with whom BROWN, Chief Justice, joins.
It is unfortunate that the majority have chosen to redefine a statute which appears to have béen clear for 84 years. This area of the law needs to remain clear. This case *398illustrates that exemptions which are not clear and need to be litigated are of little practical use. The money which was necessary for the support of appellees’ family has been held up and not used by either party for almost one year. While it may appear that the majority have interpreted this statute so that it will benefit the farmer and rancher, the long-term result may well be that operating loans will no longer be available to many farmers and ranchers.
The statute in question is § 1-17-411, W.S.1977, as amended effective June 11, 1986.1 It stated:
“The court may order any property of the judgment debtor or money due him in the hands of either himself or another person, not exempt by law, to be applied toward the satisfaction of a judgment. Upon seizure of his property or money, a judgment debtor may request a hearing pursuant to W.S. l-17-405(c). One-half (½) of the earnings of the judgment debtor for his personal services rendered within sixty (60) days immediately preceding the levy of execution or levy of attachment, and due and owing at the time of the levy, are exempt when it appears by the debtor’s affidavit or otherwise that the earnings are necessary for the use of his family residing in this state, supported wholly or in part by his labors.” (Emphasis added.)
If this statute is read as a whole and in context, it is apparent that it is not intended to exempt one-half of a farmer’s crops. Standard statutory construction demands that we give meaning to each clause in a statute, especially a limiting clause. Hamlin v. Transcon Lines, Wyo., 701 P.2d 1139 (1985). The majority’s interpretation effectively eliminates each limiting clause in this statute.
First the statute uses “earnings,” not income or proceeds. The term is more commonly used in connection with wage earners than it is with businesses or sole proprietorships. The legislature further included the phrase “for his personal services.” Clearly, this limitation is meant to exclude from exemption earnings which are the result of capital. A large part of the cost to produce wheat stems from the use of capital instead of labor. There is a capital expenditure for land, water, seed, fertilizer, pesticides, and, especially in this case, contract labor. Mr. Bredthauer’s services are capital and certainly not the personal services of appellees. Under the facts of this case, there can be no doubt that the bulk of the expenditures for making the wheat available was from capital and not from appellees’ labors. The legislature intended to limit the exemption to personal services of the judgment debtor. It provides no protection to income realized from the judgment debtor’s capital.
The exemption is further limited by the phrase “necessary for the use of his family residing in this state, supported wholly or in part by his labors.” (Emphasis added.) The family must be supported by the labors of the judgment debtor, not by the income the judgment debtor receives from his personal capital. Clearly, a judgment debtor cannot use this exemption to hold back one-half of the interest he made from his savings account, even though he had to go to the bank, deposit the money, and later collect the interest. Land, water, seed, fertilizer, pesticides, and contract labor are all forms of capital, like money in a bank.
The exemption is also limited by the phrase “services rendered within sixty (60) days.” When applied to crops, the question becomes how much growth occurred in the last 60 days. Further, assuming that it is possible to know how much growth took place in the last 60 days, how much of the growth is attributable to the farmer’s personal services? By holding that crops are “earned” when they are sold, the majority have deleted the limitation. Sixty days is intended to limit the size of the exclusion. If the crop's growing season is ten months, as for wheat, calling the sale of the crop the earnings expands 60 days to ten months. If the crop was trees, 60 days could be expanded to 20 years. Clearly, that makes the limitation ineffective. The majority say not to worry as the judge still *399must award only that which is necessary for the support of the family. However, the legislature has decided that the exemption pie is only as big as 60 days’ earnings from personal services. The majority cannot say that the pie is ten months large and justify it by saying that only the piece of pie which is needed will be served. The need may well be in excess of the pie the legislature originally created.
The last limiting phrase is “due and owing at the time of the levy.” This phrase cannot logically be applied to a farmer’s crops. Does the field owe the farmer a crop? When is the field due to pay the farmer his crop? Clearly, if the legislature had intended to limit the crops which can be taken from a farmer, it would have used language much more conducive to that objective.
The majority are correct in that “earnings” is generally intended to cover more than wages. 35 C.J.S., Exemptions §§ 47 and 48 (1960). However, the legislature gave some indication of its intent when it amended § l-17-405(c), W.S.1977, effective June 11, 1986 (now § l-17-102(b), W.S. 1977). The new language contained in paragraph (viii) of that subsection required notice to judgment debtors and listed a possible exemption for “[a] portion of wages, if necessary for family support as provided in W.S. 1-17-411.” (Emphasis added). Even if “earnings [from] personal services rendered within sixty (60) days * * and due and owing” is intended to be greater than “wages,” it cannot be construed to cover crops. Fay Securities Co. v. Bowering, 106 Cal.App.Supp. 771, 288 P. 41 (1929); Clapp v. Smith, 91 Okl. 84, 216 P. 120 (1923). A farmer’s crops are generally recognized to be property or goods, and not earnings. U.C.C. § 2-105(1). The exemptions for property are given by Chapter 20, not by § 1-17-411. It is inappropriate for this Court to create or expand an exemption where the legislature has not so provided. The legislature surely was aware of the special circumstances of farmers and ranchers in 1886 just as it is today.2 If crops were intended to be covered by § 1-17-411, much different language would have been used. The party claiming an exemption has the burden of proving that he meets the requirements of the exemption. Hancock v. Stockmens Bank & Trust Company, Wyo., 739 P.2d 760 (1987); 35 C.J.S., Exemptions § 4b (1960). Even with liberal construction of the statute and deference to the findings of the trial court, these appellees do not qualify so as to retain one-half of their crops.
I would reverse.
. This section was subsequently amended effective May 22, 1987.
. Effective May 22, 1987, the legislature deleted the language in question here from § 1-17-411. The earnings exemption now is found under the garnishment article, § 1-15-408, W.S.1977. Under the attachment article is the following language from § 1 — 1S—203(a)(ii), W.S.1977: "Growing crops, * * * until severed!,] shall be deemed personal property not capable of manual delivery.” (Emphasis added.)