At the invitation of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the US Department of State, Nikolai Latyshev, editor of the Agrarian Sector magazine, visited the United States of America in May-June under the Sustainable Agriculture and trade."
For three weeks, a small group of four people invited from Kazakhstan got acquainted with agriculture, met with officials, public figures, agricultural scientists and farmers of the United States, and also studied the culture of this country. During the trip, the group visited the cities of Washington and New York, as well as the states of Indiana, Kansas, Montana and Vermont.
Flight to the Other Side of the Earth
The path to the USA is not a short one. Moreover, in order to fly west, we first flew south: a plane from Europe (some passengers flew from Spain), landing in Astana, then flew to Almaty, and from there, having picked up passengers, headed for Europe - to Amsterdam. There we were waiting for a transfer and six hours of free time. A big respite before the big flight across the Atlantic. Amsterdam Airport surprised me with cleanliness and comfort. Everything is here for people: there is a place to charge a phone and a laptop, sit, stand and even lie down, there is a room for smokers, there are bars where you can sip beer at average European prices, and other joys of life - shops with Dutch tulips, Swiss chocolate, from where - then a queue of buyers of the sanctioned Scandinavian herring with half-joking, half-serious questions “Who is the last one?” and “What do they give?”.
Despite the fact that the airport is one of the largest in Europe, there is no feeling of congestion here, as if they let in as many passengers as they let out.
And now a new takeoff, the plane headed for one of the airports in Washington called Dulles. It is strange to find yourself thinking that an eight-hour flight from Astana via Almaty to Amsterdam is longer than an eight-hour flight from Amsterdam to Washington.
Contrary to the forecasts of our weather sites, which promised rain, America met us with excellent, albeit a little windy weather. Having passed all the inspection procedures, filling out the customs declaration and receiving luggage, we join the crowd of tourists from different countries Asia, Africa and Latin America, eager to see the US. Hello America!
Washington
According to the program of our trip, we were in Washington for several days. Meetings were scheduled here with USDA officials (US Department of Agriculture), representatives of farmers' unions, etc. you can see white-collar workers rushing to work on one side of the street, and in the evening they rush in the opposite direction. Many cafes in the city center do not work after 17:00, and lovers of something to eat in the evening have to either go to more reputable (and expensive) restaurants, or go to the tourist part of the city - to the Georgetown area, where life is in full swing until late. Numerous cafes and restaurants are located here, and it seems that people come here from all over the city to chat after a hard day's work. We did not deny ourselves this pleasure. Having caught a taxi (there is no metro in this part of the city), we arrived in this area and sat with a colleague in a hospitable Italian pizzeria, of which there are many, among the bubbling mass of local regulars. It seemed to me that speaking quietly in an American cafe is somehow even indecent, here everyone speaks loudly, and such a noise is created that sometimes you can’t hear your own thoughts. What we were talking about? Do not believe it - about agriculture!
Meetingat the farm office
One of our first meetings with representatives of the agricultural community in Washington was at the Farm Bureau (something like our Farmers Union). David Salmonsen, Senior Director of Congressional Liaison for the American Federation of Farm Bureaus, greeted us with a broad American smile, spoke in sufficient detail about his work and answered our questions.
Our organization is over a hundred years old. We represent farmers not just as citizens of our country, but also as businessmen and land owners. And we work on a wide range of issues: from taxation to farm programs and international trade issues. We also consider various environmental aspects and regulations, labor and immigration issues. Farmers want the federal government to hear our voice and know about us because we represent farmers from every corner of the United States. Our offices are located in each of the fifty states and are in constant interaction with the governments of these states. In a word, our organization helps farmers to interact with different levels of government. We also work closely with the agricultural faculties of colleges. Representatives of the Farm Bureau also serve on various university boards of trustees. Both at the state and federal levels, we are urging the legislature to allocate more funding to these universities and colleges.
As David Salmonsen noted, the Farm Bureau, interacting with all levels of government, at the same time maintains its equidistance from various political parties and is not a political organization.
We do not support official political candidates, we do not contribute money to their election campaigns. We work with all political forces, no matter which party wins the elections.
Such a policy of a non-political organization has a basis: in the 1930s, the organization supported candidates of various parties and financially helped them. But what happened next? If such a candidate lost, then it was bad for everyone, because the winner, as a rule, was not eager to help his former opponents.
- Why do you exist, who helps you?
We are a volunteer organization, our members pay fees, on which we exist as a non-governmental structure, we do not receive funding from anyone.
Who sets the membership fees?
the farmers themselves. And in each state they have a different value, but on average the contribution depends on the county (something like our districts of the region, - approx. ed.) $50 a year, no matter how big or small the farm is. Of this amount, four dollars a year from each farm reaches our central office. The rest of the money is spent by our divisions in the states themselves (maintenance of the apparatus, salary, conferences and trips). We are non-profit organization which is not intended to make a profit. Therefore, all fees go to operating expenses.
- How is the agenda of your organization formed?
The initiative always comes from the farmers, from the bottom up. They have ideas on the ground, they ask us a range of questions, which we then work on. And they offer us a position that should be taken on their behalf. Legislators, in turn, also want to know the position of farmers on a particular issue, since farmers are their voters. On average, about five thousand of our members come to our organization every year. We work closely with other agricultural organizations and generally represent a small percentage of the US population. But we are an important part of the economy.
- How many farmers are there in the US?
About two million. Our organization has six million members. After all, we are open not only to farmers, but also to other rural residents who want to join us. Among our members there are also townspeople. And they all also pay a fee of $50 a year. It turns out that our majority are not farmers, but at the same time, in order to hold a position in our organization, you need to be a farmer. I myself am an associate member of the Farm Bureau and work part-time.
Usually in January we hold a general convention of the organization, about 400 delegates representing our members vote on various issues.
When we declare our position, we have a strict rule: during the year this position remains unchanged. We are not afraid to lose, but we never give up. There was a case when we defended our position on the tax issue for 18 years and achieved its decision in our favor.
- How big is the staff in the central office?
We have 70 employees who are in constant contact with government organizations, the media, social networks and so on.
- Tell us about the hottest issues that are on your agenda today?
The priority issue is international trade, export and import. We need to expand markets for our products. We have free trade with Mexico and Canada, where we export large volumes of products. But we want to be represented in other markets as well.
Our farmers themselves decide what to grow in their fields. In Missouri, for example, many of them grow cereals. It is part of the grain belt. Vermont has many dairy farms. The major cities of Boston and New York are close by and there is a good demand for milk. In addition, there are excellent pastures for dairy cows. In this state, milk production is profitable. For agribusiness, it is very important where the farm is located.
In the US, there is always the problem of overproduction. There were years when the government subsidized farmers only to ensure that they did not sow anything in parts of their fields in order to prevent overproduction of products. But we left these programs in the 90s.
Our other eternally topical topic is the issues of taxation and the reform of this system. Farmers all over the world worry about taxes. We have a local property tax that funds local governments and school districts. Farmers consider it prohibitively high. We mostly pay personal income tax, which is funded by the federal government. Wherever we go to meet the farmers, everyone will be talking about taxes.
What share of farmers' products is exported? And in general, how do you cope with a strong dollar that limits export opportunities?
We have on domestic market more than 330 million people live. And most of what our farmers grow stays in the US. The volume of manufactured products in total is about $140 billion. However, everything depends on the specific product. For example, about 80% of our cotton is exported to China. This situation arose after our textile industry went to other countries in the 2000s, and cotton followed it. As a nationwide organization, we want to sell our products in Cuba, but are limited by the current embargo. In the state of Florida, which is closest to Cuba, there are many immigrants from this country who do not want to have anything to do with it. However, there is a national policy in favor of establishing relations with Cuba, and Florida does not like it.
Half of the soybeans and corn grown in the US are also exported. The difficult situation with the export of wheat: we are losing it, and our farmers are reducing the area under crops of this crop. Today, more and more of them prefer to switch from wheat to corn, which can earn more. As the climate gets hotter, corn is making its way into more and more northern states where it was previously grown to a limited extent or not at all. For example, in North Dakota, which borders Montana, two years ago, for the first time in history, corn production exceeded wheat production. And the farms that grow it today are more sustainable in the market. A wide range of hybrids of various maturation periods also contributes to the expansion of corn crops.
- How is the process of lobbying laws in Parliament?
Legislative initiative must come from a member of Congress. The sponsor of the bill is determined, but this is not a financial sponsor, but the one who represents this law. We are trying to involve other legislators in the work so that they support the bill. And when we gather enough support, then it is sent to a specific committee on agriculture or to the financial committee, if we are talking about taxes. There are hearings. Witnesses are called to the trial. These are people who have useful information for the legislator. Professionals with extensive experience in various fields are invited. But basically we consult with employees of agricultural faculties and colleges in the field of new technologies. After the sponsor has submitted the bill and has received the support of a sufficient number of senators and congressmen, he goes to the leadership of his house and asks to call a vote on the bill. And the leadership of the Senate or the House of Representatives decides on voting. In the case of a successful vote, the project becomes law.
- With which organizations do you most often argue about the activities of farmers?
Often you have to fight with environmentalists who want to regulate the activities of farmers in every possible way.
- How much is agricultural land worth in the US?
Different prices. Moreover, in the United States there are private lands, and there are also federal lands, for example, in the Rocky Mountains, such lands are leased.
The Rocky Mountains are located in the west of the United States and Canada, between 60° and 32°N. sh., and stretch for 4830 kilometers from north to south - from the Canadian province of British Columbia to the state of New Mexico in the southwest of the United States. The width of the mountains reaches 700 kilometers.
As for private lands, the price for them can vary greatly. In the east of the country, an acre of agricultural land (0.4 hectares) costs about two thousand dollars. In Iowa, where the most fertile land is located, an acre of land is already worth seven to eight thousand dollars. I would like to point out that in the USA, if you own the land, then the subsoil also belongs to you. For example, if oil is discovered in your area, then you will become its owner. Having land in private ownership, a farmer can take a loan from a bank against its security and invest in the modernization of his production.
- How widespread is direct seeding of field crops on farms?
In the Corn Belt, 90% of the land is no-till or minimum technology.
The corn belt is located in the southern part of the Central Plains on highly productive chernozem-like soils. It includes the states of Iowa, Illinois, western Kansas and Nebraska, northern Wisconsin, and eastern Indiana and Ohio.
In the Wheat Belt, direct seeding is also often used, but there are some farmers who continue to work with traditional methods. But in the main agricultural regions, the land is now mechanically cultivated much less frequently than before.
The US wheat belt consists of two parts - northern and southern, which are very different. In the northern part (North and South Dakota) frosty and windy winters, spring wheat mainly grows here. This part is called the spring wheat belt. In the southern part (Nebraska and Kansas), summers are hotter and drier, and winter wheat is grown here. This is the winter wheat belt.
We have 95% of soybeans and corn - genetically modified. As a result, we use less polluting pesticides and control weeds more effectively.
(To be continued.)
What prevents American farmers from developing their economy? Everything is the same as ours - bureaucracy, zero support at the state level and many compatriots, low profits. A volunteer girl from Lavka, who helped on a farm in the USA for a month, shares her experience.
For example, Shannon Farm, Virginia, you can understand how most American farmers live. Shannon Farm is a community of like-minded people that originated in the 70s of the last century. The rebel hippies bought 500 acres of land and built hostels on it.
Over time, the spirit of socialism disappeared, separate families live in separate houses, but the residents are still ready to defend their interests.
Today, most of the residents of Shannon Farm are farmers with their own vegetable gardens and orchards. And only Virginia, one of the first settlements, has its own herd of 18 cows. But almost all of the community have earnings in local companies. Without this, you can’t live and pull farming.
Farm
The farm uses a rotating pasture system to raise cows. This is not the most popular practice in the US. But for organic meat it is good decision. The community has allocated several fields for grazing, on each of which the herd grazes for about 7 days. The climate allows grazing all year round, only in winter, additives in the form of hay and alfalfa are used.
Unlike cows grown on corn, the meat of such animals is dark, aromatic and saturated.
organic
In the United States, the law specifies substances that are allowed when growing food, as well as the conditions for keeping and feeding livestock if a farmer wants his products to be labeled as "organic".
But the laws are flexible and their provisions can be interpreted quite freely, which is what huge corporations use. Therefore, organic chickens, which "should have access to open space and grazing," can live on 20,000 pcs. in ordinary hangars, but with a corny open door!
Ideological American farmers strive not only to comply with the laws, but also to grow everything in conditions as close to natural as possible.
So, cows do not swell from harmful GMO feed, but graze on rotational fields, fertilizing pastures. Vegetables grow without "chemistry", the weight of the fertilizer is organic.
A life
Small farmers sell their produce to local people at small fairs and markets. Only a few manage to achieve high profits and large scale.
The book Gaining Ground is written about such an experience - the emergence of family farming in the “big game”. Author Forrest Pritchard talks about his life - honestly and without embellishment. Worth reading to get an idea of the complexities (financial and administrative) under which American farmers survive.
It is almost impossible to compete with huge agricultural enterprises here. Farmers can make a profit only with a constant search for a sales market, having their own narrow focus and engaging in organic production. Farmers practically cannot get into chain stores in big cities. But Pritchard shares his secret of profit - he is responsible for the business of his father and grandfather, so he found a way to win over the hearts of the people of Washington, where he sells his products.
Economy
Virginia from Shannon Farm raises castrated bulls and cows with calves. 2-3 bulls are slaughtered a year, the animals are killed and butchered on a neighboring farm, and Virginia receives packaged parts, ready for sale. The butcher takes the skin, head and limbs, the mistress of the herd sells to regular customers one quarter of each type of meat (tenderloin, steak, minced meat, etc.)
Before processing, the bull weighs about 550 kg, after - 300 kg. Even less product gets to the sale, because. fat and bones are removed.
In stores, organic meat costs $6-30 per pound, regular meat - $3-18.
But if a farmer sells meat at retail to "his own", then the price ranges from $5 to $24 per pound, depending on the type of meat.
Profit from one animal per year is $2000-2400.
About expenses
For grazing, electric shepherds are used - fences made of plastic posts around the field, through which a weak current is supplied. Around one pasture 100 pcs. poles, worth $2 each. They columns are updated regularly.
Metal pens cost $1,000.
In addition - the cost of complementary foods and veterinary services.
The cost of running their farm (Virginia has been engaged in organic meat for 9 years) has not yet paid off, despite regular customers and stable sales.
Volunteering
Often, farmers after childhood in the gardens refuse to help their parents, leaving for. On farms it would be very difficult without the help of volunteers. And therefore, farmers have a philosophical attitude towards all “side supporters” - assistants.
Those who are interested in the agricultural sector come to farmers, they want to learn new practices, to do their own thing. There are a considerable number of Internet resources where farmers can find their helpers, both volunteers and temporary workers.
Approach to life
Virginia, like other residents of Shannon Farm, is very responsible in terms of nutrition and consumption. Residents buy used clothes, equipment, cars, sort waste, make compost, try to eat only living natural food, preferably of their own production.
Community of Shannon Farm
The views of the first settlers of the hippie community were romanticized. But the residents of Shannon Farm are confident that their community can be considered successful project. Everyone has their own comfortable houses, everyone is endowed with a piece of land, everyone is free to do what he wants. But in their opinion, this success will last another 2 decades, because. young people almost completely left Shannon Farm. Only three young guys remained, supporting the backbone of the founders.
In some ways, this is the problem of the old-timers. With age, they are more and more concerned about the issue of security in various aspects, so the young energy, overflowing, scares away, makes you wary. And this is felt by the children of the settlers and those who come to the community from outside. Because of such pressure and lack of division of views, the farm will cease to exist.
In addition, farmers in remote communities from the city find it difficult to survive due to global changes - for example, in these parts a huge gas pipeline is being built, which poses a threat to the environment, and which too few local activists oppose. Farmers often lack public support to preserve the ecology of their territory.
A couple of years ago, when the first Windows phones just came out, I decided to play one small game and opened my own small business - I wrote several programs for Windows phones and started selling them. Since then, a lot of time has passed and from a harmless hobby, my business has gradually turned into an even more harmless hobby (the market for Windows smartphones has still not reached, it seems, even 4 percent). I actively abandoned writing new versions of programs, but by some miracle the total number of people who downloaded my applications approached half a million, and every month 200-300-400 dollars of profit began to come to the account. A trifle, but nice. Well, that is, it was nice until the month of April came and I didn’t have to think about taxes. Fuck him, the minimum turbotax that can handle my situation (home and business) costs a whopping $109, which no one will refund me. But also the three nights of my life that I have already spent filling out and calculating all taxes, and this will never return. As a result, I became angry and irritable.
The only thing that saves the world from me killing everyone around is rain. I do not want to leave the house. And home is fine. How glad I am that I don't live and work in some big stone tower in some big city. I love my little Duval full of farmland and programmers. You look out the window - and there is a plum blossom. At neighbors - deer peel bushes. Silence on the streets, even cars are not frequent guests. It’s rare when you hear some kind of stomping outside the window - and there, bah, the locals are going somewhere. It happens.
My most popular app is called GPS Calculator and many of its users are real American farmers who use my program to calculate the area of their fields. I have great respect for the farmers for their work and I believe that working on the land is one of the most important things that you can do at all.
The time of gigantic, poisonous farms destroying the whole nature around them has long passed. According to Washington state statistics, the number of American farmers is slowly growing, successful farmers are getting younger, each farm is getting smaller and smaller (the average size in King Prefecture is 10 acres), they specialize in rare crops, a greater variety of varieties, organic farming, working in maximum harmony with nature, reducing irrigation and fertilization, on products ideal for the local climate. More and more people are realizing that much more pleasant than Mexican or Californian tasteless cucumbers - local, native, vegetables, root vegetables, berries and salads.
Or maybe mushrooms. Usually I buy mushrooms like this - I write a message to the farmer (who lives with me in the same city) on Facebook and ask him to bring it. Today I wanted to do the same, but the farmer said that today he is very, very busy on the farm and it is generally raining heavily. Therefore, I had to, on the contrary, go to him. Do you want to learn and see how ordinary American mushroom farmers live and work in ordinary small towns? Then look.
The farm is located in Duval on 315th Avenue. It's not far from my house, but already on the outskirts of the city, so 315th Avenue is heavily wooded and not paved. Here is such.
We turn left on 315th Avenue into the first house. Right here. We see a car, sakura and a farmer's house. There is silence and no one around, but this is not scary - the farmer is now busy with work and in order to catch him you need to go directly to the backyard. Near the house there is a garage and daffodils bloom in a puddle.
And here is the backyard and farm. Tractor, sawdust, shed.
This green machine is for cutting branches and all kinds of wood debris into sawdust. The farmer buys all the extra bits of aspen, spruce and thuja from local lumberjacks, the tractor puts them into the car, the car processes all this garbage into sawdust and packs the sawdust into liter plastic bags(made from compostable corn plastic).
This scary device (similar to something from Lost) is used to turn water into hot steam (under high pressure).
And here is the owner himself. He opened a mushroom farm in the city of Duval two years ago, and before that he lived in Izu Prefecture in Japan for three years, taught there. English language at school and developed a love for mushrooms. Works with sawdust in the fresh air, only occasionally being distracted by Facebook. Social media(and blogs) is an extremely important tool for every farmer I know. Now everyone is blogging. But I, for one, don't know why it would occur to someone to subscribe to some Coca-Cola twitter. Small farmers are quite another matter. From the Facebook of the baker Sean, his readers will find out what his mood is today and what kind of bread (or not at all) will turn out on this occasion. The mushroom farm posts pictures of mushrooms and frogs. In response, the farmers who subscribed to their readers learn about the interests and tastes of the buyers of their products, and adjust the assortment to this. It turns out a completely different, personal, level of service.
The holiest place of the farm - mushrooms are just starting to grow here. It is done this way, all the shelves in the house are loaded with bags of fresh sawdust. The house is closed and a jet of hot steam is let in, which sterilizes all sawdust from excess mold and bacteria. Then fungal spores are carefully planted in each bag. Mushrooms are regularly watered with the purest spring water (the spring is located right on the farm), sawdust begins to rot and mold (and due to the fact that rotting occurs inside closed bags, these bags get very hot).
When the first mushrooms begin to crawl out of the mold, they are transferred to another, neighboring, house, which is called the “growth house”. Here is the owner of the farm and his partner in this house of growth, at work (with constant work with mushrooms, precautions for the lungs are needed).
Shiitake.
Hedgehogs love to grow upside down.
The agro-climatic conditions in which the farmers of this state work are similar to Ukrainian ones: the climate is continental, the temperature in winter, spring and autumn is close to our conditions, the summer is quite hot, droughts are often observed. During the year, on average, 200 sunny days and 93 rainy days fall.
The main limiting factor in obtaining yields in Iowa, as in ours, is moisture. If we draw an analogy of precipitation between Ukraine and the state, then in Ukraine the amount of precipitation decreases from west to east and from north to south, and vice versa in Iowa. On average, from 600 to 800 mm of precipitation falls there annually, but, interestingly, 70% of their amount falls on the period from April to June. Just like in Ukraine, quite a long drought is observed in Iowa during July and August.
In terms of territory, the state of Iowa is five to six times smaller than Ukraine. The soils of the state are chernozems on moraines, which were formed many thousands of years ago as a result of the movement of glaciers. Also in the southern part of the state are chernozems on the loess. The thickness of the chernozem in some places can reach 1 m. The content of humus in soils ranges from 2 to 6%.
One of the typical features of central Iowa is the presence of so-called saucers in the fields. These are usually poorly drained areas where flooding occurs quite often. And so in Lately in such fields, at a depth of 0.5 m and at a distance of 20 m from each other, local farmers are laying drainage systems. The mechanical composition of the soil in the state is diverse: these are silty-alluvial loams, and loams, and clay soils.
Soybeans and corn are the state's two main crops. Most of the area, and this is 65%, allotted for corn, the rest is sown with soybeans.
The crop fertilization system is very diverse. Farmers use various fertilizers, technologies for their use and timing of application, and the like. Precision farming has become widespread, in which various sensor systems are used to help diagnose the surface of the crop's leaves and introduce the right amount, say, of nitrogen, when feeding plants.
All nitrogen fertilizers for each crop rely on economically optimal rates. Take into account such indicators as the amount of additional crop received, its estimated price and the cost of fertilizer. Also, the rates of fertilizer application for crops are adjusted taking into account the indicators of the removal of nutrients from the soil during cultivation and as a result of soil erosion, evaporation, and the like. Quite a few in Iowa use nitrification inhibitors, which stop the urea breakdown process.
The most common nitrogen fertilizers are ammonium nitrate, UAN, liquefied ammonia and urea, part of which is supplied from Ukraine.
Quite a lot of discussion among farmers revolves around the question, which nitrogen fertilizers are best for corn? In particular, the introduction of UAN into the root zone or urea indiscriminately?
Of course, you will argue that it is better to apply nitrogen to the root zone, however, as studies have shown, in some fields there was no difference in corn yield for both fertilizer options. Even though urea caused minor leaf burns of the crop. Although when applying UAN, nitrogen losses will be less compared to surface fertilization.
One more interesting fact: The population of Iowa is 3 million people, and the number of pigs that are kept there is 15 million heads. Therefore, there manure is one of the main elements of fertilizer in the cultivation of soybeans and corn.
The average soybean yield in the state is about 4 t/ha, and corn is 12 t/ha. The use of transgenic varieties and hybrids allows local farmers to get higher yields compared to classical ones due to better crop preservation. Often controversial questions arise in agronomists, what percentage of the crop is provided by genetics, and what percentage is technology? Many Scientific research confirmed that 60% of the yield depends on the genetics of crops, the rest is provided by improved technology.
Selecting quality seeds is one of the most important decisions an American farmer makes when calculating potential yields. Crop breeding aims to increase yields not by increasing the potential of a variety or hybrid, but by increasing planting density. Therefore, every year the seeding rate per hectare of, say, corn is increased by 830 plants, while at the same time the row spacing is reduced. Therefore, now the average row spacing of corn there is 76 cm. Although the state also conducts a lot of field experiments on the expediency of such a decision, which quite often show that the effect of an increased seeding rate and a reduced row spacing is not always present, because one or another hybrid is enough for react differently to such changes.
One of the biggest challenges for American farmers is finding the best growing technology for growing crops, adapted to local weather conditions, which vary from year to year. After all, the only uncontrollable factor influencing the conduct of modern agriculture today is the weather, so it is in accordance with it that it is necessary to develop the technology of growing crops. It was also experimentally found that weather conditions have big influence, for example, on the yield of corn, which can be expressed by additional production or, conversely, by a shortage of grain at a level of 4 to 7 t/ha.
Quite a lot of attention in Iowa is paid to the actual sowing technology, because you need to clearly understand to what depth and in what conditions it will fall. Interestingly, many farmers in the state are planting seeds in a large amount of crop residue. As for the timing of sowing, the state is conditionally divided into three agro-climatic zones. So, in the northeastern part, 95% of the window favorable for sowing falls on the period from April 12 to May 2; in the northwestern and central parts in the direction from west to east - from April 15 to May 18, and in the southern part (from west to east) - from April 11 to May 13. Nevertheless, they are indicative, since from year to year (just like in Ukraine) they are adjusted in accordance with the current weather conditions and soil temperature.
High yield for the American farmer does not mean high profitability. Particularly in Iowa, low agribusiness returns tend to be accompanied by low farm prices and high production costs. We found this out after talking directly with farmer Lindsay Grainer of Iowa, USA, who is the chairman of LIN-Shell Corp. Family Farm. and at the same time a member of the board of directors of the Soybean Producers Association.
We were interested, in particular, in the activities of this organization in the overseas state. What is the essence of its functioning? And here is what we learned from our interlocutor. The state of Iowa is divided into nine farming districts, each with two members of the association's board of directors. The latter is actually a private structure, financed by transferring funds from each farmer from the sale of soybeans 0.5% of the cost. Half of these funds remain with the local association, the other half goes to the national association. All the funds of her fund have a targeted distribution: for example, for marketing, various research, and the like.
And now - actually about the farmer and his management
Family Farm LIN-Shell Corp. has about 700 hectares in cultivation. By US standards, this is a medium-sized farm. Of all the land, 400 hectares are owned by the Lindsay family, which are divided between the father and the eldest son, the remaining 200 hectares are leased by the family. On the family farm, only two people are involved in the process of agricultural production - Lindsay himself and his eldest son.
Lindsay Grainer's life turned out so that immediately after receiving his secondary education, he began to farm. Total farming experience - 40 years. All this time he has been growing corn, soybeans and pig farming. The farm has three pig farms, each containing 2.5 thousand fattening pigs. In their business, they do not reproduce livestock - young piglets (weighing approximately 10 kg) are purchased from another farm and then fattened. About 15 thousand heads of pigs are sold per year.
From activities livestock farm annually receive 40 thousand liters of liquid manure, which is the main type of fertilizer to meet the needs of crop production. The qualitative composition of this fertilizer is as follows: the total amount of nitrogen in 1000 liters is about 24 kg, phosphorus - 11 and potassium - 24 kg. The application rate of manure on the farm is from 1200 to 2000 l/ha, depending on the type of soil, as well as on the content of nutrients in it, which is determined using an appropriate analysis. According to Lindsay, the annual application of organic fertilizers allows sowing corn in monoculture for many years. To reduce the loss of nutrients from manure, it is applied at a temperature not exceeding 10 ° C. One pig farm provides manure for an area of 50 hectares.
The cost of one pig farm is $ 650 thousand, and the total monthly income from it is $ 8765. From the last amount, according to the farmer, a certain part of the money goes to monthly deductions: in particular, $ 5600 - as a loan payment and $ 1850 - operating expenses. Therefore, the net income from one pig farm is $ 1,300. Of course, this is not so much, but Lindsay is optimistic about his management, because when he pays off his loan debts, the profitability of raising pigs will increase significantly.
To reduce the cost of growing crops in the US states, they mainly introduce zero and minimum tillage technologies. If corn is grown after soybean, no additional fertilization is usually applied. As practice has shown, in particular, Lindsay, the additional introduction of nitrogen in the form of liquid or granular mineral fertilizers does not provide the expected increase, but only increases costs. If you sow corn after corn, it becomes necessary to add (in spring) additional nitrogen - at a rate of about 80 kg/ha in the form of anhydrous ammonia.
When areas are saturated with corn in the state, they have a significant problem with pests on this crop, therefore, during sowing, insecticides in liquid and granular form are introduced into the soil to reduce the pesticide load on the environment.
seeds - $220, fertilizer - 280, plant protection products - 115, application of machinery - 218, crop insurance - 64, land use tax - 635 (regardless of whether you are the owner or not), rent - 75, loan cost - $50.
As you can see, the most production costs are for seeds, fertilizers and land.
To cover production costs, Lindsay says, corn yields need to be 12 t/ha or more. When you get 11 t/ha, then in fact you have reached “zero”, and if it is less (depending on how much), then you will also be at a loss. With an average corn price of $150 over the past two years, most US farmers have had little or no return on growing corn.
During the corn growing season, pre- and post-emergence herbicides are applied, so, in fact, there are no problems with weeds.
If we draw an analogy with soybean cultivation, then the main components of technological costs will also be seeds - $ 165 per hectare norm, fertilizers - $ 100, plant protection products - 114, use of equipment - 215, crop insurance - 45, land use tax - 365, the cost of a loan - $30 respectively.
State farmers primarily use GM soybean seeds that are resistant to a specific group of drugs (but not to glyphosate, as they have recently noticed the emergence of a large number of weed species that are resistant to Roundup).
Soybean yield varies in different years from 4 to 6 t/ha. Prices for soybeans are more favorable than for corn, so the trend towards more soybean acreage, according to Lindsay, will only intensify.
Soybeans are sown in late April - early May with row spacings of both 38 cm and in a continuous way, where it is 15-17 cm. One of the problems in its cultivation that American farmers face is the ability to be affected by fungal diseases, the causative agent of which in the soil.
One of them is especially harmful. Its danger lies in the fact that at the beginning of the development of soybean plants, it does not visually manifest itself, and already in the second half of the growing season on a soybean field affected by the pathogen (often locally), an early death of plants is observed. The disease was called "sudden death syndrome of soybeans." Therefore, in order to avoid plant diseases, seed dressing with Cruiser Max control is mandatory. Therefore, depending on the weather conditions that will develop during the soybean growing season, fungicidal and insecticidal protection is used. So, in wet weather, there is a need to treat soybean plants with fungicides, and in dry and hot weather, insecticides are most often applied, since aphids massively damage crops.
Phosphorus and potash fertilizers are mainly applied under the predecessor - corn, and, as a rule, they are enough for soybeans.
To reduce water erosion of the soil, American farmers are planting additional protective strips in the middle of the fields. Soil analysis shows that this actually helps to reduce the loss of nutrients from the soil. This is especially true for fields located on steep slopes. Cover crops have also gained in popularity in recent years.
For the effective use of mineral fertilizers, soil sampling is carried out every three years to determine it for the content of basic nutrients. Also, elements of precision farming are used during sowing, fertilizing and applying pesticides. Thus, at every stage, the family farm implements effective solutions.
As for the cultivation of other crops that are profitable in Ukraine (in particular, wheat and sunflower), it is worth noting that they are often not grown in Iowa for the reason that they are less profitable there. In addition, the humid climate contributes to a strong defeat of their diseases.
Output
Therefore, in order to receive insignificant profits in agriculture, Iowa farmers have to make significant efforts and spend a lot on production needs. But despite this, Iowa farmers, through their dedicated work, continue to maintain the high reputation of their state as a world grain producer. While quite a few Ukrainian agricultural producers do not undertake to grow crops with a profitability of less than 30%, they say, this is not very profitable... In fact, it should be understood that in Ukraine the current times of management are almost the best compared to what should be expected in the future: against the backdrop of global competition, the profitability of crops will continue to decline.
G. Zholobetsky
journal "Proposition", №4, 2017
From the earliest days of the country's existence, agriculture has occupied a key place in the American economy and culture. Of course the farmers play important role in any society as they feed the people. But in the United States, agriculture was especially valued. At the very beginning of its existence, the country saw in farmers an example of economic virtues - diligence, initiative, independence. In addition, many Americans—especially immigrants who may never have owned the land and the products of their labor—recognized that owning a farm was a ticket to the American economic system. Even people who had retired from agriculture often used land as a commodity that could be easily sold and bought, opening up a new path to enrichment.
The American farmer was generally quite successful in producing food. Sometimes the farmer's success gave rise to his main problem: the agricultural sector periodically suffered from overproduction, which drove down prices. For a long time, the government has mitigated the worst of these crises. But in last years such assistance has declined due to the desire of the government to reduce its own spending and the reduced political influence of the agricultural sector.
American farmers are able to harvest large crops due to several factors. For example, they work in exceptionally favorable natural conditions. The soils of the American Midwest are among the most fertile in the world. The amount of rainfall in most of the country is moderate to high; in the absence of rainfall, rivers and groundwater provide widespread irrigation.
Large capital investments and increasing use of qualified work force also contributed to the success of American agriculture. Today's farmer can be seen driving an air-conditioned tractor in the cab and very expensive high-speed plows, cultivators and reapers. Biotechnology has made it possible to create seeds that are not afraid of disease and drought. Fertilizers and pesticides are widely used (even too widely according to some environmentalists). farming activities control computers, and to determine the best places space technology is used for planting crops and fertilizing the soil. In addition, researchers periodically offer new food products and new methods of creating them - for example, artificial ponds for breeding fish.
However, farmers failed to overcome some of the basic laws of nature. They are still forced to put up with uncontrollable forces - most notably the weather. Despite a generally favorable climate, North America also suffers from frequent floods and droughts. Weather changes generate their own economic cycles in agriculture, often unrelated to the general economy.
Calls for government assistance are made when certain factors impede the success of farmers; at times when a combination of factors is driving farms to the brink of ruin, there are especially loud pleas for help. For example, in the 1930s, a combination of overproduction, bad weather and Great Depression gave rise to what seemed to many American farmers an insurmountable crisis. The government responded with broad agricultural reforms, most notably the creation of a price support system. This unprecedented large-scale intervention continued until the late 90s, when Congress canceled many support programs.
In the late 1990s, the US agricultural economy continued to experience booms and busts, followed by a two-year decline following the prosperity of 1996 and 1997. But it was a very different agricultural economy from the one that existed at the beginning of the century.
Agricultural policy at an early stage
During the colonial period of American history, the British crown cut the land into large pieces, which were donated to private companies and individuals. These recipients divided the land further and sold it to others. With independence from England in 1783, the Founding Fathers of America felt the need to develop new system land distribution. They agreed that all unsettled land would go under the control of the federal government, which could sell it for $2.5 per acre ($6.25 per hectare).
Many of the people who courageously fought the dangers and hardships of settling these new lands were poor, and they often settled as squatters with no clearly defined rights to their farms. During the first century of the country's existence, many Americans felt that land should be given away free of charge to settlers if they were to remain on it and cultivate it. This was finally confirmed by the Homestead Act of 1862, which opened vast tracts of western land to free settlement. Another law, passed the same year, set aside a piece of federal land to generate the revenue needed to build so-called "grant land colleges" in various states. The creation of public colleges and universities under the Morrill Act opened up new opportunities for education and training in so-called practical skills, including farming.
Bulk Ownership individuals small farms were not typical of the South, unlike the rest of the United States. Prior to the Civil War (1861-1865), large plantations of hundreds if not thousands of hectares were established for the large-scale production of tobacco, rice, and cotton. These farms were tightly controlled by a small number of wealthy families. Most of the agricultural workers were slaves. With the abolition of slavery after the Civil War, many former slaves remained on these lands as tenants (called sharecroppers) in agreement with their former owners.
Ensuring sufficient food supplies for workers in factories, factories, and workshops was essential during America's early industrialization. The emerging system of waterways and railways made it possible to deliver agricultural goods over long distances. New inventions such as the steel plowshare (required to loosen the hard soil of the Midwest), the reaper (a machine for harvesting grain), and the combine (a machine that cuts, threshes, and cleans grain) have enabled farmers to increase productivity. Many of the workers in the country's new factories and mills were the sons and daughters of farmers whose labor was no longer needed on the farms as a result of these inventions. By 1860, 2 million American farms provided an abundance of goods. Indeed, in 1860, agricultural products accounted for 82 percent of the country's total exports. Agriculture, literally and figuratively, fueled America's economic development.
With the development of the US agricultural economy, farmers became more aware of the fact that government policies affect their income. The first group to defend the interests of farmers - Grange - was formed in 1867. The movement quickly spread, similar groups emerged - for example, the Farmers' Union and the Populist Party. These groups denounced railroad companies for high shipping costs, wholesalers for profiting from what farmers saw as fraudulent intermediation, and banks for stingy lending practices. The political activity of farmers brought some results. Railways and elevators were under state control, hundreds of cooperatives and banks were created. However, when farmer groups wanted to shape the policy of the country and to this end supported the acclaimed orator and Democrat William Jennings Bryan, who ran for president in 1896, their candidate was defeated. East Coast townspeople and business interests viewed the farmers' demands with distrust, fearing that calls for easy credit would lead to detrimental inflation.
Agricultural policy in the 20th century
Despite the erratic political success of farming groups in the late 19th century, the first two decades of the 20th century were a period of prosperity for American agriculture. Prices for agricultural products were high due to increased demand, the cost of land rose. Technical progress continued to improve productivity. The USDA set up demonstration farms to demonstrate how new machinery could increase yields; in 1914, Congress established the Agricultural Development Service, whose numerous representatives advised farmers and their families on everything from the use of fertilizers to the organization of clothing production at home. The Department of Agriculture was doing new research to breed pigs that needed less grain to feed faster, developing fertilizers that increased grain yields, hybrid seeds that produced healthier plants, chemicals to prevent disease and treat plants and animals, and various methods. destruction of agricultural pests.
The prosperous years of the beginning of the 20th century ended with the fall in prices after the First World War. Farmers again turned to the federal government for help. However, their complaints were not heard, because the rest of the country - especially the urban areas - experienced a period of prosperity in the 20s. This period turned out to be even more difficult for farmers than previous crises, because farmers lost their self-sufficiency. They had to pay cash for machinery, grain, fertilizer, as well as consumer goods in the face of a sharp drop in income.
However, the trouble of farmers was soon shared by the whole country, which, after the collapse of the stock market in 1929, suffered a state of depression. For farmers, this economic crisis exacerbated the problems caused by overproduction. Then the agricultural sector suffered due to adverse weather, which revealed short-sighted agricultural practices. Persistent winds during a long drought have blown away topsoil from large tracts of once fertile land. The term "zone" dust storms describing this dangerous phenomenon.
Large-scale state intervention in the agricultural economy began in 1929, when President Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) created the Federal Farm Board. Although this office could not solve the growing problems generated by the depression, its establishment reflected the firm desire of the state to provide stability for farmers and create a precedent for state regulation of agricultural markets.
Upon taking office in 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt expanded the country's agricultural policy far beyond the Hoover initiative. Roosevelt proposed laws subsequently passed by Congress that were designed to raise the price of agricultural products by restricting production. The government also adopted a price maintenance system that guaranteed farmers "fair" prices, roughly the same as during good market times. The state has agreed to buy up surplus production during overproduction years, when crop prices fall below "fair".
Other New Deal initiatives also helped farmers. Congress created the Electrification Administration rural areas. The government helped build and maintain a network of roads between farms and markets that made cities more accessible. Soil conservation programs have emphasized the need for efficient use of land.
By the end of World War II, the agricultural economy was again faced with the problem of overproduction. Technological innovations, such as the introduction of gasoline and electric power, and the widespread use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers, have raised the yield per hectare to unprecedented proportions. To absorb crop surpluses that lowered prices and taxpayer incomes, Congress created the Food for Peace program in 1954 to export American agricultural products to countries in need. The strategists believed that food supplies could contribute to the economic growth of developing countries. Humanitarians saw this program as a way for America to share its abundance.
In the 1960s, the government decided to use the food surplus to feed its poor. During President Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty," the government launched the federal Food Stamp program, providing food stamps to the poor that were accepted as legal tender at grocery stores. Other programs followed, using the surplus of goods, for example, to provide school meals for children from needy families. These food programs have helped provide the city's agricultural support system for many years and remain an important form of social security the poor and, in a sense, the farmers themselves.
But as agricultural production increased in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, the cost of the system of state price support increased significantly. Politicians from non-farm states expressed doubt about the wisdom of stimulating the production of more agricultural products than was necessary - especially when the surplus caused prices to drop and, consequently, increased the need for state assistance.
The state has tried a new line of behavior. In 1973, American farmers began receiving assistance in the form of a federal "deficit payment" that was supposed to work as a fair price system. In order to receive these payments, farmers had to refrain from using some of their land, thereby pushing up market prices. New program compensation payments, introduced in the early 1980s to reduce expensive government stocks of grain, rice, and cotton, and to boost market prices, put about 25 percent of arable land out of use.
Price support and deficit payments were applied only to a few basic products, such as cereals, rice and cotton. Many other manufacturers did not receive subsidies. Some crops, such as lemons and oranges, were subject to explicit market restrictions. According to the so-called market limits, the amount of crop that the producer could sell in its unprocessed form was limited weekly. These sales-restricting limits were designed to raise prices and raise farmers' incomes.
80s and 90s
By the 1980s, the government (and, by extension, taxpayers) spending on these programs sometimes exceeded $20 billion annually. Outside of rural areas, many voters denounced the spending and expressed dismay that the state was actually paying farmers for NOT farming. Congress felt the need for another change of course.
In 1985, when President Ronald Reagan was calling for a general downsizing of the government, Congress passed new law on agriculture, designed to reduce the dependence of farmers on government assistance and improve the international competitiveness of American agricultural products.
The law reduced price support and put 16 to 18 million hectares of ecologically sensitive arable land out of use for 10 to 15 years. Although the 1985 law changed the structure of state assistance to farmers in a very modest way, the improvement in the economy contributed to the overall reduction in subsidies.
However, as the federal budget deficit ballooned in the late 1980s, Congress continued to look for ways to reduce federal spending. In 1990, he passed a law that stimulated the cultivation of crops traditionally not supported by deficit payments, and also reduced the amount of land counted against deficit payments to farmers. This new law kept prices high and stable for certain commodities and widespread state regulation for certain agricultural commodities.
This situation changed significantly in 1996. The new Republican Congress elected in 1994 sought to wean farmers from relying on government assistance. The Free Farms Act eliminated some of the most costly price and income support programs and allowed farmers to produce for world markets without crop limits. Under this law, farmers were to receive subsidies independent of market prices. This law also rolled back the price support for dairy products.
These changes - a sharp departure from New Deal politics - were not easy. Congress sought to ease the transition by giving farmers $36 billion in payments spread over seven years, even at high crop prices at that time. Price support for peanuts and sugar remained the same, and for soybeans, cotton and rice even increased. Market limits for oranges and some other crops have changed little. Even after these political concessions, the question remained how long this less controlled system would last. Under the new law, the old support system will be restored in 2002 unless Congress passes legislation to separate market prices from support payments.
New problems emerged by 1998, when demand for American agricultural products fell in financially hurt important parts of Asia; exports of agricultural products fell sharply, crop prices and large cattle fell. In spite of low prices, farmers continued to try to increase their income by increasing production. In 1998 and 1999, Congress passed laws on financial assistance temporarily boosting farm subsidies that the 1996 law was trying to roll back. The 1999 donations of $22.5 billion set a new record.
Agricultural policy and world trade
In the 1980s and 1990s, the growing interdependence of world markets stimulated attempts by world leaders to introduce a more systematic approach to regulating international trade in agricultural products.
Almost every country with agricultural production provides farmers with state support in some form. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, as the differences between world agricultural markets widened, most countries with significant agricultural sectors created new programs or strengthened old ones to protect their own farmers from what is often considered to be foreign disruption. These programs have contributed to the narrowing international markets agricultural products, falling international prices and growing surpluses of agricultural products in exporting countries.
In a narrow context, it is understandable why a country might try to solve the problem of overproduction of agricultural products by freely exporting its surplus while restricting imports. In practice, however, such a strategy turns out to be impossible; other countries are, of course, reluctant to allow imports from countries that do not open their own markets.
By the mid-1980s, governments began working to reduce subsidies and allow freer trade in agricultural products. In July 1986, the United States announced at the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations a new plan to reform international trade in agricultural products. The United States has called on more than 90 member countries of the largest international trade association, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), to discuss phasing out all agricultural subsidies and other measures that distort agricultural prices, production, and trade. In the first place, the United States wanted to negotiate the elimination of European agricultural subsidies and Japanese bans on rice imports.
Other countries or groups of countries have made various proposals of their own, generally agreeing with the idea of moving away from trade-distorting subsidies and moving towards freer markets. But as with earlier attempts at international agreements to reduce agricultural subsidies, it proved very difficult at first to get any kind of agreement. Nevertheless, in 1991, the leaders of the major Western industrial countries returned to discussing an agreement to reduce subsidies and move to a freer market. The Uruguay Round ended in 1995, with members committing to reduce their agricultural and export subsidies and make some other changes to move towards freer trade (for example, converting import quotas into duties that allow for easier reductions). They also returned to this issue in a new round of negotiations (at a ministerial meeting held at the end of 1999 in Seattle by the Organization for international trade). Although these negotiations were intended to completely eliminate export subsidies, the delegates did not agree to go that far. Meanwhile, the European Union reduced export subsidies, and by the end of the 1990s, trade tensions subsided.
However, disputes over trade in agricultural products continued. From the Americans' point of view, the European Union has not delivered on its promises to cut agricultural subsidies. The US won favorable rulings from the 1995 successor to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) International Trade Organization on several of its complaints about continued European subsidies, but the EU refused to recognize them. In the meantime, European countries have erected barriers to American food produced with artificial hormones or genetic modifications - which has become a serious problem for American agriculture.
In early 1999, US Vice President Al Gore again called for substantial reductions in agricultural subsidies and tariffs around the world. Resistance to these proposals was expected from European countries and Japan, as was the case during the Uruguay Round. However, in the late 1990s, efforts to move towards freer international trade in agricultural products faced additional obstacles as exports declined in the late 1990s.
Agriculture as a big business
American farmers approached XXI century partly with the same problems that they faced in the 20th century. The most important of these remains overproduction. Since the nation's inception, continuous improvements in farming techniques, seeds, fertilizers, irrigation, and pest control have increased the efficiency of farmers (but not their incomes). And if farmers approved of the idea of reducing the total amount of agricultural production to support prices, then they refused to reduce their own production.
Similar to industrial enterprise can achieve higher profits by increasing its size and production efficiency, many American farms have become larger and larger and have also consolidated their activities to increase efficiency. In fact, American agriculture has become an agro-industry, a term that reflects the large-scale, corporate nature of many agricultural enterprises in modern economy USA. The agro-industry includes various farming companies and structures - from small family companies to huge conglomerates or international companies who own large tracts of land or produce products and materials used by farmers.
The emergence of the agro-industry at the end of the 20th century meant a simultaneous decrease in the number of farms and an increase in their size. These agricultural companies, sometimes owned by "absent" shareholders, use more machinery and fewer workers. In 1940 there were 6 million farms with an average area of 67 hectares. By the end of the 1990s, there were only about 2.2 million farms with an average area of 190 hectares. Around the same period, agricultural employment plummeted, from 12.5 million in 1930 to 1.2 million in the 1990s, while the total population more than doubled. In 1900, farmers made up half of the workforce, but by the end of the century, only 2 percent worked on farms. And about 60 percent of the remaining farmers at the end of the century worked on farms only part of the time; they also had other non-agricultural work to supplement their farm income. High price capital investment - in land and equipment - makes the creation farming A full-time job is exceptionally difficult for most people.
As these figures show, the American "family farm" - rooted in the history of the country and celebrated in the myth of the industrious farmer - is facing serious economic trials. City dwellers and suburbanites continue to marvel at the neat barns and carefully cultivated allotments that are a familiar part of the rural landscape, but it remains unclear whether they will be willing to pay higher food prices or government subsidies to keep family farms going.
