Read Ebook: The Young Farmer: Some Things He Should Know by Hunt Thomas Forsyth

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 574 lines and 58677 words, and 12 pages

ondence courses will be found useful. Not all colleges conduct correspondence courses, but fortunately those who do will accept students from other states on equal terms. There are many persons who will testify to their helpfulness.

Every young farmer should have a carefully selected library of standard books on agriculture, not only for reading but for reference. An instance of the value of a standard book of reference came recently to the attention of the writer. An educated young farmer in Iowa paid .50 for a peck of crimson clover seed which he sowed in the spring in his oats. A reference to any standard publication on forage crops costing less than the peck of seed would have disclosed to him the probable hopelessness of success under the conditions named.

The books to include as well as to exclude from a select list will depend upon the previous training of the man making the purchase, the character of the farming to be pursued, and, to some extent, to the section of the country where the farm is located. Any bookseller can secure catalogs issued by firms making a specialty of publishing agricultural books. For the average reader these catalogs are sufficient to enable one to make intelligent purchases.

The writer of this book has had rather unusual opportunity during more than a quarter of a century of observing the influence of education upon the success, financial and otherwise, of those who engage in farming. As the result of these observations he wishes to urge every young man to allow no one to persuade him that because he is to be a farmer, he does not need a thorough education. Remember that you have but one life to live, and if you let the golden opportunity pass, the mistake can never be rectified. No man ever regretted that he had too much education--thousands have regretted the lack of it.

Every young man, no matter what his occupation is to be, should receive some school training, however little it may be, every year until he reaches the age of majority. Otherwise the age of majority should be changed. In no occupation is this more important than in farming, because the operations involved in farming fail to develop certain attributes necessary to the largest success.

A man cannot have a mind too well trained, although it is possible that he may have too much undigested information. The mental condition may not be unlike the physical condition of the man who is burdened with too many clothes. When in action he may need to strip his mind of unnecessary information in order to make the most efficient mental effort.

MEANS OF ACQUIRING LAND

Of the three essentials to successful farming--capital, knowledge and love for the calling--only the first can be obtained on credit, and this only in part. Usually when a man desires to buy a farm he must have, at least, one-third of his desired investment in cash. The amount to be invested will include, not only the cost of the land, but the cost of the necessary equipment of the farm. The percentage of the total capital which may be borrowed, however, will depend on many circumstances and is usually a matter of first importance. No man should borrow more than a banker or other reputable business man considers a safe investment.

Usually there is no better counselor as to a safe investment than the local banker. The banker should, and generally does, stand in much the same relation to the financial welfare of the community as the physician to its physical, the minister to its moral and spiritual welfare. The inexperienced person, even if he does not need to borrow money, would do well to consult some responsible banker in the neighborhood before making an investment in farm lands.

The young man should, as early as possible in life, open an account with the local bank, not merely for the sake of the habit of saving which this will encourage, but in order to come into personal business relations with the banker. Instead of concealing from the bank his business operations, he should seek the advice of his banker on all important financial matters.

On an average, every farm changes hands at least three times in a century. Every farm, therefore, must be acquired by purchase, inheritance or gift at more or less irregular intervals. In the neighborhood in which the author was born, there is not a farm but has changed hands since he can remember. In many cases the farm is now in the possession of a son; in some instances in that of a grandson of the owner as known by the writer in his boyhood days. In this particular community the acquirement of a farm by a person not related to the former owner has occurred in relatively few instances.

As a rule, when the farm has been acquired by a son, the latter has operated the farm as tenant or partner for a period previous to his ownership and during lifetime of the father. In some instances the son has boarded with the parents or the parents with the son and his wife; or, in the case of a daughter, with the daughter and son-in-law.

Where there are several heirs, as is apt to be the case, the son operating the farm is required to purchase or rent the interest of the other heirs, unless the farm is large enough to be divided, which is less seldom the case than is popularly supposed. Thus, if there are 200 acres of land worth an acre, and five heirs, the young farmer may inherit ,000, and be required to assume the remaining ,000 as an obligation. He may borrow this money at the bank, placing a mortgage upon the farm, thus settling with the other heirs at once. Or he may pay the other heirs rent on their share of the farm. In any case he will, if successful, gradually cancel his obligation and become owner of the farm. That no heir is willing to assume this responsibility is the most common reason for a farm changing from one family to another, and the disruption of community interests.

The customary, or normal, method of acquiring land has been and still is a combination of tenancy, inheritance and mortgage. Without some tenant system and without the farm mortgage, it would be impossible for the average young man to acquire a farm. That men are constantly advancing from farm tenant to landowner is shown by statistics giving the percentage of tenants by ages. The majority of farmers under 30 are renters. Most farmers over 45 are owners of farm land. Thus in Illinois, in 1900, approximately 75% of the farmers under 25 years of age rented their farms, while less than 20% of the farmers over 55 years of age were tenants.

The question for the young man to consider is not what effect the tenant system has upon the welfare of the nation or what political ills may be connected with farm mortgages, but how to make use of these necessary and beneficent agencies for the acquirement of a farm. A system of tenancy which leads to absent landlordism and a permanent tenant class is thoroughly vicious, while a practice which enables a man to become, within a reasonable period, a land-owning farmer is a thoroughly approvable and, indeed, necessary method of acquiring land.

As already indicated, most young men will need in some form or other to employ more capital than they possess when they start farming. They must, therefore, determine what is the best form of obtaining the necessary capital, viz.: whether to borrow the money on a farm mortgage, or whether to use the capital someone else has invested in a farm by paying him rent for it. The conditions of tenancy in this country are often not the most fortunate, yet the young man of character may well find, for a time, at least, it would be best for him to rent a farm and invest his own capital in the necessary machinery and live stock to conduct it properly.

Much will depend on the character of the arrangement which may be made. Usually more favorable terms can be secured from landlords owning large numbers of farms than from the owner of one or two farms. The large landowner is content with a moderate income from each farm, because in the aggregate his income is sufficient for his needs, while the retired farmer who must live off the proceeds of a single farm is apt to drive a hard bargain and may not be over particular concerning the maintenance of said farm. The writer knows a farmer who owns a good farm purchased from the proceeds of a rented farm. He continues to live on the rented farm and rents his own, because, it is said, his landlord is willing to make him more favorable terms than he makes to his tenant.

The more capable the tenant the more favorable the terms he may exact. Certain tenants are in demand and can have their choice of farms. A prosperous-looking man was pointed out recently as an example of a tenant capable of buying a farm in one of the most highly developed counties in the United States. It was stated that as a renter he could have his choice of any farm in the county, but that he did not have a dollar invested in farm land. Possibly he invests his surplus earnings in stocks and bonds.

It is not the present purpose to determine the relative merits of the different systems of land tenure, but to try to be helpful to the beginners by discussing the usual practices in order that he may know whether the arrangement he is considering is customary and whether it is likely to prove satisfactory.

Every third farm in the United States is rented under one of three methods:

Before entering into a discussion of the customary conditions under which land is rented on shares it may be helpful to point out the fundamental differences between cash rent, crop rent and share rent. In case of cash rent, the landlord takes no risk, either as to the price or the amount of product. In the case of crop rent, he shares the risk as to the variation in price, but not as to the amount of crop raised. The latter may depend upon the clemency of the weather or upon the industry and skill of the tenant. In the case of share rent, both landlord and tenant share equally as to variation in the price and the amount of product.

Three forms of share rent may be recognized:

Where landlord furnishes only real estate , the tenant supplying everything else, including teams, machinery, labor, seeds and fertilizers. Under these conditions it is customary for the landlord to receive one-third and the tenant two-thirds of the crop raised or the product produced.

The second form of share rent is where the landlord furnishes the real estate; the tenant supplies teams, tools and labor, while the landlord and tenant own equally all live stock other than teams, and bear equally all other expenses, as for seeds, fertilizers and cost of threshing. Under this system, it is customary for landlord and tenant each to receive one-half of all sales. As each owns one-half of all the live stock , each shares equally in all increase. The landlord pays for the cost of permanent improvements such as new buildings, fences, repairs and drainage. The tenant, in making these improvements, in some cases, agrees to furnish two days' labor for one day's pay. The theory is that, while the increased value of the real estate is of advantage only to the landlord, the improved facilities are of some benefit to the tenant. Since he can do this work at odd times when not otherwise employed, he can afford to take a generous view of the matter. It is obvious that if he remains on the farm long enough the tenant will come into his share of the benefit, while if he intends to leave the farm soon he may not. There is in the mind of the writer a prosperous tenant who, after eighteen years on a single farm, declared he had no desire to make a change, and doubtless there are thousands of similar instances.

Under the plan in which the tenant furnishes everything except the real estate, the tendency of the farm is apt to be downward both as to the improvements and the crop-producing power of the soil. The interests of the landlord and tenant are not mutual. This condition of tenancy leads to growing only those crops which can be readily sold from the farm and to frequent changes of the tenant, with its accompanying auction sales of property. In one region, where this system prevails, it has been facetiously remarked that each tenant has a sale every year to determine how much he is worth. It is less trouble than taking an inventory.

In the second form of share rent, the interests of landlord and tenant are more nearly mutual. Under this system, animal husbandry is possible, which, generally, involves pasturing and feeding a considerable part of the crops upon the farm, and even the purchase of nitrogenous by-products. All this leads to permanency of tenant, since the landlord and tenant are both interested in the live stock and other personal property, which cannot be divided, with economy, each year. It is interesting to note that the house is the least likely to be kept in repair. The improvement of the barns and fences or the laying of tile drains increases the landlord's income, but he has no financial interest in the house, so long as the tenant is willing to live in it.

There are, of course, many variations in the arrangement of details between the landlord and tenant. On many dairy farms in the northeastern states it is customary for the landlord to own the cows. While the landlord and tenant share equally from the sale of milk, butter or cheese, in such cases the increase in the herd belongs to the owner of the land. Hence, money from the sale of any animal, old or young, goes to him. This is because the landlord must keep up the herd. If a cow is sold, he must furnish another to take her place.

The third type of tenant farming is where the tenant furnishes nothing but his labor and managerial ability, and receives a share of the sales, which may be one-third. This is rather an unusual type of tenancy, since, where the landlord furnishes all the capital, it is much more common to employ a farm manager at a monthly wage. The wage varies greatly, but is seldom below forty dollars or above seventy-five dollars per month without board, especially to those who have not hitherto had much managerial experience.

Assuming 160 acres of land, all tillable, devoted to dairy farming in eastern United States, gross sales may be estimated at an acre, or an annual gross income of ,200, and the net proceeds at an acre, or ,600. Under these conditions the young man's income would be 0, received as wages, plus 0, as his share of the net proceeds, or a total of ,040 a year.

Generally speaking, probably a more satisfactory method, both for landlord and the farm manager, would be to pay the latter as nearly as may be what his services should be worth and give him in addition one-half the profits; that is, one-half of that which was left after deducting the expenses of running the farm and interest on the capital invested.

Merely for illustrating the method of calculation, let us assume this farm with its equipment to be worth 0 an acre, or ,000. Let the farm manager be paid 0 a year. Assume the same gross income, ,200, and the same cost of operating, ,600, to which add 0, the additional salary of the manager. The total expense is then ,200, and the net proceeds ,000. If 4%, or 0, was charged on the investment, there would be 0 to be divided between landlord and manager, making the salary of manager ,020. A simple calculation will show that if 5% were charged, the salary of the manager would be 0 a year, and if 6%, 0 a year. The advantage of the latter method of employment is that the young man runs less risk, while both receive equally any surplus beyond fair wages and fair interest on the investment.

In this connection it is important to consider how much may be reasonably paid for managerial ability. A study of the figures on page 133 will show that the labor income from a considerable number of farms of the better class was about 7% of the capital invested in the farms. The inference is, therefore, that if a man has ,000 wisely invested in a farm he may pay 0 for a working manager; or, to put it in another form, before the owner of a farm can afford to pay ,200 a year for a farm manager, he should have about ,000 invested. Moreover, this investment must be in a form calculated to return an income. If part of it consists of investments for pleasure or fancy, such investment will not only not add to the income, but will detract from it by increasing the cost of maintenance.

This is scarcely less important to the employee than it is to the employer, since if the owner pays a higher salary than the manager can earn, he quite surely will sooner or later discharge his manager. This may result disastrously for the discharged young man, not merely on account of the loss of employment, but because his failure may militate against his securing satisfactory employment elsewhere. When an employer is seeking a man, he looks for one who has succeeded. There is an old saying, "Nothing succeeds like success," and it is only too true that nothing fails like failure.

Profit is sometimes defined as that part of the product which the producer can consume without reducing his means of production.

FARM ORGANIZATION

In the last chapter were discussed the most common methods by which a young man acquires an opportunity to engage in farming. This chapter will discuss some less common arrangements by which may be bridged that period between the time the son is ready to go into the business and the time he may assume the complete control of the ancestral or other farm. It will also suggest a method for the continuous business management of a farm enterprise.

As stated, the most common reason for a farm changing from one family to another is the fact that no heir is willing to assume the obligation which is involved in paying for the interest of the other heirs. Connected with this problem is the further fact that the father is not usually ready to give up the management of the farm at the time one of his sons reaches the age to go into active business.

The reason for this state of affairs is made clear by the results of insurance statistics. The period that a man may be expected to live can be obtained by taking the difference between his present age and 90 and dividing the remainder by two. Thus, a young man who is 20 may reasonably expect to live 35 years, or until he is 55 years old. A man at 50, however, still has an expectation of life of 20 years, and the man of 70 of 10 years.

A farmer of 50 will usually have one or more sons ready to go to farming if they ever expect to engage in farming. But, as has been shown, a man of 50 has a reasonable expectation of 20 more years of life and cannot turn over the farm to his son, completely, without destroying his own opportunity for earning a livelihood. As things are usually arranged, therefore, there is no place on the average farm for the son, except as a hired hand, which is not desired permanently by either father or son.

Frequently the father fails to appreciate the earning power of his son, and, what is more important, that the boy has grown into a man. One day a teacher called a student of agriculture to his office, when the following conversation occurred:

"The Bureau of Soils at Washington," said the teacher, "has asked me to recommend several of our students to them for positions as field assistants. If you desire to have me do so, I would be glad to recommend you for one of these positions. The compensation is ,000 a year and field expenses."

"I do not believe that I can accept," said Mr. Manning, "my father is in poor health and needs my help on the farm."

"Does your father want you to take charge of the farm and manage it so that you can make your training count?"

"No; my father expects to continue to manage the farm. He wishes me to work for him."

"How much does your father expect to pay you?"

"Thirty dollars a month."

The teacher found it extremely difficult not to interfere, but he merely said, "This is a case of filial duty which you must settle for yourself. I must have nothing further to say."

The young man returned to the ancestral home and is probably still there. It is, of course, impossible to determine the merits of an individual case, but this incident represents a type of cases where the son makes two important sacrifices from the sense of duty.

First, he sacrifices present, and, perhaps, future opportunity to earn the wages of which he is capable and to which he is justly entitled. And, second, and more important, he sacrifices the opportunity to develop his own powers and make concrete his own abstract self.

There are two things that every young man should do. One is to earn a living. A man that cannot or does not earn a living is of no value to himself or to anyone else. The other is to develop within himself his latent possibilities. He must apply himself to some problem, or problems, and through them develop his own personality. There is no place where more intricate and satisfying problems may be found than in the development of a successful farming enterprise. In the instance cited, the father may have been unable to pay his son the wage he might have obtained elsewhere, but he did not need to dwarf his son's development by treating him merely as a hired hand. His willingness to do so was probably due to his failure to appreciate that his son had become a man.

Sometimes a father is astute enough to reorganize his business so as to retain a place for himself while giving to his sons that opportunity which every man must have who develops himself normally.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet