1512 
< Ihe RURAL NEW-YORKER 
October 11, 1919 
V 
/ 
.ft- 
Good Producing Blood 
Pius 
Good Producing Feed 
In the beginning, good blood makes good stock. There¬ 
after good feed makes good blood and healthy, milk- 
producing animals. Feed 
UNION GRAINS 
ONE OF THE 
II too ib, la 
1.. rUBIK0\, I 
fey 
prattowiiiss^! 
/^C/NNATI. OHIO 
/^ClNNATI. 0H>° ; 
It’s the highest quality ration for milk and butter fat obtainable. 
Any dairyman will find out by keeping a record of results. All con¬ 
centrates—no fillers. 24 percent protein. Highly nutritious, appetiz¬ 
ing, perfectly balanced, always the same. Get the highest milk 
production—send a test order for Union Grains now. 
Ubiko Stock Feed: —Keeps horses, mules and dry cows in good 
condition. Perfectly balanced to build flesh and insure health and 
vigor. Rich in carbohydrates. 10 percent protein. 
Ubiko Buttermilk Egg Mash: —An ideal feed for egg production. 
Produces shells, whites and yolks in correct proportion. 
Ubiko Buttermilk Growing Mash: —Makes young chicks strong 
and healthy and speeds their development. Protein 15 percent; fat 3 
percent; fibre 6 percent; ash 10 percent. 
Ubiko Pig Meal: —Pigs relish this feed and thrive on it, putting on 
weight quickly. 
Write for a cost record sheet end find out 
what results are now costing you. It is free. 
THE UBIKO MILLING CO. Dept.R, Cincinnati, 0. 
“They occupy valuable land, foster growth of 
weeds, reduce the selling price of a farm, shelter 
pests and prevent the efficient use of modern 
machinery. Blasting is a means of rapid 
clearing,” says U. S. Farmers’ Bulletin 974, 
August 1918. 
Clear your land with Atlas Farm Powder—The 
Original Farm Powder. It is safe, economical, 
efficient and made especially for stump blasting, 
tree-bed blasting, subsoiling, etc. 
“This morning,” writes Victor M. Shaw, 
Cranbury, N.J., “I tried my hand at blasting 
stumps for the first time. I had no trouble 
removing the stumps with Atlas Farm Powder 
after seeing just how to do it in the book 
‘Better Farming with Atlas Farm Powder. ’ ” 
The coupon (or a postal mentioning this 
paper) will bring the 120-page book “Better 
Farming,” which Mr. Shaw found so helpful. 
ATLAS POWDER CO. 
Wilmington, Del. 
Send me "Belter Farming with Atlas Fa 
Powder." I am interested in explosives 
the purpose beiorc which I mark “X." 
□ Stump Blasting 
□ Boulder Blasting 
□ Subsoil Blasting 
□ Tree Planting 
□ Ditch Digging 
□ Road Making R 
I 
| Name. 
ATLAS POWDER CO., Wilmington, Del. 
Dealers everywhere. Magazine stocks near you. 
^Address _ 
/ItlasFarmPowdet 
The Safest Explosive 
The Original Farm Powder 
How Tenants May Become Farm Owners 
The Federal Farm Loan System Is Aiding Them To Do It 
Making a Start. — I have read with 
interest the several articles in The R. 
N.-Y. regarding tenants desiring to pur¬ 
chase farms, but the fact that they lacked 
money, or enough of it, seems to be the 
reason for many of them not doing this. 
As secretary-treasurer of the farm loan 
association, which operates in this county, 
it has been my pleasure to see several 
tenants become owners of farms—men 
who did not have capital in cash, but who 
were in possession of live stock, imple¬ 
ments, a willing family and a practical 
knowledge of farm practices. Although 
the methods employed in placing these 
men upon the soil are quite simple, and 
may be widely adopted, yet the entire 
transaction hinges on the tenant being 
able to locate some farm owner who has 
sufficient faith in his character and abil¬ 
ity, and who will pass the conservative 
examination necessary in the operation 
of the Federal Farm Loan system. 
How It Is Done. —This is how it 
works out: The tenant, we shall sup¬ 
pose, lia”k located a farm lie wishes to 
own. The next step, if he lack cash 
capital, would be for the owner to agree 
to accept a second mortgage for the dif¬ 
ference between what he is to sell the 
farm for and what the Federal Farm 
Loan system will loan upon it. As a 
concrete example of this, let us suppose 
that the farm, exclusive of equipment, 
live stock or crops, is offered at $10,000. 
Therefore, the tenant would make appli¬ 
cation to his nearest loan association for 
a loan of between $4,500 and $5,000, 
hoping to secure such loan of the Federal 
Farm Loan system; the owner of the 
farm would agree to accept a second 
mortgage for the balance. 
Requirements for Loan. — The 
amount applied for hinges entirely upon 
the sort of farm the tenant desires to 
purchase, since the appraisal of the asso¬ 
ciation and Federal Land Bank will be 
based upon the act itself, which promises 
a loan of 50 per cent of the land value, 
plus 20 per cent of the building value. 
Let us suppose that this $10,000 farm 
has buildings worth $4,000, on which a 
loan of $800 would be justifiable; the land 
is worth $8,000, giving a credit of $4,000, 
or a total loan of $4,800. This shows 
how the credits would be allotted. Since 
the tenant would be required to purchase, 
out of this amount, capital stock in the 
association to the extent of 5 per cent of 
his loan, he would have cash in hand of 
$4,560, or $4,800 less $240. The owner 
of the farm would therefore, upon deed¬ 
ing the farm to the tenant, accept a sec¬ 
ond mortgage for $5,440. To the Federal 
Laud Bank the new farm owner would 
pay in semi-annual payments each year 
5^4 per cent interest, plus 1 per cent prin¬ 
cipal, or the sum of $312. Let 11s suppose 
that he agrees to pay the holder of the 
second mortgage 6 per cent. This would 
be $326.40, or a total interest payment 
of $638.40. The man who sold this farm 
would have $4,560 to invest as he saw fit. 
Let us suppose that he purchases Govern¬ 
ment bonds paying 4 / per cent. He 
would, from this, have an annual income 
of $205.20, plus the $326.40, or atotal 
interest income of $631.80. 
The Tenant’s Income. —A farm 
worth $10,000 ought to have earning 
power, especially if the tenant, as we 
have supposed, is possessed of proper 
equipment to operate it. Take the in¬ 
stance of a tenant who purchased a farm 
in this county under about these same cir¬ 
cumstances, though paying less for the 
farm. He had rented the farm for four 
years, and milked some 40 cows. His re¬ 
ports showed an annual net income of 
about $3,000, one-half of which he paid 
over each year to the owner. Therefore, 
he felt perfectly safe in agreeing to pay 
the sum of $1,200 per year on the second 
mortgage, which is for $3,500. Working 
this farm for himself, without the usual 
clauses of a tenant contract hampering 
him, and without the autocratic leader¬ 
ship and dictation of his former owner, 
he now is able to put into effect certain 
changed methods of operation, such as 
use of a silo, better rotation of crops, and 
better breed of cattle. lie actually 
showed a not income of $3,500 the first 
year he operated this farm for himself; 
the second year he will do even better. 
But to be perfectly safe, the tenant could 
have the second mortgage made out in 
such a manner that he could pay $200 or 
more per year principal, since he will 
pay slightly more than simple interest on 
the first mortgage, his hands being free 
to wipe out the second mortgage as soon 
as possible, taking if he wishes, fhe term 
of 3414 years to pay the first mortgage. 
Therefore, in a good year he could pay 
more on the second mortgage without 
feeling it. whereas, if the terms were made, 
right, in a bad season lie need not pay 
so much. 
Misunderstood Terms. —Many farm 
owners who would really like to sell their 
farms to reliable tenants, are not doing 
so because of misunderstanding of the 
exact terms of the long-term Federal 
Farm Loan mortgages. They suppose, 
for. instance, that they will be forced to 
wait 35 or 40 years before they can “take 
action” against the man they sell to. or 
his heirs or assigns, in ease of default. 
This is not true, as officials of the Fed¬ 
eral Farm Loan Board have repeatedly 
advised. The holder of the second mort¬ 
gage may take action just as quickly as 
the holder of the first mortgage, provided 
its terms are not lived up to. I believe 
I am safe in assuming, if he were prop¬ 
erly justified in this action, that he would 
find the officials of the loan association 
of which the farmer happened to be a 
member, willing to co-operate with him 
in such action to safeguard his interests. 
There are hundreds of farm owners scat¬ 
tered over the country who have tenants 
on their farms they have perfect con¬ 
fidence in the ability and character of. 
It would be to the best interest of both 
parties to get together ou some such plan 
as outlined and dispose of the farm, in 
many cases. Several owners of rented 
farms advise that they cannot show a net 
income on their farms, after paying their 
part of the taxes, fertilizer, seed, repair 
hills, etc., of more than 2 or 3 per cent. 
As has been shown, under this arrange¬ 
ment, these men could make about 5 per 
cent on their investment, less the worry 
and labor entailed in renting the farm.. 
Experience Required. —But this plan 
has absolutely no message to the man 
who desires to “go back to the farm”— 
the man without practical experience or 
equipment to operate a farm. No loan 
committee or appraiser could recommend 
such an applicant to receive a Federal 
Farm Loan, even though he were lucky 
enough to locate an owner so eager to 
sell as to agree to sell to him. The 
chances are that if a loan were made to 
such a man, he would prove a miserable 
failure in a few years, and even though 
he should make a success after a period 
of indifferent success, no official of the 
Federal Farm Loan system has a right to 
recommend using the funds of the sys¬ 
tem ou so grossly a gambling proposition 
ns this would be. The faithful, con¬ 
scientious tenant, who has well demon¬ 
strated his ability in a given district as 
manager of a farm, is a different man. 
There is no good reason why he, like the 
man of experience in the business world, 
should want for financial support and 
faith ou the part of the owner or the 
system. 
Not a Radical Plan. —There are 
probably some readers who by this time 
have come to believe that this suggested 
plan is something bearing on Socialism or 
Bolshevism. But it is not; neither is it 
new. In sections of the country, long 
before the Federal Farm Loan system 
came into existence, like methods were 
adopted with success. Is there any more 
reason against this method than against 
the city banker loaning not one-half, but 
nearly all. to the young man he has ob¬ 
served to be a striking example of ability 
and character? Why, there are men in 
every city who have rented a well-located 
store, gone to their banker, and with the 
experience they have had in a particular 
line of business, been able to borrow 90 
per cent of the money required to put the 
goods onto the shelves of that new store. 
The only security the banker had was his 
faith in the young man to make good and 
the fire insurance policy covering the 
took. 
A Good Risk. —But we have a still 
better “risk” in the experienced tenant 
with live stock, implements, willing fam¬ 
ily. ability and character. lit* has an 
outfit worth from $1,0<l< ‘:n $5,000. That 
is something. And instead of faith and 11 
fire insurance policy, the seller has the 
amount in cash that the Federal Farm 
Loan system loans, plus his second mort¬ 
gage. The owner may say, “When 1 am 
so hard up to sell my farm that I take 
that way to do it, J’ll give it away.” 
Let him hold to that spirit ; also, let 
him look about and observe what has be¬ 
come of the farms owned and rented year 
after year by men of a like disposition. 
He will appreciate that soil fertility lias 
been depleted by the robbing methods of 
renting, as practiced by both owner and 
tenant; buildings run down; fences going 
to pieces, and what not? All because 
the man on the land is there to get all 
he can while lie is there. But place this 
same man into ownership of the farm, 
and if he is tin* real stuff. In* will keep 
fertility up. buildings in ship-shape, fences 
in repair, and the farm will be a better 
investment from all sides of view. 
EARLE W. GAGE. 
Chautauqua Co., N. Y. 
