acquired ownership of the property securing the loans during 2011. The commercial real estate property was sold during  2011 without incurring any further losses. The 2009 charge-offs were primarily related to a commercial loan relationship  that was liquidated in bankruptcy. The increase in the 2008 one-to-four family residential real estate charge-offs is  primarily from the liquidation of a pool of non-owner-occupied, one-to-four family residential loans, made to a single entity  in the Kansas City, Missouri area. The loans were secured by houses located in deteriorating neighborhoods and originally  obtained as part of an acquisition and are not representative of the quality and performance of the remaining loans in our  one-to-four family residential mortgage loan portfolio. The loans were sold in early 2009. The distribution of the Company’s allowance for losses on loans at the dates indicated and the percent of loans in  each category to total loans is summarized in the following table. This allocation reflects management’s judgment as to  risks inherent in the types of loans indicated, but in general the Company’s total allowance for loan losses included in the  table is not restricted and is available to absorb all loan losses. The amount allocated in the following table to any category  should not be interpreted as an indication of expected actual charge-offs in that category.  The increase in the allocation of the allowance for loan losses on our one-to-four family residential real estate loans  during 2012 was related to an increase in outstanding loan balances while the 2011 increase was related to higher levels of  non-accrual loans in the loan category. The decline in the allocation of the allowance for loan losses on our one-to-four  family residential real estate loans between December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2010 was primarily the result of the  decline in the outstanding balances. The allocation of the allowance for loan losses on construction and land loans  increased in 2012 as a result of an increase in the specific allowance related to an impaired land loan after declining in each  of 2010 and 2011 as a result of a decline in outstanding loan balances as well as increased charge-offs. The allocation of  the allowance for loan losses on commercial real estate loans declined in 2012 as a result of lower outstanding loan  balances, while the increases in 2010 and 2011 were related primarily to declines in the estimated fair value of certain  collateral dependent impaired loans, increased historical charge-offs and management’s judgment to increase the risk factors  used to determine the allowance for loan losses. The increase in 2010 and decline in 2011 of the allocation of the allowance  for loan losses on commercial loans was primarily due to a specific allowance recorded on the operating loans associated  with a $2.0 million commercial loan relationship. The increase in 2009 and decline in 2010 allocation of the allowance for  loan losses on agriculture loans was primarily related to a $2.3 million commercial agriculture loan that was impaired during  2009 and charged off in 2010. The allowance for loan losses is discussed in more detail in the “Non-performing Assets”  and “Asset Quality and Distribution” sections. We believe the Company’s allowance for loan losses continues to be  adequate based on the Company’s evaluation of the loan portfolio’s inherent risk as of December 31, 2012.  31  As of December 31, Amount % Loan  type to  total loans Amount % Loan  type to  total loans Amount % Loan  type to  total loans Amount % Loan  type to  total loans Amount % Loan  type to  total loans One-to-four family residential real estate  $ 714  27.6% $ 560  25.2% $ 395  25.6% $ 625  25.7% $ 672  28.3% Construction and land 1,214 7.3% 928 6.9% 1,193 7.6% 1,326 10.6% 833 11.1% Commercial real estate 1,313 27.7% 1,791 29.8% 1,571 29.6% 705 28.6% 701 26.6% Commercial loans 707  20.1% 745  18.1% 1,173  18.4% 623  17.6% 1,121  17.2% Agriculture loans 367  10.0% 433  12.4% 397  12.5% 2,103  11.0% 415  11.7% Municipal loans 107  3.1% 130  3.3% 99  1.7% - 1.6% - 0.7% Consumer loans 159  4.2% 120  4.3% 139  4.6% 86  4.9% 129  4.4% Total  $ 4,581  100.0% $ 4,707  100.0% $ 4,967  100.0% $ 5,468  100.0% $ 3,871  100.0% (Dollars in thousands) 2012 2011 2008 2009 2010