Rental Terms in the Town of Walpole 



Standing Hay. Only four farmers indicated that they were buying 

 standing hay. This is hardly enough to establish a market had the amounts 

 paid been consistent. The amounts paid ranged from nothing to $12.50 per 

 ton. Two farmers paid in lump sums rather than so much per acre or ton. 

 On a per acre basis the lump sums amounted to $1.67 and $5.00. On a per 

 ton basis the average for these four farms was near $5.00 



There were no leases involved in the four instances of buying stand- 

 ing hay. In fact, they are excluded by definition. Had there been leases the 

 arrangement would have been called renting of hay land. This does not 

 mean, however, that there is not some kind of an understanding that the 

 same farmer will get the hay next year. 



The only evidence of improvements was that in one case the owner 

 supplied poultry manure. 



Rented Hay Land. Ten of the 11 farmers renting hay land reported the 

 amount of rent paid on a total of 15 places. On five places no cash rent 

 at all was paid. For the use of one of these places the renter reported per- 

 forming some services for the owner. For the 10 places on which cash rent 

 was paid the amount per acre ranged from $.67 to $4.00 with an average 

 of $2.47. This $2.47 is also a fairly representative figure for cases in which 

 any cash rent was paid since the actual figures are distributed fairly evenly 

 on both sides of it. When the cases averaged include the five cases in which 

 no cash rent was paid the average cash rent falls to $1.75 per acre. How- 

 ever, rent was seldom quoted on a per acre basis; it was quoted as a lump 

 sum such as $100 for 40 acres. It should not be expected, of course, that 

 rent would be uniform since there are differences in quality of land and in 

 the rental market in different situations. 



In nearly all cases, regardless of whether cash rent was involved, the 

 renter reported that he furnished the seed and fertilizer. Renters also some- 

 times reported repairing fences and buildings. 



In only two cases were written leases reported. One of these was for 

 two years, the other for one. The other agreements were oral and on a year- 

 to-year basis, although in most cases the farmer had continued to rent the 

 places for 5, 10, and even 15 years. 



The renter furnished the fertilizer and seed, which appeared to be the 

 extent of the agricultural improvements in most cases. The renter was seldom 

 protected by lease. The natural questions are: Did the renters feel that this 

 combination was too risky? If so, did they rent less than they otherwise 

 would and do less in the way of land improvement than they otherwise 

 would? The evidence was not conclusive on these points. In response to a 

 question as to whether they had suggestions for improving their renting ar- 

 rangements, several farmers said they would like agreements covering sev- 

 eral years. Some of those who had no suggestions might well have preferred 

 longer agreements had they been definitely asked about longer leases. Sev- 

 eral farmers said that they were farming the rented land just as they farmed 

 their own. Having used the land for some time in the past they came to feel 

 semi-secure in its future use. Further questioning, however, tended to indi- 

 cate that they were investing less in fertilizer and seed on the rented places 

 and that they did so at least partly because they felt that their investments 

 were insecure. The man who appeared to be doing the most intensive job on 

 rented land felt that, since he was renting several places, he had spread his 



56 



