense Total Wandlord's share :3 Tenant's share Figure 7. Expenses and charges; percentage contributed by Landlord and Tenant under 50-50 leases-Area l - 1939 to 1944 incl. 37 Percent Farm improvement Interest at 5% Taxes Machinery and equipment Horses Operator's labor Family labor Hired labor Feed purchases Livestock expense Crop expense Miscellaneous expense Total m Landlord's share :27 Tenant's share Figure 8. Expenses and charges; percentage contributed by Landlord and t d r 50 . - - 9 9 to 19 . real estate has been held constant on the farm account records studied. Farm improvement expenses are borne by the landlord in the 50-50 lease. Tm tenant usually contributes his labor for minor repairs on the improvements. In the leases studied the landlord contributed 98 percent of the farm improvement expense and the ten- ant 2 percent for both areas. Interest on investment has been figured at 5 percent. For the leases studied in Area 1 the landlord contributed 79 percent of the interest on investment and the tenant 21 percent. In Area 5 the landlord contributed 80 percent and the tenant 20 percent of the interest on investment. As pointed out before the landlord's investment per tillable acre for all leases studied from 1939 to 1944 remained the same because of real estate values per tillable acre in the farm account books being held the same. This interest on investment figure for the landlord would be low because of real estate values advancing 46 percent during this period. Taxes on the real estate are to be paid by the landlord in the 50-50 lease. 0n the farms studied the landlords contributed about 96 percent in Area 1 and 99 percent in Area 5 for taxes. The rest was contributed by the tenant. inchinery and equipment expenses are paid by the tenant under the 50-50 lease, with the exception that the landlord usually furnished one-half of the tractor fuel and oil. In this study the landlord contributed 23 percent of machinery and equipment expense and the tenant 77 percent in Area 1. In Area 5 the landlord con- tributed 19 percent of the machinery and equipment expense and the tenant 81 percent for the six year period. Horses are supposed to be owned by the tenant in the 50-50 lease. In the leases studied in Area 1 the landlord contributed 29 percent and the tenant 71 percent of the horse depreciation. In Area 5 the landlord's contribution of the horse depreciation was 21 percent and the tenant's 79 percent. Labor is the major contribution of the tenant under the 50-50 lease. All labor is to be furnished by the tenant unless the landlord contributes some of the labor cost for special craps. The total labor is divided up into hired labor and a charge for family and operator's labor. In the leases studied in Area 1 the landlord contributed 9 percent of hired labor and the tenant 91 percent. In Area 5 the landlord contributed 7 percent of the hired labor and the tenant 93 percent. For family labor in Area 1 the landlord con- tributed 7 percent and the operator 93 percent. In Area 5 the land- lord contributed 38 percent and the tenant 62 percent of all family labor. The operator's labor was furnished entirely by the tenant. Hired labor and family labor comprised about 30 percent of the total charge for labor. Feed purchases is divided equally in the 50-50 lease. how- ever the tenant is to stand all of the feed purchases for poultry owned entirely by him. In the leases studied from 1939 to 1944 feed expense was divided equally for both areas. Livestock expense is divided equally in the 50-50 lease ex- cept for expense on horses or poultry owned entirely by the tenant. On the fal‘IhS studied in Area 1 the landlord contributed 46 percent of the livestock expense and the tenant 54 percent. In Area 5 live- stock expense was divided 48 percent to the landlord and 52 percent to the tenant. Crap expense is usually divided equally between. both parties in the 50-50 lease. In the leases studied in Area 1 the landlord and tenant shared equally the crOp expenses. In Area 5 the land- lord contributed 51 percent and the tenant 49 percent of the crop expense. Mscellaneous expense is contributed by either party depend- ing upon the nature of the expense. Usually the landlord and tenant share the farm share of electric and telephone. In the leases studied the landlord contributed in Area 1. 2 percent and the tenant 98 percent of the miscellaneous expense. In Area 5 the landlord con- tributed 24 percent and the tenant 76 percent of miscellaneous expense. This study of the total expenses and charges on farms using the 50-50 lease shows that the landlord contributed about 44 percent and the tenant 56 percent of the total expenses and charges during the six year period. During the period the landlord's total expense per tillable acre increased about 35 percent and the tenant’s 69 percent. The landlord's total expense averaged from $2 per tillable acre in 1939 to $7 per tillable acre in 1944 less than the tenant's total expense per tillable acre. The tenant's total expenses have been rising faster than the landlord's over the six year period. The tenant's main contribution of Operator's and family labor and machinery expense have risen in the leases studied. Operators and family labor per tillable acre increased 54 percent and machinery expense 95 percent over the six year period. The landlord's main contribution of real estate has been held constant on the farm account records. The landlord's con- tributions of farm improvement expense and taxes per tillable acre increased 12 percent and 7 percent respectively. The other items of expense mainly feed purchases, livestock expense, and crop ex- pense were divided equally between both parties. WW The ratio of prices paid to prices received by farmers in Michigan (table 7) grew more favorable each year increasing from 78 in 1939 to 125 in 1943. and falling off in 1944 to 117. This ratio was plotted in figure 10. Labor incomes on all farms using 50-50 leases (table 8) for the six years studied increased rapidly for both areas reaching a high in 1942 (figure 10). Labor incomes fell off in 1943 and started up again in 1944. The labor incomes of the 50-50 lease farms averaged about $50 more than the labor incomes of all cOOper- ators in the two areas. The return for meagement was used in this study to measure the equitability of the division of returns to the landlord and ten- ant. The return for management represents the net above all other charges and was found by subtracting the total expenses and charges from the total receipts (table 9). Expenses and charges included cash expenses. depreciation, and charges for operator's and family labor and interest on investment at 5 percent. The return for management differs from labor income in that the charge for oper- ator's labor has been deducted. It appears as if the management return should be equally divided between the landlord and tenant if each party is receiving a Just return for his contributions. The contributions and returns of the landlord and tenant were analyzed to see if each party re- ceived a Just return for his contributions. The average management return in Area 1 for the six years was $768 for the landlord and $383 for the tenant (table 9). In Table 7. Price Index Number for Michigan‘ - 1939 to 1944 inclusive. Years _PriC§ index no'g‘ Prices Prices Ratio recejggfi, m 1939 97 125 78 1940 106 126 84 1941 129 134 96 1942 161 152 106 1943 202 162 125 legg 4199 :120 117 *From Michigan.Annual CrOp Report - 1945 Table 8. Labor Income for all Farm Business Analysis COOperators and.50-50 Renter-Operated.Farms - Areas 1 and 5- 1939 to 1944 inclusive. Years Average all COOperators 50-50 Lease Farms* Area 1 Apea 5 Agea l Agea 5 1939 $1053 $ 802 $ 806 $ 648 1940 1092 987 1023 1131 1941 2268 1973 2009 2595 1942 3056 2763 3175 2672 1943 2235 2222 2237 2368 1944 2719 2496 2801; 2788 *See appendix Table G for details Table 9. Financial Smnnary; Comparison of Landlord's and Tenant's Under 50—50;IJleases - Areas 1 and 5 - 1939 to 1944 incl. Years Area 1 Item Total farm Iandéord Tenant 1939 ' Receipts $3398 $1671 $1727 Expenses and Charges" 3181 4.521 1669 Management 217 150 67 153$ , Receipts ~ 4141 2004 2137 Expenses and Charges* & 1749 1960 Management 432 255 177 1.9.11 Receipts 4653 2284 2369 Expenses and Charge 3* 3244 15g 1703 Management 1409 743 666 Receipts 6362 3124 3238 Expenses and Charge s" 4147 1757 £90 Management 2215 1367 848 Receipts 6236 2992 3244 Expenses and Charges"I 5199 2114 3985 Management 1037 878 159 Receipts 7313 3580 3733 Expenses and Charges" __5_7_1_2 £61 £51 Mamgement 1601 1219 382 Receipts 5350 2609 2741 Expenses and Charges" _4_1_9_9_ #84; fl bdpgaggment 115]: 768 3L Years Ages. 5 tem Tote;= farm Landlord TenagL_ 1939 Receipts $3123 $1478 $1645 Exmnses and Charges" fl .1219. Management 55 146 -91 19 Receipts 3844 1820 2024 Expenses and Charges" _],_5_QJ. 4% Management 539 319 220 1941 Receipts 5482 2617 2865 Expenses and Charges* are .1251 .1521 Man. ement 2010 966 l "' Charges include family labor, operator's labor and interest on investment at 5 percent. Table 9. Financial Summary; Comparison of Landlord's and Tenant's Under 50-50 Leases-spas 1 Q; £1939 to 1943 incl. (cogt'd) Years Area :5_ Item Total farm Laflogi; Tenant 1942 Receipts $5583 $2806 $2777 Expenses and Charges“ 3841 1660 3131 Management 1742 1146 596 195 Receipts 5696 2849 2671 Expenses and Charges"I 4495 1824 262]. Management 1201 1025 176 1944 Receipts 7313 3580 3733 Expenses and Charges“ £921 _l_9_83 i933 Management 1648 1240 408 gvgrgge Receipts 5046 2466 2580 Expenses and Charges" 3847 43$ A89, Wemem 1199 808 391 "Charges include family labor. operators labOF‘Zahd interest—on.— investment at 5 percent. Area 5 the average management return of the landlord for the same period was $808 and the tenant $391. For the two areas the return for management for the landlord was twice that of the tenant. Return for management to the landlord and the tenant for each of the six years is shown in Table 9, and presented graphically in Figure 11. The graph shows a fairly equal management return to the landlord's and tenant's for the first three years. 1939 to 1941 inclusive in both areas. The landlord, however. received slightly more each year for his management than the tenant. It would seem that in these three years the return for management of both tenant and landlord were reasonably equitable. In the years 1942 to 1944 inclusive the disparity in the return for management to the tenant and landlord increased. Indications are that some adjustment in the sharing of the income could well be made. Before adjustments can be made it would be well to look at the major contributions of the landlord and tenant to see if their contributions are in line with rising prices during the six year period. The landlord's major contributions not shared.wdth the tenant were interest on investment. improvement expense. and taxes on land. The landlord's investment per tillable acre remained about the same in the leases studied over the six year period. Farm real estate values increased 46 percent from.l939 to 1944 (table 10). During the last three year period.the landlord's real estate investment should be adjusted to allow for the rise in value of farm real estate. Farm improvement expense per tillable acre has increased about 12 percent from 1939 to 1944 for the leases studied. Tax expense per tillable acre has increased 7 percent for the same period. Table 10. Farm.Land!: Index of Estimated.value per Acre and Index of ‘.ages paid. gired Eelp in Michifl-l939 to 1944 incl. ear nd x of farm lwd‘”I n x of w * 1910-14-100 1910—l4=100 92 126 1939 1940 91 129 1941 93 164 1942 105 202 1943 115 258 ____;s442 425L_ 299 I""‘All farm land with.improvements I'From Annual Crop Report for Michigan 49 The tenant's main contributions not shared by the landlord were labor and machinery. The cost of labor in Michigan has gone up 137‘percent from 1939 to 1944 (table 10). Diring these years the charge for Operator's labor was $600 for the first three years, $960 for 1942 and $1200 for the last two years in the farm account records. This charge for Operator's labor was in line with using labor costs for each year except 1941 and 1944. Family labor is usually figured as man equivalent and the same charge per month as the Operator is used. Hired labor has increased during this period with the going rate. The machinery expenses per tillable acre in- creased 95 percent on the leases studied. The main contributions shared by both parties are productive livestock, feed. feed purchases. livestock expense, and cr0p expense. In the leases studied the above items were shared as near 50—50 as possible. Prices paid by farmers increased 36 percent over the six year period. Receipts were divided 49 percent to the landlord and 51 percent to the tenant in the leases studied. The adjustments in the return for management necessary are interest on investment for the landlord and labor for the tenant. The landlord‘s real estate investment was adjusted for the~last three years of the study to keep in line with rising real estate values (table 10). The tenants charge for Operators and family labor was adjusted for the years 1941 and 1944 according to the index of wages for those years (table 10). The Operators and family labor charge for the other four years was in line with wage increases. Table 11 shows the landlord' s and tenant's returns for manage- Allj @ m N. mm...” mam m3 mien wad. mmm mmm gma $3 man man 024 5 AB 0.“ and» ammo ohm modem. been a.“ 03303 gaseowmqma no.“ Spam @3de omega coped @0333. aeoawwmsma no.“ Seem . gum psmamwmqma no.“ 332 demomoum modem been a.“ $3.38 988?de .3.“ Spam 20593.14 3038qu do 580de H3038: 33mede no.“ gem - 3% mead an mmm mmm mNH mmm mmm oh a. amm damn mama ma“ Q. be.” IQI. up." a: Jan new Ia... mom . M p moamm Ease a." 8353 uqmsommgmz no.“ museum 355.34 meters .283 3353 33%.ng no.“ Seem m-Hgme u380§2 no.“ aspen domomoum modem been 3 mmmmuooa asmaowmqws now 55me 39.3.3.4 308323 so 30.8an H5033 pdmamwmdmz no.“ qgumm m .dhcggfl Is; a a «#3 save 259303 $2 o... mama . m e5 a was: .. $33 8.8 .8qu 23284 "passages .8“ mEBQm .2 Sea 51 ment adjusted for higher real estate values and consequent higher interest on investment charge for the landlord, and.the additional charge for the tenant's labor. The adJusted.management returns for the last three years for Areas 1 and.5 (figure 12) seem more equit- able nOW'that the landlord's real estate and tenant's labor contri- butions were adjusted to rising prices. Is the return for management. adjusted to price rises. as equitable as can be made under a 50-50 lease? It appears as if the tenant should be given a greater share of the receipts, especially during the last three years of the study. The Michigan 50—50 lease suggests that the tenant may be given over 50 percent of the dairy sales to compensate for the large amount of labor involved in the dairy enterprise. In the leases studied.the dairy sales were divided equally; How would the return for management to the landlord and tenant compare if the tenant had received.more than 50 percent of the dairy sales? To this study} further, the tenant was given 55 percent of the dairy sales during the years 1939 to 1941 inclusive, and 60 percent for the last three years. The increase in income to the tenant was added.to his re- turn for management and subtracted from the landlord's return for management (table 11). The resulting return for management for each party is shown in figure 13. The return for management for both parties appears more equitable when the tenant was allowed 55 per- cent of the dairy sales from 1939 to 1944 inclusive and 60 percent of the dairy sales for the last three years. Qomnarison 2; 50-50 Benter—Qgerated m with Owner-93 rated Earms in m l and a - 1932 and 12.44 The purpose of the comparison of the 50-50 renter-operated farms with owner-operated fame was to see if there is any signifi- cant differences in size of business, organizationof amp and live- stock enterprises. and financial returns. There‘ was a total of 162 owner records in 1989 and 98 owner records studied in l944.(table 12). There was a total of 81, 50—50 lease records in 1939 and 32 in 1944 used in the study. The 50—50 renter-operated farms in the two areas averaged 135 tillable acres or 9 percent more than the owner-operated farms in 1989 and 1944. Both 50-50 renter-Operated farms and owner- operated farms increased 16 percent in tillable acres from 1939 to 1944. The 50-50 renter-Operated farms averaged 494 productive man work units or 12 percent more than the owner Operated farms in 1989. The total productive man work units on 50—50 renter operated farms increased 12 percent and owner—operated farms 16 percent from 1939 to 1944. In 1939 the 50-50 renters and the owner-Operators both Operated their farms with the same degree of intensity. 3.9 men work units per tillable acre. In 1944 the 50-50 renters and owner- operators had 8.8 and 3.9 productive men work units per tillable acre respectively. Labor efficiency was higher on the 50-50 lease farms. In 1939 they had 3'7 more productive man work units per man or 15 per- cent more than the owners. In 1944 the 50—50 renters had 48 or 16 Tablg 12. Fifty-Fifty Renter-Operated and Owner—Operated Farms - Some Organization Factors and Crepping Program — Areas 1 5 - 1939 and 1944 Item 1939 41944 5O-MQ‘= rented 9mg; $12 rented 9m; Organization Factors Number of farms 31 162 32 98 Acres per farm 175 163 199 181 Tillable acres 125 115 145 133 Total P.M.W.U.. 494 443 546 513 P.M.W.U. per man 279 242 357 309 Average no. of men 1.7? 1.83 1.53 1.66 Percent having tractors 74 65 97 94 Operator's age - - 34 49 9.1222 Percent in legumes 32 32 28 27 Percent tillable acres in: Alfalfa hay 17 16 11 12 Other hay 12 11 10 11 Tillable pasture 17 20 17 19 Corn(grain & silage) 21 18 28 20 Oats and barley 14 14 14 12 Wheat 8 10 13 13 Beans 3 2 l 2 Beans-soy 2 1 2 4 Other 6 8 4 7 Crop yield index 91 .- 99 98 Crap sales - total $712 $533 $955 $1219 - landlo rd' § 355 __9 fl 9— percent more productive men work units per man. There were more tractors on the 50-50 lease farms. In 1939 there was 9 percent more tractors on 50-50 lease farms and in 1944. there was 3 percent more tractors than on owner farms. The 50—50 renters averaged 34 years of age as compared to 49 years of age for owners in 1944. There we very little difference in the cr0pping program of the 50—50 lease farms and the owner-Operated farms. A greater diff- erence is noted for the 50—50 rented and owner-operated farms between the years 1939 and 1944. The percentage of the tillable land in legumes for all farms lowered about 5 percent from 1939 to 1944. The percentage of the tillable acres for the 50-50 lease farms in alfalfa and other hay decreased 8 percent. miscellaneous crops decreased 3 percent. corn increased '7 percent and. wheat increased 4 percent from 1939 to 1944. The percentage of the tillable acres for owner-Operated farms in alfalfa lowered 5 percent, corn increased 2 percent. and wheat increased 3 percent from 1939 to 1944. There was very little variation in the other crops from 1939 to 1944. ‘ The 50-50 renter-Operated farms had 4.5 more productive animal units in 1939 than the owner farms (table 13). They had one pro- ductive animal unit for each 4.0 tillable acres compared with one for each 4.3 tillable acres on the owner farms. In 1944 the 50-50 lease and owner farms had 4.1 and. 4.0 tillable acres per productive animal unit respectively. From 1939 to 1944 the 50—50 renters increased the productive livestock 7 percent while owners increased 17 percent. Productive livestock income per tillable acre was about 3 Table 13. Fifty-Fifty Renter—Operated.and Owner-Operated.Farms - Livestock:§roggam - Ageas 1 and 5 - 1932 and.1944 Item 1939 _;§44 .5Qg50.rented. owner 50+§Q_;§gtefi__gyngx;__, Livestock Productive animal units 31.5 27.0 35.4 33.2 Tillable acres per P. A" U. 4.0 4.3 4.1 4.0 Productive livestock income $2202 $2094 $5474 $5665 genie No. of dairy cows 9.7 10.1 12.7 11.6 Dairy sales per cow $ 78 $ 95 $ 236 $ 236 Dairy product sales 757 957 2999 2739 Cattle income (meat) 412 414 679 848 m Nb. of sows 2.5 2.1 2.7 2.0 Pigs per litter 6.4 6.3 5.9 5.7 Hog income $ 339 $ 295 $1228 $ 954 $4.332 No. of ewes 24.1 17.7 23.4 13.1 Sheep income $361 $ 157 $ 226 $ 214 £92135: No. of hens 109 106 89 133 Egg sales per.hen $1.93 $ 204 $3.21 $4.25 Egg sales - total 211 216 286 565 cult com meat)‘ __iag §EL______§§ 345 58‘ percent higher for owner farms in 1939 in spite of the renters hav- ing more stock. The returns per head were higher on the owner farms. In 1944 the owner farms productive livestock income per tillable acre was 13 percent higher than the 50-50 lease farms. The productive livestock income per tillable acre for owners increased 129 percent. and 50—50 farms increased 115 percent from 1939 to 1944. The dairy enterprise consisted Of 10 cows in 1939 for both 50-50 lease and owner farms, and increased to 12 cows in 1944. The dairy sales per cow for 50-50 lease farms was 22 percent lower than owner farms in 1939. The dairy sales per cow for 50-50 renters and owners was the same in 1944. The hog enterprise was small consisting of from 2 to 2.7 sows on the average. The 50—50 lease farms had .4 more sows in 1939 and .7 more in 1944 than owner farms. HOg income was about 15 percent more for 50-50 renter farms than owners in 1939. In 1944 the hog income was 29 percent higher for the 50—50 lease farms. Sheep enterprise had 6.5 more ewes in 1939 and 10 more ewes in 1944 on the 50-50 lease farms. Sheep income for 50-50 renters was $11 per ewe in 1939 and $9 per ewe in 1944. Sheep income for owners was $9 per ewe in 1939 and $16 per ewe in 1944. The poultry flock averaged the same size for both groups in 1939. In 1944 50-50 renters had 45 less hens than owners. Egg sales per hen was about the same for 50—50 renters and owners in 1939 while 50-50 renters averaged about a dollar less eg sales per hen in 1944. Fifty-fifty renter Operated farms had an average investment of $15640, and owner-operated farms had an average investment Of Table 14. Fiftthifty RenterbOperated.and Owner-Operated Farms - Financial gummggz - Argas 1 agd 5 - 1939 agd 1944i Item ‘ 1939, 1944 50-50 rented. aners 50-50 rented nggrs Investment Real estate (less house)$10609 $9830 $11897 $11810 Machineny 1348 1512 2330 2709 Livestock 2352 2198 3444 3349 Feed __1332 1089 2248. 2196 Total 15640 14629 19919 20064 Receipts Livestock 2202 2094 5475 5665 Crop sales 843 746 1215 1220 Miscellaneous __lQEL 155 363 291__ Total 3219 2994 6952 7086 Engnses Total _l._44_9 1317 $65 33e:6__ Receipts less Egpgnses 1770 1677 4087 3750 Family labor 182 203 191 455 Net farm.income 1588 1474 3896 3295 Operator's labor 592 565 1172 1144 Return for invest.& mgt. 996 909 2724 2151 Percent on investment 6.37 6.21 13.68 10.82 t rm \ com 1588 1474 3896 3295 Interest at 5 percent 782 731 996 1003 Lagoz inggme ' BQ§ 743_ 2909 .,m_4§2E&__ $14629 in 1939. In 1944 the average investment was $19919 for 50-50 lease farms and $20064 for owners. The average investment per till- able acre for 50—50 renmrs was $125 and for owners $127. In 1944 the 50—50 renters investment per tillable acre was $137 and for owners $151. The 50-50 renters investment per tillable acre increased 11 percent and owners 19 percent from 1939 to 1944. Receipts per tillable acre were the same for 50—50 lease farms and owners in 1939. In 1944 the 50-50 lease farms had 10 per- cent 1ess receipts per tillable acre than the owner-Operated farms. Total receipts per tillable acre increased 86 percent for 50-50 lease farms and 100 percent for owners. Expenses per tillable acre was the same for 50—50 renters and owners in 1939. In 1944 the 50-50 lease farms expenses per tillable acre were 27 percent lower than the owner Operated. farms. The 50—50 renter farms expenses per tillable acre increased 71 per- cent and owner Operated farms 11.3 percent from 1939 to 1944. Net farm income was $100 less for 50-50 renter-Operated farms tkan the owner-operated farms in 1939. In 1944 the 50-50 rented farms had about $600 greater net farm income than the owners. The greater net farm income in 1944 for the 50—50 lease farms may be explained that the expenses per tillable acre were 27 percent less and income only 10 percent less per tillable acre than owners. The Rate earned on investment averaged slightly over 6 per- cent for 50—50 rented farms and owners in 1939. In 1944 the 50-50 rented farms earned 14 percent interest on the investment compared with 10 percent on the owner-operated farms. Labor income was about the same for 50-50 lease farms and 61 owners in 1939. In 1944 the 50-50 lease farms had $600 more labor income than owners. The 50-50 renter-owner study shows that in 1939 there was no significant difference in farm organization. receipts, expenses, or earnings between the 50-50 rented.and owned farms. The greater return on the 50—50 lease farms in 1944-may be explained that they kept the expenses per tillable acre 27 percent lower, while the receipts per tillable acre was only 10 percent lower than owner’s. The 50-50 renters also had 9 percent more tillable acres. The purpose Of this study has been to determine the equita- bility of Michigan fiftybfifty crop and livestock share farm leases. This has been done by comparison of landlordfis and tenant's contri- butions and returns on farms with 50-50 leases in the farm accounting project in type of farming Areas 1 and 5 for 1939 to 1944. The farms in this study averaged 180 acres in size for Area 1 and 191 acres in size for.Area 5. Over 75 percent of the farm land was tillable in.Area l and 70 percent in Area 5. The farms in this study with 50-50 leases had an average total investment Of $20750 in Area 1 and $18784 in Area 5 for the years 1939 to 1944. The average investment per tillable acre was $153 in.Area l and $139 in Area 5. Landlord's in Area 1 contributed 79 percent of the total investment. and.in Area 5, 80 percent. The price index Of farm products in Michigan averaged 149 from 1939 to 1944. The price index ranged from 97 in 1939 to 202 in 1943 falling to 199 in 1944. This was an increase of 105 percent. The index of prices paid by farms averaged 145. The index of prices paid ranged from 125 in 1939 to 170 in 1944, or an increase of 36 percent. The ratio of prices paid to prices received by farmers grew more favorable each year increasing from 78 in 1939 to 125 in 1943. falling in 1944 to 117. Receipts on the farms in this study averaged $5350 in Area 1 and $5046 in.Area 5 for the six.years 1939 to 1944. This was $39 per tillable acre in Area 1 and $37 in Area 5. Landlord's received 49 percent of the total receipts and the tenant's 51 percent in both areas for'the six.year period. Landlord's total receipts per tillable acre in Area 1 in- 63 creased 84 percent and the tenant's 85 percent from 1939 to 1944. In Area 5 the landlord's total receipts per tillable acre increased 92 percent and tenant's 77 percent for the six years. The land- lord's total receipts per tillable acre each year averaged about a dollar less than the tenant's for all leases studied. Total expenses and charges averaged $4199 in Area 1 and $3847 in Area 5 for the years 1939 to 1944. This amounted to $31 per tillable acre in Area 1 and $29 in Area 5. Landlord's con- tributed an average of 43 percent of the total expenses in Areasldi and the tenant's 57 percent during the years 1939 to 1944. The landlord's major contributions, not shared with the tenant. were interest on his investment. improvement expense. and taxes on land. The landlord's investment per tillable acre remained the same, improvement expenses per tillable acre increased 12 per- cent. and the tax expense per tillable acre increased 7 percent in the leases studied from 1939 to 1944. Farm real estate values in- creased 46 percent from 1939 to 1944. During the last three years the farm real estate investment should be adjusted to allow for the rise in value of farm real estate. The tenant's major contributions, not shared with the land- lord were labor and machinery. Operator's and family labor charge per tillable acre increased 54 percent over the six year period. The cost of hired labor increased with the going wage rates. There was .25 less man equivalent on 15 percent more tillable land. Hired labor wages in Michigan have gone up 137 percent from 1939 to 1944. During these years the charge for Operator's labor was $600 for the first three years, $960 for 1942 and $1200 for the last two years in the farm.account records. This charge for Operator's labor was in line with rising labor costs for each year except 1941 and 1944. Family labor was usually figured as man equivalent and the same charge made per month as for the Operator. Machinery expense per tillable acre increased 95 percent on the leases studied. The return for management was used in this study to measure the equitability of the division.of returns to the landlord.and.tenr ant. The return for management represents the net above all other charges and was found.by subtracting the total expenses and charges included cash expenses. depreciation and.charges for Operator's and family labor and.interest on investment at 5 percent. It appears as if the management return should.be divided equally'between the landlord.and tenant if each.party is receiving a just returnfbr his contributions. There was a fairly equal management return to the landlord'sA €3¥{€33‘?i¥3§'three years 1939 to 1941 inclusive. in both.areas. The landlord. however received slightly more each.year for his mans agement than.the tenant. It would seem.that in these three years the return for management for both 1andlord.and tenant were reasons ably equitable. In the years 1942 to 1944 inclusive the disparity in the return for management to the landlord.and tenant increased. Indications are that some adjustment could well be made (1) for rising values of the landlord's real estate (2) rising wage rates for the tenant's labor, and.(3) to provide for a more equitable sharing of the management return. In the records the landlord's real estate had.been left at the same value. His real estate investment has been revised keeping 65 in line with changes in real estate prices. and.bis interest on in- vestment increased accordingly. The charge for tenant's labor was increased during the six year period but not in accord with hired wage rates for the years 1941 and 1944. Labor charges for these years were adjusted. The management return after making these two adjustments is more equitable but still the tenant received less than.oneehalf of the management return. It appears as if the tenant should be given a. greater share of the receipts. especially during the last three years of the study. If to more nearly equalize the management return.the tenant were given 55 percent of the dairy sales during the years 1939 to 1941 inclu- sive. and 60 percent for the last three years. the resulting return for management for both parties would be more equitable than a straight 50-50 division. It is prOposed that the landlord's real estate investment be kept in line with current market prices to influence his interest contribution. The tenant's labor charge should be in accord with hired wage rates. Further that when the hired wage rates are from 125 to 199 percent of 1910-1914 base period, the tenant gets 55 percent of dairy sales and when the index is 200 or more 60 percent. The comparison.of 50—50 renter-Operated farms with owner- operated farms in Areas 1 and 5 for 1939 and 1944 showed that there was no significant difference in organization. receipts or earnings in 1939. Fifty-fifty renter-operated farms in 1944 had $600 higher labor income than.owner operated farms. The 50-50 renter-Operated farms also earned 14 percent interest on the investment compared with 66 10 percent on the owner Operated farms. The greater return in 1944 of the 50-50 renter-operated farms seems to be in the 27 percent less expenses per tillable acre and only 10 percent less receipts per tillable acre. There was 9 percent more tillable acres on the 50-50 renter-operated farms. nmxx runs 57 68 .uO 3..— .3 .32. a: d 5 53303». Add nuanced not. a one up 3:33:93 much he undo-d 00:93 :3 ca 35 an: au- 330339 4 3 one.» no: can a: uneven-noon 2.933 In: .5- Mo 9.85% 2; mm.” and 3.... R.” 2.4 a... no 3. .385 MM mum «a... ma... mm“ a“ an M... a... .53..." ms. 3 a .333 .38 73 mam are $8 ...«n An WW .35 155 3236.5 3 ..m 8 «2 am o2 .. a as: 33» 9.3 and an» .5 and a..." HMM .8." .88 3.123 .3.— mu mun 0a." no" o a: an .3..— .931 R a S 3 me on on 3.3 so «...-an [E4 _ 5w” H HP; H as; _ n3“ . mum...” R ... R ... on... $4 on.” 2.... on. ... a... no .3 .385 a n Mn mun 3n mom «in tau all you 5.: .I.-h m n own So 8.... man an t 654..." .38 «an «.3 9% «6n man 9.? .13 .35. in: 33.38." «a no." non 8.. am can .8 c 33 3:» 9.3 one an» and .2 on." Me .5 8.8.. €3.39 8» :8 «3 a: 5a a a: .5» ...-a :84 no 5 3 5 an a .3 and u. 8......- 15 H 53.. a 2.“... _ r? a H 3%.L man a ...: a do: .23 3 «3.. o a an. a 8:4 .. :85 omuom ~35 25.. 8 :38.— ESuaa-uuo 3.. .4 .36 «R o .8 3a.. gnu E... o o e. 3 «one an 3. when” . fl?» ha “fin o m3... 8: a. 8m» . c we. as “one” . sumo o «mm ¢ a: n. 2...... «8 . an: . o and a a man .33 a“: o A... .2? 3 R3 ... a ...: .. .....a on...“ ...... .38... a... .3833 no. 3:89.... 383...: 5.1..— ..32: ... ...n s .ouaohuuuu one «on :33. coca-n no auto-coo bun-cu 33 no... can choc 0.3.3.3 non 3:: duo.— u. and: E e. 5 n9... . o nun . 1.6 m coca ma h3g8 28¢ ... 28...»: 2.3.5.8 can ......— Roa . b333- o ...... 1.: noun-HUB 38." . fillu c...— 3 2.38 .33 . 5.....3 83.8.8 as .....3 Inn #833. Snna . 7.8.. .3533........ in n.0uoudnia “mm.“ o o e..— R." . base 88 a £3.25 323...: a cannon l: b.3233 Sun.— . A5,... .35.: ._ ...... 3 18a ...... .9 OHAIH i0” 5:... ...,.... ... .... . {tech 3. on. you «.33. .30.." so once-non 6733 33. '0‘ 5 0.3.. one-.3: ....— o.¢.oo an... no 31.. can on o 3. o . n o a. n a an . 3n . ...... mm: «www- mmmdml 3 u a . ....— ..n an m a. m. .... «a ...:de ...: 3.. an: m5. :3 an. 8. a ......3: 25.3.9: an an. S. 9.. mm. 0R emu ......— 3: . «we. . 3n. . on: c «an. . no... a on: . p.328: o o o o o o ...... 1.. chant a o .— o a . o «m . u .— ¢ 1.3 mm. mm.» mm . flwfl omolofim mwhm .... R «m on an o . #3...— R: mu... an: 8: Re. 3. a... a ......p: ......e.‘ an 3 no 2 a. n. t. ......- 3~ 2.. man n m: , 3. R. b.223— SR. . .3: . 5.: . m: . .3... o .8... . n9: . ...... .8...............1.u ucfl mmmmm 2.: . Rsafiflm . Rn: . «2.: o no: a a. o a: o 1.... .3... a as... 31 mm. mm.” .... .... e. ”mm... a: a 2. G a . b5...— Smu ”a. 3n. an 28 m. .2: a «8...»: 32...... mom a: an» .3. an a. w. a an: 8: mm: 8: 3.: 8 . .3: . ES: . o3: . .3: . Ron. . as. _ a... _ "an _ 2a _ mam... em: _. flu: flaw. ...... .3: .. an: o .... ...4 o ...... canon ...... ...l... 2.. ......9... u. ......e... ....l.....~ .0 3A.... .335 none-or: noda- dcudaeuu .3 a: hung Emu . mm: . a... . n . Emu . wnwm . 5 . 1... a: :8 u u . ...... 3.23.8.9. m3 . 2h 2. mam an «mu mum .8... a... mu. .2. am. 5 a «on n ...... .31.. 8 Hon. um. . E. . 2. . n2. . .3 . ..1. b1. .3 . 3.. . an. . 5. . .8. . on . .... . .58.... £3.25? 3.33 BF . BF... . «mm; . . B... . ”B... . mum. . 1... 8‘. : m: a an . ...... 3331...... am. .2. won :2. ., man 3. an... ...... a... 3. a: o: 2.. mm. «on R... ...... .31.. no. «a: Em a». «2. n2. 8.. . ..1. b1. mu: . nun. . Rn. . ma: . m8. . an. . an. . 3...... 1......“ .203 RR . :2. . m... o u . no . a a . Rn . 1... III}. “Ml : 8 Wm? . .I.... 5.8.1.... 3. 2: .... 8n. .2. «a ... ...... .... .9. an. .3 an. an. .3 2m ...... .31.. :3 nan. R: , . . no... 8: «a. ..1. b1. 8% . o2. . ...... . n . :8 . an... .. 2: . ...-.... 13...: $3 1...... h Imam a 3338 L «NW 1 Judmlll. «4...... , A .1... 1m. 3 an: o n .31 a 39.4 I :33 onion use: 3.33 =- 39335.” no 33.13.» 3.333 ..n can-a o'9' .... 72 has... 13...: ...... .531... .... .. .31... ... mu . anm o h . .$m . u . mg a mu. . 1... : ow : .... w... a .32.. .I.-gogi n8 3. ... .3 0.. .3 8m ...... ...... n... ..n. mo. me. on. a: ...o. .88. .31.. a... .2. w... ... ... as «on 3.3 ...... mi. . mam . a... . .8 . 3. . man a a: . 3...... u........u , 0-» fl . nuun ... a. . 1... wwl :41 . mum—mp . mm:- ¢ «HF & mm... a dump. o .92.. 25.5.3.9..3 nan km an: «3 mu. .3 mu: .33.. no.6 .... mu. “m“. . no. a. «n. ...... 53...... mm. .2. mm. .2 an. . 3n ..1. ...... an. . n3 . a... . .8 . mom . ..n o «a . 3...... 1...... ._ co mm... mm... m... ...... ~ . . m... m... ...“...3..... a... 9... 9.. .mn. on... 9... man 8.... 9.6 gm. n m Mm. a: u ... mm. ...... .31.. t... 9mm.” Rm. . . 3.. .2. ..1. ...... a... . om . . on: . .2. . .... . 3.. . 5o. . ...-.... 13...... 1.3.1.: .1... i: 3 an: o m can .— 394 ... :3... onion .35. .339 a... 34.33 no ...-«nuance .3530: .n can-n . . . . n . ... . RF . . . 2 IF . ...... $m' mm..ml ”Hall... a . er u u .32.... 25.3.33: 3. .... .... «a. ... ... R .....u. ...... .n gm .1 .... a. on u ......u. 5...... in an 8.. .mu 3. 2.... m... 33...... .... .u .n . .n u. u. . ...... ...... o. o 3 o o o o ...... ...-... o o o o o o . ...... . 13...... . u n o u a. o ...... R . 8. w. 3 u. ... ...-...... ... .836... 8. .. ... no. no. 3. ma ...... S. .3 no. .a. gm» 3. .2. mm a. 3...... Fa . um. . mm. a an. . .... a 3. . 2.. . 3.1.88... ...... o 3...... mm. R .m . n n .... mnlwl . 0 ”will u s a «n a rmmll n a . ..uonu. one-3.8... ... no. n .... on. 8. R. .....n. ...... S t. a 3 a. 3 on 8...... .333... .mm n... 8. .mm .m 3m .9. .33.... ...,. mm. .3 .8 8. u... 3. ... ...... ...... . . 3. an. 8. .m R. ...... ...... ...-... R. 8.... 8.. 3m .8 .R Ga .2... .133... n. n. n . n n . ......- m... as S. in in an S. 88...... .I. #338: .... ...... .u. ... ... ... 8. .2... .... .8. m... .8. 8m 3.. ... E .. ...... ... .... . 8n . mm. . a. . ... . a... . ... o ...—......E. ...... ...... a ......1 L 93 w 3: P ....de ...... ...... .. Rm. I .— .....4 I .03... canon .35 3.33 can 3.8.9.3.. no 33.3.7.9 3.9.28 .3.- ...§ .n ...-a a v I . . .—.. 9 ' u ' \ , . . . -.‘ H... , ‘ .. _‘ - Q . M I ' I } r—‘| . .. . . O p . D I 'v'-“ I , . ...—... . . .. . s n' ...--. . . ' I n I I V x . , . .... l - t g V . I u 0 I a l .. . 1 , . ~ n .a ‘ \ l . . , . . .v . .. ’ . _ , . . ' u I 7h Son . gnu . no: a «a a BM” . 1.3 N... H mm a: a: 1 «u .32?- ado-3333:; mg 3n 5 a “.3 8a 8a :89: 3.6 .3 an n mm mm ow Scann- £03.33 1n 5n 8.. 8n 8» wk n8 3.322.. 3... 8a 3n :u 3H :2 man F8 3.3 «2:. ”ma Sn «2 8a an Ra R." .33 53....— p u an «an .83 ...»..326 m o: 1 cannon 3“ 8a 2255. 2.- Dana... a .33 m8 R." R ... H.835 . a . a a :88»... a flfim thlmA “ an A loan 9.253103 sauna .35 I mama ... .— 33 ... good-A onion .333 n.»§on du- uaiodoncn no 33.3.33 3.2.26 and ooononnn on can-a 75 Alana mm»; a a." .3 a cog-nu. $523.38.; 1... Ru «mu m3 n: Se ...: .82.: are :u mu 8 3 mu 2 5 339: €3.33 m3 5n n3 8a a: a: 8.. 8.39:3 c...— mn 3 3 an 8 3 on .8 .3 cos .3 do." 6‘ o: a. F 9. 8.3 52....— o o o o o o o «23 ..32:& u n o .... a ma 3 3....- 8 ..m i R 3 on a 2.338. 3. #323. m2 m? a: a. 8.." an «a .33 MS . “ms « mt. . ms. ”ms m3 . a: . mm a. “833 a a mu 8 a a a 3.388.. .5 m o . 8 Li. .3. 5a 5 on 8 a? «Bn 2. m moan NR 18 a o u o u a... . NIH-I 0 Ala o . onion". once-anaconda n n m nun mm n «ma Rs :59: 9.6 .3 R no A a: oug- Mona-05A .5. s m 3.. 5». R... n 8. 3.38% a...— nma a n Ru 3% on“ S au .33 3.5— 8s m3 nu ma 9: 8 «an 8a: an: an. 3: m: on» nun «R man .33 .1382: m“... a 8 8 3 no :88 5. on 8.. a... nun Sn «an 2323. .8 b.3283 8H and an a. 8A 3 am .33 Ra mum 5m . gnu :3 «Nu n mm a. :33.” emu . 3a . on... . 8a . Sm . an... . a a a 38.38%: E...— 3 _ all! .3: .23, .. m3. .. m ...—4 I non-on onion «3:- ..an-aoa can c.3033." no «coda-n89 35.3.6 can coca-nun ..n ounce “fl . u c b...— ...- . 1 ~ _— o n v . v s - .. ...... ,. § . Q mmm mam c. mm H.“ H mm: .38 a « * Huml ¢ a am a ma » ow * gun-nu. 38.3333: 3‘ a u "S 8." a: 5 a: 8898 9.6 an R an an nu «a 8 8833 303.33 8.. 8n Ru Ra «3 mm." «a .3399.— a...— u an an 8 «on Rm 3a 2:3 3.3— u a 3a «2 8a «3 3.. 3.. .8»: £23 an» 3: 3: on» mun «an man 83 . 138.8 «a d n ma 8 ..u n: 39:5 Fm a... :2 in man Sm 3N «no-.5... 2... #338: a u a o a o o .33 . m3 0 max . m3 . man a :3 a a: a n3 . R a. ”"833 o N a m cane-95.— ” In..— N .afllflofl. .34 _ h Sfifi _ «mm H . ...: 9.8283 :2: .33 u mam.— .. m 2.4 .. :33 canon 35 ...-:3 2.. .9355." «a 83.39.... .8936 2: 38:5 ..— .2... l . I l m 9 \ $-- . I . ,‘ ‘ . . ' 3 V 5 ‘ o I. 77 3m." «8.. a... mu. «.8 an anon 5.3 a 3.: ...... .... axon . 83 . tuna $5 «8 Sn an 83 83 . ..nou . $.« 3.: ”Mn." 3.8 a wand . 33 n98 6.2 ea 33 R» 82 Mon 83 3” Ran u {.2 n #5 mm»...— . mm...“ a: :N» .3... S... 3mm 2.6“ an. moan . na .3 Not." 0 3.3 a unomd finu cow 3mm «mam o canoe-acme .83.." .33 "...—33vo n.6hodcs no pd «.333 ...—393:0 o .93 and!" o 0:33 lady «on anoloo :3 no peach 3&- 4 .2: you and»: .33 has: I. £8.32». . cons-nu. a..." 332.3 a...“ 3.3:»: «a ...—couch Jun 0 .55 now and»; non...“ haul-h a no; :3 none-o .93 £33.35 no «noon: in- ¢ .5 no» and»; non..." 3.3.3.390 .82: In!» pop. 8.3 3.3: n :30? noon 333 33.3 52— A33 L noun #8: .39 2. «nan .- n «a. a 39—4 ... :33 303 and: fan-non .93 398.915 no Scan-g ii. .133: go .203 .., , 5 r.— 1 v . ......” . . I v ‘ . c . . I v x t O , c . . I v 0 —. . . K . _g t . > . | a ' I . . 78 52 man." nnna mun.” moon o: won .1385 snow on? own... «So man... and. 3o .82: .33 MM“ non o3 no." :2 2.." nn." . ...»...oo E. E E. nnn 8» on; on. .3883 won Sn onn a nun no» mm a. :33: on“? nn: nnn." no: «3 an Rm . 23.28 nnmn flow «o3 on: on: $3 on... . on. .93 n no o {Ln o nnnn o noon . 9% o 88 o an o I}: m. ...- n .3 3: on 3.8 oan 3.3 go.“ 3.5:»: a. .888 n n .8 own at. anon man 3 .9. ... .5: .5 oh...- nnn on..." nnna anon so on. own .33 53.3 o... ...—......oo 23 o E: o no: o 33 . nun” . on: o N...» o 3.89.. ....n .2388 m nan-8B .3 no.3 3.2 3...: uni n3. «.3 ...-...»: 8 3.8: $4 .88 «o3 mm: um: 83 mm» J»- . ...: .5 £33 ”a a o Mm“... « wwmn * ”Mu M“: a ”an «on a 3.3.93.3“ ”mun”; .5 m 33.33 undo nn.n.n 8.3 on. i :99 3. go.» ...-...»: a. 2.35 and snow 3H anon menu a a 3n ...: a .5 .5 99.8 an» 3a.— 53 Ohm an m nan hon..." - oncogene n3“ tn nnnn noun mann Sou find .I.: an: ..- -a a mnn on n a now on... .83 hi..— nnan o nnmn o awn o Hon o u n . nwou no: o 83.3.. ...: 33...: ......t if 3% _ norm” _ _ «awn _ 3% 3% H «nod... _ 8mm a 3.8383 293 .39 3 an? .. n and .n 30.3 ... :33 300m .328. fan-non can c.9333 no gonna-co 33': Adana-a: .¢ .3: (1) (2) (3) (u) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) nmxoamrar Gun. X. 0. 11.. and Mom. 4’. 011'. 503. 55 ”o. 111“... Olark 1. 19m}. Imus rm 2mm 11 nu man. In. Aer. prt. Mg. 31:1. 502. 26 pp" 111“. 01.1%. I. 19%. Hummus mm mm mm 1mm: 11 mm mm. 10" “,9 hp‘. 8“. ”0 3‘1. p 72. 21 pp” 111110. Dmth. J. 0.. and Wright. I. 2. 19%. um mm mm: or an In. Huh. Ag. lxpt. 8t... 01:. m. 182. 39 pp.. 111110. falcon-r. J. I. 1921. ”MODS 01' MING LAID III OHIO. Ohio Au. Int. “3. 3:11. 308. 30 pp" 11111:. W. no '0. “4 mm. Jo 19%. um ”30" 0, rm m0! 1! 1131301.. 111. m. prt. 8“. mo "65. 275 ”a. 111”- hrria. l. D" harp. K. IL. and tuner. H. A. 1915. um rm Luna. 0. 8. Dept. La. l'arnou' 3111. 1969. ‘1 PFC. 111“. manna. 3. 3.. and norm. 2. 1. 19:». 21:: um um an um um; comm- Univ. o: n». m. on. 303. 2!» pp” ulna. 3111. l. 3. 1937. mm we! 1] MORE“. Turn “6*. Mt. Inch. But. 0011030. Int Lansing. procouod. E111. I. 3. 191a. rm. mam. may nu) ms. 19!» mm “Pl. rm "3%. Do”. Inch. at». 001109. Int mam. O (11) (12) (13) (1M) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) 80. Hill. I. 3. IIIOEIGAI In)! LIB". rer- Nth Mt. lick. State College. hut Leaning. processed. field Lenin; on the Crop-Share ruin. Ouh Lease for the I'm. Crop Bhu'e hr- Leue. lather and. Ben partner ehip wee-ant . 50-50 Crop and Live-teak - share rer- hue. renente' Ive-9111M: Live-took - Shae In! 30“.. Landlorde' Mira- Share crop and Liventock I‘m Lease. -—. We 0e 0e 1916. no 1 In! 1'0 nu. Iieh. State con... mu. m. 267. 27 pp" 111a. £00011. J. l. 193‘). FAR)! mac! AID um I“ IlPIllSYINHIA. Pent. ”ate college kt. 011'. 151. 37 pp. line-u. P. 0.. end 3111. I. 3. 193‘). OIGHIMIOI 0! mm 1! comment 1110mm. ”Ch. ‘0. N‘e 8“. ””0 m0 25“. 51 ”.0 11111:. Pad. 6'. ‘0 19h)” nu m0! 1] ”ML. m ‘0'. 11". .‘fi 3‘10 3530 56 ”00 in“. “€1.11. 1'. I. 1927. In)! m 81““ I! ”cum. Mich. We ”‘9 3“. 011'. m. 1°29 18 we. mu.e 10"“... II. , 19“. PM!” rm MIMIC] I! m In!“ 13‘e In. It”. 3... 3&1. “910 35 We: 111".» Iehiekele. 1.. and norm. 0. A. , 1931. mm um: I! 10". love Act. kph an. m. 35*. 19 ,1... 111m. ”1”. I. ’e 1939. mo A um I! m Ion. Cornell Univ. ht. Jul. 812. 36 )p. 81 (2°) Wright. I. 1'. 1 19"}. mm AID 83163 I] FARMING. Mich. Act. lxpt. Btu. Opes. 3111. 323. ill) pp.. 11111:. (21) Wrigley. r. I. 1939. mm mac! n rmswmn. Penn. Ac. up. an. m. 383. 37 pp.. 111110. ¢ {‘5 I... ’e I 1 ' . ‘\ l ‘1‘ ‘ ‘Y . . t K‘ \ , - ‘ . "\ . ‘__I 1 . , ‘ x I' - (,1 . “an: . q , "‘7“ x \ ' '\. I; . F ‘ ”,,-— I .f I. ‘ . ‘ +112“ ' .3 - 311* ,1, >34. :' .'_ .- .v 'I . ' .‘u . ‘ _ "_. '. “e_"|'_'f ’§‘¢¢.}"% 1v 0' ._ _5 AF" .) . ' L. Q‘EQ-Ewm-vn—i' ms" .2 " y * , '1”, s. » ' 1,-1.3 31*.» Q ..‘. -_ ' s -',‘ , s 51,-, _ . , Kc. £"~.'-/r"- n” $1“ “ ,fl ‘. “fit" " .’ :- x; " “)4 - - 1- ,5 -.l.‘ y 31' ' I: ._.-.o '. ',I q 4 - y ‘ . >-,‘,- ’.‘.v - . uh ' {W e i‘ .3 v: ,- £5" \ ‘3‘" '1 '1 ”3‘ H ” 'rf‘j' ‘ 1' .9“ : , ' (a. 'I- 8" '~. '§ - ' I "3:! I v ~ I -' V ‘ e. ~ Iv ‘ ~,'.- : - ’4 .. ' u u . " ' ”3k . 1’ .1 > ‘ .' ”'2!" 'L. ' fl!" 1. “‘.( ‘ '.t ~:' -' ,. .: - - - ._ . ' 3" ‘ _1 I. . _ '1' - , ’:~l.')' V(’ 1 . {_ _ v 3": s :v- _ w '. I 0-. _ ~, \H’. a I e ‘ 1 ’. .. 'x‘ . . .... ‘ . >l ' ‘4‘ _ - 1. )p: 3 ' 1:“). ‘ l I ' "4 ‘ \ ' I l - ‘ 1 ‘ , .- .‘ 9.? ’.— ,, “..." .’ .,..u» _ r I. N «I .) ‘ . “‘“r ‘ . » ' ‘_ ) .- 1. p. 1 ‘6) . ~,n ' ‘1' ‘\ ‘ . - . . - . ‘ J ‘ ‘ '* ‘ ’r f. ‘ I ‘ - t 'J r “ ‘. ~ . I ’ ,_° .. ' I‘. \' ’._" ’. _ I ‘ { y-l‘ o. ’ ’ X' ' '_ ' \ ' I i | t~ "1.51"“: -;. 2 f n ‘1'" v a v o «' .'» . ‘ " . ~' - ‘ . \,"l - - ' ‘) ' . " .l f r» ‘ V ‘.“ . "n 'V ; ...: "_"3; , :l' ‘ ‘ 1",: ,v{_’-_ ‘ ' , ' t . Y ' _ .5 . ' 1 . r . ,- .- ."f i}“"') I ‘ 1 ' . ,~/ A). ‘e t. ,- .- 3 L “ I 4 - ‘ $ ‘ o n O ‘ . u , .II ,I , I , . - ’. 4_‘ ‘, | _ 5 I ‘ .-"’ 1’ "‘1 a; » “VD." . ..: e V 1 ‘. . . . 1‘ ’. 5'" 7‘" "r "s . .. .x ' . .“~ ~ .. can”? .,- .. "v‘ . ‘ .f‘ - _ ”I 4.3 4 . .r 'V ‘ r. . - y. ' x -, I. ‘ ’ ‘ o, r :)4 ‘ ' ’ I - ‘-, (.L . .- n u n . ‘ ‘ “08.. c- I" ‘1'“ : ‘ l ‘_ ' ‘I ' I ' . , uv .1 \‘ f- I, ‘ if, .. L" I1 " .I. J ' s I ‘jf‘A 7‘" c . I .1. ‘f . \r. 4 . ' . f. - ' '1 - ' ‘. n “h ‘ I ‘ - . _ .11 ‘ . 5‘ J- 1 ' 4 l-e k \ r . , .s ‘1. J. .I. . ' ' l .1": “ ”e 2: . ; ‘ . ‘ II '. .e O ‘ ‘- \ ' ‘9 I _ , 'tl ,1 . . . - . n - L . “_rv ,‘ r~ , V. ' _ ”\‘n‘ g _(‘1 _‘ ”.,.:. ‘~ . i ' I. ’ e" H. ' ‘ .' ‘ ": 1" A. .I‘vP/‘"d‘l-J'. . '1 -' ‘ ..-.A>- a ‘- ‘i’ e ”mi. ' —‘ " 'v ‘ ~ I V ‘ .xt"”".:,: &~ 4’! «'3 . K .2. v 1%.:I‘lw'52." 'l",‘.1" . . , 1' < .» 4 , 3...). *'¢’;‘* «1.,- \ .. .'---. ‘ x“ 4 1 (9. ‘_ .w ' 1 . '- .1 * V ... ' ., . ...; - . ‘; u-é‘u. .1 “‘ v‘ e ‘44- ¢‘_"UW"" ‘zr.-"- *‘ fi.‘ % ' 1 ." 5 V- I r' 4 4- * ‘--’ (...:- -c 1",. l /-- ‘ ,. D * ’. ‘\. n . : .1 . F, 3‘.“‘ .' _‘1; ‘ ,h“ a '. 3’ & ’1‘ ‘2‘. I '. . . 'o _ 1 r v . . " . . \ ‘ .. C . ¥ ' ; w , . . .4. - .. .. ‘ o w « .\-r«*b:;?ve .1. .....,- .-...43. I I . V '.‘~.. AF; ;... ‘9 -_-z-,'- -_~r.‘ - ., l.“ . , l, ‘ . .. . . r' . "'.‘-' O ‘~‘ _.‘ , ."‘,' ‘( )‘J ‘ a ' v -- - V. ' 41" -°1 .-.2..l..g »-, .'-‘ ’f ‘1 1 l I I ~ , \ ' ,\| , ‘l 1} .,. . ' 5‘ ‘,a’9'.!_u_-: “ ,. ‘ ’1 '. _. t-lfl'r’?" I ‘ . a . ’r-n ‘: .. ... '5. ... “J fe’f' .., u o !. '. . 1 _ ' r , . . ,‘ ' ‘ ' ,-. - ‘ e V " V , ’l\ O —, ‘ I ' (‘e ' I l..) 4"“‘45’; ' ‘ 4.». I" ‘9': 'u v ' - . - . . . A». ." ax n.1, . ..x. , I 1 I. ‘I ‘ _\. " . ~ Q.. 'I ‘ C 'r - l. ' ‘ ‘ * . . . s . - .. ‘- | 1 . ‘ . -, '_rl‘ 0. .‘ , ‘ 1 - . -J , . - I l _1‘, ' J ‘. 1" ‘ ' , (I ‘; 1. ‘ ' ‘- . L - 5 \ I \ e A " ... 1 O L '3 r L -x ‘ '5 I .\ \ f . ; ‘_' . IV .I | - e 1" .... ‘ I ‘ ' \ \ ' .., E ‘4 r" ' 1 . ‘ A v ‘ ..‘ 0' n, _ , ’1 d‘ » ' - I): .. | _. . - 'A' } ' \ .4 J r l I" '0 . ' -" , I I I ' , I “’1 -v . I “I . ‘A- A “A..- ‘4‘ A‘- AA‘ ..A A-A‘ A. A A.AAAAA- l x 1"}5.1(‘Ql1 s)! .. . . ('1‘. ll . o’lfl'lf‘wluvod 3“. .- . 1’! 1* I. . ,. . e 1 ...-..r n «PB-iv... -. a . . In Q1- .Ic it’llqli‘.do..oi§lalelnl]’4 ’ ( .(. 91’ I‘ll). I: 1. i100"):-