How do American farmers live? About how American farmers defend their interests. Agricultural policy at an early stage

Frankly, in the sphere of the current geopolitical situation, I thought for a long time - is it worth writing about this? This article: “And how is it in their village? American Farmers.

And then I realized what it was worth. Still, all of us (or most of us) are adults, sensible and, as practice shows, kind and generous. And we're talking about people like us. About villagers and small farmers on the other side of the globe. From the country of bison, Indians, cowboys and Coca-Cola. about ordinary Americans.

A few years ago, my wife and I had a chance to travel for a long time through the territory of a potential enemy. And although we visited a considerable number of large American cities, such as Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, Sacramento, Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis and St. Louis, we still spent most of the time in the small towns of that same one-story America. Well, like small towns... Many of our villages are larger. And in America, all settlements in which there are more than two or three houses are proudly called town - a city in our opinion. We visited more than two dozen states, including Texas, and Arizona, and California, and Minnesota, and Wisconsin ... In general, the entire Midwest and the entire western coast. We tried to stay only in small towns, with the most authentic way of life, since large cities in the United States are not much different from Russian ones - the whole spectrum of nationalities, mutual indifference and a disgusting lifestyle. Endless consumption and the pursuit of "Hollywood success". In general, everything is like ours. Small towns, however, are another matter. Often no one has ever seen Russians there, and in general, strangers rarely fly in. So communication with many of them brought real pleasure and invaluable knowledge and experience. How are our redneck colleagues doing in the American outback?

(Marvin and Mandy Straw)

Marvin Straw, Cumberland, Wisconsin, population of just over 2,000. My good friend, with whom we lived for a whole week. Now he works as a truck driver, and at the time of our arrival he worked as a tractor driver on a farm. The farm was raising turkeys meat breeds and belonged to his father-in-law. Marvin's wife, Mandy Straw, was a teacher at a school in the nearby town of Shell Lake, population of 1,314. By local standards - strong middle peasants.

(Marvin and Mandy's house)

(Straw Family Home Park)

(Village American Road

Not poor, but not rich Americans either. They work a lot. Marvin's working day began at 6 am and ended, sometimes, after midnight. But it's in season. In the off-season - easier. Weekend? What's this? Well, except that on Sundays it was allowed to go to church and then spray the fields again. Family business, somehow. The farm had 10,000 turkeys and only two workers besides the owner of the farm. A veterinarian and Marvin himself, who was both a tractor and truck driver and just a farm worker. Feeding, watering, cleaning up waste products, maintaining temperature and humidity are all automated, so a crowd of workers is not really needed there. And when needed (cleaning and fodder), seasonal workers are hired for a week or two. Marvin also has two wonderful children - Marshall and Morgan. Children, like their father, love to fish, drive a snowmobile in winter, and swim in the lake for hours in summer. However, Morgan has already grown up and will soon go to college. Or maybe it already did. Marvin enjoys watching football, fishing and walking in the woods. Yes, with a rifle. Since there are many grizzly bears in the area. There are a lot of weapons in the house, despite the fact that Marvin is not a fan of hunting. In addition to the rifle, two shotguns and a pistol. In addition, in the car (a fresh Chevy Silverado pickup) there is a carabiner constantly hanging on the back wall. At the same time, Marvin considers himself a pacifist. Marvin's house, like almost all Americans, was bought with a mortgage. In case of non-payment, the family is driven out into the cold without hesitation. But at the time of our acquaintance, almost the entire loan was paid off. And also, I noticed that a whole field of corn is growing on the personal plot, which no one is going to harvest. I ask Marvin, they say, why planted? The answer struck on the spot: “Deer come to eat corn. And bears eat deer. And since bears eat deer, they don't eat people or dogs. True, they like to dig in garbage cans with great pleasure. A couple of days later I saw such a bear, just swarming in the trash can. At first I mistook him for a bum. But he quickly realized that there could be no homeless people here, since the nearest neighbor would be half a kilometer away.

(Dan Slater barbecues deer)

Dan Slater. Shell Lake, Wisconsin. A simple car mechanic in the town of Shell Lake with a population of 1314 people. Oddly enough, I met him in Russia. Yes, and in his native Kursk. Upon arrival in Wisconsin, I stayed with him for some time. Fan of hunting and firearms. He kept at home more than fifty barrels, a hunting bow and a crossbow. One evening they fired at the plates with him. When I saw his arsenal, I almost had a stroke. He also kept a .45 Colt Python revolver at home. Well, how did you keep it? It was on the table in his room. To my question “what if there are children?”, I received a simple answer “they prefer rifles”. To my attempts to talk about the dangers of storing children and weapons without isolation from each other. Then I was told the idea that children are excellent at shooting and know quite clearly the safety precautions. “What about without a weapon? Bears around, wild boars, wolves. And you never know, what if someone gets into the house, but I'm not at home? When I said that in Russia everything is difficult with weapons, except for hunting, his eyes were the size of the wheels of his Dodge. Although, let me remind you, he had already been to Russia at that time. However, his children were almost adults. The youngest daughter was 12, the son was 14, and the eldest daughter was about to get married. The children turned out to be very good-natured, but did not climb into the conversation.

(Dan and his Dodge Ram 1500)

Unfortunately, there is not enough space for all the stories. I'll tell you a little bit. We met farmers and simple rednecks in Wisconsin and California, in Arkansas and Minnesota, in Missouri and Texas, in Ohio and Oklahoma ... Everywhere one could note this. None of them ever complained about life, but they liked to scold the government, especially the then President Obama, who was often called an alien or a drug addict. Wisconsin is almost all dairy and meat. They make great homemade cheeses and sausages. But cottage cheese is completely unfamiliar to them. And even there are no analogues. I think one could make money on this, since Americans easily pay for good ideas. Farmers, in general, are quite rich people. Although, contrary to our beliefs, state support they have practically none. Rather, it lies in the fact that they are not interfered with. Plus, Americans easily undertake to defend their rights if it seems to them that the state is violating them. File a lawsuit against the governor of the state or the president - just spit. If the state begins to grapple, then they can take up arms, especially southerners in Texas, Louisiana and New Mexico like to do this. Lots of farmers in California. This state is generally considered the most farming. And it's not Hollywood and Silicon Valley that run the show. Simple redneck rednecks work hard for little pay and dream of one day buying or building own farm or ranch. This, by the way, is not only the dream of rural residents.

(farm fields in California. Rocky Mountains on the horizon)

And in American villages there is a very interesting infrastructure. Public transport missing as a concept. However, it is often absent in large cities. But almost every village has a functioning airport. In the same Shell Lake, which I wrote about above, there are already two of them. One for conventional regional aviation and air taxis and the other for amphibious aircraft. Just a bunch of moorings on the lake. They carry passengers, cargo and mail. And private aviation is very developed. There are at least one or two people in every village who own a Cessna or a Piper. And some even have working pre-war Boeing Stearman biplanes. There is nothing surprising. It costs about twice the national average salary to train as an amateur pilot, and the medical board generally costs only $30. And it goes on in half an hour. The light piston four-seater aircraft itself can be bought at the price of a decent car (about 40 - 50 thousand dollars). Used, of course. It is not uncommon for bus drivers or truckers to become pilots.

(agricultural aircraftCessna AirTractor)

(T typical American country house )

(H small farm in Wisconsin

(village jeep)

P.S. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer. Write, ask.

The United States today is one of the world leaders in agricultural production. In terms of exports of agricultural products, the United States ranks first in the world - 15% (by value). The US accounts for half of the world's production of soybeans and corn, and 10 to 25 percent of cotton, wheat, tobacco, and vegetable oils.

The United States now stands in 1st place in terms of agricultural efficiency. Today at agriculture The United States uses many innovative solutions to enable farmers to produce more with less. The use of GM seeds and direct seeding reduces the cost to farmers of machinery, fuel and pesticides. With their help, as well as through targeted government policies and creating a comfortable climate for the development of agricultural production, US agricultural productivity has increased by almost 50% since 1982.

By all accounts, agriculture in the United States today is a big business. It was in the United States that a special term appeared - "agribusiness" - reflecting the gigantic weight of agricultural production in the American economy.

US farms

American farms are fundamentally different from Russian agricultural enterprises, both in their approach to organizing work and in production efficiency. In the US, farmers are under constant government scrutiny, especially when it comes to maintaining the fertility of the land. Farmers have access to preferential loans, various seminars and consultations are organized for them. It is more profitable for the state to invest and help them than to lose its main national wealth - its land (agricultural land covers 1.163 billion acres, or approximately 52% of the entire US land area).

The development of agricultural production in the United States is due to a number of key factors: the widespread use by farmers of direct sowing and strip-till technology, high-tech and productive equipment, high-quality seed, and so on. But in many respects this is also connected with the activity of the farmers themselves - each farmer is a member of some kind of cooperative or association, some are not members of one, but two or three. There are supply, marketing, agroservice cooperatives, while he has access to the information he needs. All this in the complex bears fruit - the average farmer collects from 1 hectare of land an average of 4-4.5 tons of wheat or 2-2.5 tons of rapeseed per season.

Regarding equipment, we can say that a strong farmer in America is trying to lease, and not buy new combines, tractors, seeders. Many people work according to this scheme: they take equipment for a year, then return it to the dealer and take a new one with an additional charge. This allows them not to accumulate old equipment and increase their capacity every year. The dealer, in turn, is also profitable, as he leases or sells this equipment to smaller farmers.

Special attention farmers devote to storing their grain after harvest. In agricultural areas, small silos and floor storage can be seen every 2-3 km. Characteristically, 40% of all silos are new designs that are not yet 10 years old.

In recent years, farmers have been trying to switch to storing their crops in silos rather than floor storage warehouses, as it is easier and more convenient to control grain quality in them. However, they are not completely moving away from floor storage, with some farmers building such warehouses when their harvest exceeds expected forecasts. Such warehouses are much cheaper today, but if a farmer plans his farm for many years to come, he will definitely install a metal silo, which will be more durable and reliable. As for the area under crops, the average farmer has about 200-300 hectares.
Most often, a farmer focuses on growing one crop, depending on the region where his farm is located. For example, if we talk about crops such as corn and soybeans, then 70% of all crops are oriented in 5 states: Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, Minnesota, Indiana. As for wheat in the USA, it is cultivated in North and South Dakota, Kansas, Montana, Texas, Washington, Oklahoma, Colorado, Nebraska and Idaho.
A typical small farm in the USA looks like this: 8-10 silos, 1-2 floor storage warehouses, office space, a small laboratory and a hangar for equipment and supplies. Special attention in the system farming North America is given to conveyors, namely mobile belt and screw conveyors. In agriculture in North America, speed is a priority. The average farmer has a grain loading and unloading speed of 200 - 250 t/h.

As for the transportation of grain from the farm to the elevator, most often the farmer directly transports his grain in his own transport. Separately, I would like to touch on the topic of the grain carriers themselves. The design of the trailers ensures reliability and ease of operation. Such trailers have bottom unloading, which is carried out from two hatches on the bottom, which allows the grain carrier to be quickly unloaded anywhere. Trailer capacity is 38-40 tons. As for the speed of unloading, the farmer can unload at the elevator in 10-15 minutes.

If we talk about organizing a business, then from a legal point of view, farmers can use any of the three traditional forms of organizing a business: ownership, partnership, association. The most simple form legal organization - sole proprietorship - does not require any legal action, and the law does not distinguish between the owner (owner of the business) and the case. The owner (farmer or a married couple of farmers) controls the property of the farm and is responsible for economic risks and management decisions and also receives income from the business.

More complex forms of legal organization - partnerships and associations - allow several owners to work together. An individual farmer or family may not have the necessary resources and funds - in management, labor force, technology - for conducting a commercially oriented economy. Partnerships and associations allow people (not necessarily related to each other) to pool resources.

The standard of living for American farmers is generally very high. The income of a farming family is on average three-quarters of that of an urban family, but because farmers have lower living expenses, their standard of living is close to the national average.

Farming and WTO support programs

The actual level of support for agriculture in the United States is almost 20 billion (decreased from 50 billion at the time of joining the WTO under the "yellow box").
In the US, budget subsidies include a number of direct forms: compensatory payments for stock reduction programs and changes in crop patterns; investment subsidies; payments to agricultural producers per unit area or head of livestock; reimbursement of costs for water supply, irrigation, gasification; various compensations and tax rebates (turnover tax, for example), etc. And indirect: through full or partial payment of expenses for Scientific research, insurance of crops and products, transportation costs (for public procurement), construction of roads and bridges in rural areas. There are also other subsidies, expressed in the deferral of payments on loans, the cancellation of debts to the state, preferential or interest-free loans, etc.

Under the WTO, U.S. farmers receive significant government subsidies and an additional set of indirect support measures. Subsidies make up about 25% of the value of agricultural products in the US.

In the United States, all food subsidies are determined by the level of market prices and are almost never paid during periods of high prices. There are three types of subsidies:
- direct payments
- countercyclical payments
- market assistance loans.

Since the end of the 1960s, the United States has been increasingly using the mechanism of direct payments, various kinds of surcharges that are not related to the price or quantity of products. This mechanism is neutral with respect to resource costs or prices, and therefore it does not cause an undesirable impact on the structure under conditions of overproduction.
proposals, however, allows you to provide the necessary level of profitability of farms.
Direct payments are paid to producers of so-called "protected products": wheat, corn, barley, sorghum, cotton, rice, soybeans, other oilseeds, peanuts. Direct payments to the producer are not related to the volume of actual production. A subsidy is paid from the basic sowing area, and it may not be used at all or sown with other crops (except for rice, fruits and vegetables), this does not affect the receipt of the subsidy. At the beginning of the year, 50% of the estimated amount of the subsidy is paid, the rest after October 1.

The direct payment is calculated according to the formula: direct payment rate X base yield X base area X 0.85 (coefficient fixed in the Agrarian Law),
while the base area is fixed to previous years, and the base yield is fixed at the 1995 level. The rate is fixed for each culture. The highest is for peanuts and wheat (36 and 0.52, respectively). The subsidy limit for the program is $40,000 per person per year. Counter-cyclical payments are designed to stabilize farmers' incomes if market prices are below target. It is used in most farms in cases where the "actual price" of the products produced is lower than the "target price".

In the United States, target prices (targetprices) set for major agricultural products are oriented towards cost recovery (including the rate of return on capital and estimated land rent) and a certain income of farmers. Target prices guarantee self-financing of farms with medium and lower cost levels.

The sale of products is carried out at market prices, which may not coincide with the target, but if the market price is less than the target, the farmer will receive the difference between them.

This difference between the "acting price" and the "target price" is paid to farmers in the form of a counter-cyclical payment. It is paid based on the historical level of seed payments and is not linked to the current level of production.
For example, target price for wheat = $194 per ton.
Current Price = Market Price + Direct Payments
Direct payments = $19 per ton.
If market price = $150 per ton, then current price = $169 per ton.
Countercyclical payment $194 – $169 = $25 per ton.
The rate of countercyclical payments, unlike direct payments, is not fixed, but depends on the market. The payment limit for these payments is $65,000 per year, 30-35% is paid in October, and the balance is paid at the end of the agricultural year.
In essence, this type of settlement price coincides with the minimum prices that farmers can receive for their products. Therefore, target prices in the US are called guaranteed.

In addition, there are programs to support the price of dairy products and sugar in the United States. The action of the programs is aimed at raising domestic prices through public procurement.

Support for the price of milk is set at $218 per ton. Products currently purchased include butter, cheese, skimmed or powdered milk; purchases are made at adjusted prices.

Sugar price support is set at $397 per tonne for sugarcane products and $504 per tonne for sugar beet products. Subsidies are provided to sugar processors who must purchase sugar from producers at a sustained price.

There are also market credit programs in the USA. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) sets borrowing rates for most crops.

For example, the loan rate for wheat is $101 per ton. The farmer is able to repay the loan for following conditions 1) transfer the crop to USDA at the borrowing rate, 2) repay the loan with interest, 3) repay the loan at the market price if the price falls below $101 per ton, 4) receive a “compensation payment” as the difference between the loan rate and the market rate price.

The American farmer has wide access to a developed network of credit from private, cooperative and public financial sources. One of the most important components of this network is the Federal Farm Credit System, which consists of three groups of banks, each of which is endowed with specific functions: lending for the purchase of real estate, lending for the purchase of agricultural implements and seeds, and lending to cooperatives. The country is divided into twelve zones, in each of which there are three federal banks, one for lending to each of the above areas of activity. Another source of credit for farmers is the Local Farm Authority.

In the United States, as in almost all other countries with highly developed agriculture, the level of direct financing (subsidizing) of agricultural production, despite constant negotiations (within the WTO) and attempts to reduce the level of state support for the agricultural sector, remains extremely high. At the same time, when it comes to the fact that the US is reducing the level of support in the “yellow box”, you need to understand that they are shifting them into the “green box” of measures not limited by the WTO. Some of the big US green box spending, so-called general services: scientific research ($1.8 billion), canning services ($1.5 billion), safety screening measures food products(2 billion dollars), support measures for the "green box" by the 50 US states (4.32 billion dollars), environmental protection (3.9 billion dollars).

According to the well-known charity Oxfam International, the EU and the US spend $9-10 billion more on direct agricultural subsidies alone than they did 10 years ago. Americans are much cheaper to eat than people in many other countries. Moreover, one third of the acreage of the United States is sown specifically for export - to Europe, Asia, Africa, latin america.
From this it is quite obvious why there is an overproduction of food in the USA and why it needs more and more new markets. Accordingly, this makes it difficult to find solutions for the development of trade in agricultural products between developed and developing countries and preserves the position of the WTO as a tool for rich and powerful countries to impose their will on weaker ones.
Konstantin Sergeev

Hello, dear thousands of accomplices! My name is Alena and by the will of fate and thanks to my own remarkable initiative I live and work on a farm in the USA, Virginia.

I came here in large numbers, unfortunately, not for long and not so long ago, but I have already completely joined the stream of farm life and I want to share this day with you.

Unfortunately, I didn’t catch the moment of my own waking up, because for normal life in the morning I need a cup of coffee and an iPad.

But nevertheless, having missed the alarm clock at 7 o'clock, I got up at 8.30 - this is, in fact, the reason why I am smiling here.

An indispensable machine for the production of a divine drink and a couple of slices of bread and butter - what you need in the morning

Life is getting better - I burrow into the expanses of the Internet.

While I was having breakfast and checking email/social networks, time was steadily hinting that it would be time to work - I have to feed all the inhabitants of the farm. In addition, the owner of the farm / my friend / employer / just a wonderful person and companion Pamela left for the city on her own business.
Temperature 73 F - perfect!

On the way to the barn I meet eternally hungry swans - a couple with children. Oh, and they have a vile character!

Temporary barn dwellers - pigs are terribly hungry and loud. I hasten to neutralize them with food as soon as possible.

Unscheduled water treatments for me and fresh water for all residents. I'm in a hurry, as soon the heat will begin and it will be impossible to work.

And in the barn, thieves and rebels are operating with might and main - I drive them with a broom and collect food.

But the main culprits of all the troubles on Earth - they are sheep. Do not be fooled by this look full of sadness - you still need to look for such destructors and boors.

I distribute the first food to the horses - daddy conducts a visual master class on eating food for the kids.

Every morning there is a very fierce struggle for every bowl of food - and don't think that I underfeed them, it's just that life is saturated with bright colors, impressions, bruises and abrasions.
The winner of today's fights without rules.

The guys are waiting for their turn. Beauty is!

While the youth eats, I turn into a cleaning manager - I wash the bath from the remnants of yesterday's feast.
All water!

In total, I have five locations to visit and make the horses happy with food and fresh water. In total, there are 30 horses on the farm, 27 of which are permanently hungry and unhappy.
I breed hay for a bull and our handsome stallion. The Dresden cat is a great help in the morning.

I throw fresh straw to our newborn girl and her mother - sleeping, beauty.

The last jerk - I check the chicken coop for the presence of eggs. Lazy birds laid only one egg together. Ungrateful!

Time flies by - it's already around 90F outside. And judging by the iPad, there are only 72 in the house.

I tried to treat myself to a blackberry - it was not there! It was necessary to be less zealous in the previous days.

In general, I am on the farm as a horse trainer, and therefore I have a couple of hours for blissful idleness while the guys eat.
I decided to climb into a huge barrel of water installed on the terrace - I did not regret it! True, this is a separate entertainment - trying to photograph yourself under the threat of drowning the camera.

I am now alone on the whole farm - I sunbathe in what my mother gave birth - I can not stand the white "bathing" parts of the body.

After such an hour and a half of relaxation, work is a pleasure!

Indeed, the heat is on the rise.

She brought all the necessary things and caught a new horse for me - from today this handsome man is at work.

True, looking at the hooves, I was horrified and immediately grabbed my heart tools.

An hour of mutual torment and all done! Not perfect yet, but I don't want to force the trim (hoof care) and leave the guy to get used to the new sensations.

Testing new hooves - convenient!

But the music did not play for long - it's time to see what the guy is capable of.

An attempt to photograph herself on horseback with a 10-second delay was unexpectedly successful - and the guy is not bad! A couple of months of work and it will be just wonderful. I like his movements and responsiveness in work.

When I'm done, I look like this. Tired but satisfied.

And the time is already approaching three - half an hour break.

Pamela returned - she said that today we were going to the city for food.

We have a little problem here with my students (9 and 11 years old) - Pamela calls their mother.

Meanwhile, I'm reading a new "horse" magazine dedicated to Arabian horses - just our breed!

We turn off our street - to the city about 20 minutes by car.

Not a very revealing photo, but inside I did not dare to take a picture - this is the Post Office, but in our opinion, the post office. For the first time, by the way, there was. Two stamps cost 19 cents.

And here is the goal of our sortie - a farm store-warehouse. We pack up and hurry home.

And the name of the city is Appomattox. But it feels like the city itself, in our usual sense, is completely empty. And this is not an illusion - almost all residents live on farms or in cottages, and the city center is given over to shops and other essentials ..

Checking the mailbox on the way home. For Americans, this is still a very common way of transmitting information. 80 percent of their incoming mail is spam.

We got back just in time as the vet arrived 5 minutes later to give the newborn the necessary vaccinations and drip.
They busted the girl. Fiends =)

After the procedures - alive!

But terribly harmful. NO-HA-CHOO!

But goodness and our stubbornness triumphed and we set off to unload the feed. Very feminine work. But we have a friend and comrade - a tractor!

In the meantime, it's time for dinner. Yes, yes, you heard right! The time is only about 6 o'clock and we are trying to figure something out quickly, as we will be busy again in the evening, and the long-awaited rain is falling outside!

Pasta with homemade pesto sauce, fish and mushrooms - very tasty. Especially if it's the first meal of the day.

The rain took pity and ended, only slightly wetting the grass. My work is not finished yet - my beloved Amen is next in line. I have been working with him for about a month and such a quick-witted horse still needs to be looked for. True, he is afraid of cats. Let's get acquainted.

A very tired Pamela is assisting me today, help is needed as I decided to jump and drive around the farm for general development horses.

Today is the first day! The first jump under the rider is not bad.

We're off to explore the area. And this is also the first time for Amen. I didn't take my camera with me. objective reasons, but it was a pretty productive walk, except for the fact that I got my feet wet in the river, demonstrating to the horse that there were no crocodiles and mysterious horse-eaters. She took a couple of steps.

Having finished, I can finally breathe - tired like a dog, but happy. Time about 8 o'clock - stick to the TV for a while. There is simply no power to do anything else.

Evening farewell photo

Before going to bed, I read LiveJournal and very inopportunely find an entry about the "holidays" of the community.
In the meantime, it's already 10.46 - in half an hour I'll be sleeping like a log.

The day turned out to be productive and eventful - thank you for spending it with me!
Have a nice day, everyone!

From the earliest days of the country's existence, the picture of farmers cultivating the land has been the essence of its being. If a traveler happened to make his way through the forest jungle of eastern North America on the eve of the arrival of European colonists there, he would see glades dotted with unuprooted stumps, where the indigenous inhabitants of the continent, the Indians, grew crops such as maize (Indian corn), beans and pumpkins. Today, from the window of an airplane hovering high above the Great Plains of central North America, the traveler will look out over the endless fields of wheat, corn, soybeans and other crops.

The external forms have changed, but the vital role of agriculture has by no means changed. Today, as before, agriculture provides an opportunity to meet the basic needs of people. Agriculture and related industries generate more of the US gross national product than any other activity. Agriculture also serves as a thread connecting new generations with the dreams and rhythms of life of their ancestors, ensuring the continuity of the present with the past.

The leaders of the nation have erected the virtues of the hardened self-employed farmer into a role model for all the people from the first years of its existence. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, put it this way: Those who work the land are the most valuable citizens. The most energetic, the most independent, the most charitable, and they are bound by the strongest ties to their country and its interests.

Of course, in real life the farmer is never as self-sufficient as the imagination imagines, for he is highly dependent on the vagaries of the weather, and on the whims of the market, and on the policy of the government. Nevertheless, the American farmer displayed a spirit of individualism and egalitarianism that won the admiration of the rest of society. To a large extent, the values inherent in rural America have been accepted and assimilated by society as a whole.

American agriculture is rich and diverse, unsurpassed almost anywhere else in the world. Partly due to the vastness of the country, partly due to the bounty of nature. Only in a relatively small part of the west of the country is the precipitation so insignificant that deserts are formed. In the rest of the territory, precipitation is moderate to heavy, and rivers and groundwater allow irrigation work to be carried out if necessary. The vast expanses of flat or slightly hilly land, especially the Great Plains of the eastern states of the country, provide ideal conditions for large-scale agriculture. Today, the size of the average American farm is about 180 hectares.

There has been a huge leap from the small, subsistence farms of the past to today's structure, combining small family farms with state-of-the-art giant farms. To understand it, let us trace the development of farming in the United States and consider the strengths and weaknesses of American agriculture as it has evolved today.

HISTORICAL OUTLINE

The first American farmers, the native inhabitants of the continent, helped the settlers from Europe to adapt European crops and farming methods to the soils and climatic conditions North America. This adaptation was relatively easy for the colonists. But they found it much more difficult to transfer the familiar European systems of land tenure to the new soil. The English system, under which the English nobility owned gigantic estates, where the farmer was only a tenant, did not suit the conditions of the colonies, although planters and officials at times tried to copy it.

Ultimately, the system failed because there was too much land and too few workers. Farmers, other than slaves, could look for work in the city, or buy their own land, which many did. As a result, small plots of freeholders, family farms became the basis of agriculture in America. Renting, on the other hand, is relatively uncommon. With the exception of a few densely populated areas, American farms were usually fairly scattered and distant from each other, rather than clustered in the countryside. This contributed to the growth of individualism and a sense of independence of the American farmer.

The abundance of land had not only positive, but also negative aspects. Since American farmers could always take another when they ran out of land, they often plowed far more land than they could handle. They "mined" the earth, destroying the fertile layer and not restoring it with the help of fertilizers. The arable land was led carelessly, often along the slopes of the hills, and when the inevitable rains came, the water broke deep furrows in it. The reckless farmer cared little about the consequences; he could always go west, or south, or, at worst, somewhere else. More conscientious farmers, and there were many of them, labored under the burden of competition with their predatory neighbors, who, of course, got the fruits of their labors on the land cheaper.

One way competition served to increase the efficiency of labor and the quantity of products produced, to which many farmers paid great attention. The large farm owners Thomas Jefferson, for example, who was not only President but also a Southern planter, had enough leisure to master the scientific methods of farming. Jefferson kept systematic records of weather observations and left detailed notes on many aspects of land use.

Shortly after American independence, techniques such as crop rotation and the application of lime to the fields (to reduce acidity) were adopted and widely disseminated in the country. Both the growth of agricultural societies and the creation of farmer's magazines contributed to their spread. At the local level, the annual fairs provided an opportunity for farming families to exchange experiences and showcase their accomplishments (there were contested prizes for best hay, best livestock, best cooking). Farmers also got acquainted with the latest agricultural machinery. Technology played a key role in the rapid growth of agricultural output in the United States. Throughout the 19th century, new inventions and tools appeared one after another. First, the sickle was replaced by a scythe during the harvest, and then, from the beginning of the 40s of the 19th century, the mechanical mowers of Cyrus McCormick. The wooden plow was replaced by a cast-iron plow, and then (by 1845) a steel plow. By the time of the Civil War (1861-1865), machines were already harvesting hay, threshing, harvesting, plowing and sowing. The region known as the Midwest developed a powerful agricultural machinery industry centered in Chicago, Illinois.

In the second half of the 19th century, American agriculture developed at breakneck speed, which, among other factors, was facilitated by a large influx of colonists to the territory west of the Mississippi, "discovering" new lands there or replacing native farmers ("Indians") with newcomers. The federal government stimulated this westward thrust in a variety of ways. In particular, he concluded treaties with Indian tribes or resorted to force of arms, driving them into reservations (areas reserved exclusively for Indians). The federal government also provided free land to settlers and assigned land to railroad companies, stimulating the expansion of the railroad network.

The law that defined the policy of free land use is known as the Homestead Act. Adopted in 1862, at the height of the Civil War, it offered a 160-acre (85-hectare) farm (homestead) to any immigrant family. Every head of the family who has reached the age of 21 and has citizenship of the United States (or even is about to acquire it) could enter into the right of possession of an allotment of public land, settling on it and living for five years. If the family was eager to take over, they could purchase land for $1.25 an acre after living on it for six months. In subsequent years, the government gave the settlers the opportunity to acquire even larger plots for free or for a nominal fee. This policy was made possible by the fact that the government of the United States considered itself the owner of almost all the land west of the Mississippi, either by right of acquisition or by right of conquest.

The Homestead Act strengthened the existing system of small family farms. He contributed to the outflow of surplus population from the eastern states and the creation of a layer of independent farmers. In the 19th century and early 20th century, the number of people owning or working on farms increased dramatically, reaching a peak of 13.6 million in 1916, or 14 percent of the population of the United States.

While helping to establish the family farm, the distribution of free or cheap land also had unforeseen consequences. By encouraging settlement on the prairies where rainfall was scarce and irregular (mainly lands west of what is now Oklahoma City), the Homestead Act doomed many families to a half-starvation existence and uncertainty about the future. Many families from the eastern states, accustomed to consider 160 acres more than a decent allotment, having moved to the west, found that they could hardly feed themselves on such a plot. The crops of arid lands were meager, there was not enough fodder for livestock. Desperate, the prairie farmers plowed and planted every last acre. With good rains, their crops overstocked the market, thereby knocking down prices and reducing revenue. In drought, dust storms carried away the drying topsoil, depleting the fields.

After the end of the civil war, one of the most important problems was overproduction. The productivity of American farms increased not only because the sowing wedge expanded, but also because of the development of agricultural engineering. A multi-share plow made it possible to lay several furrows on the field at once. Giant machines called combines performed a variety of grain harvesting operations. As production far outstripped consumption, farmers' income from their labor began to fall. The period from the 1870s to about 1900 was especially difficult for the American farmer.

Growing discontent among farmers provided an explosive impetus for the creation of political organizations such as the Farmer's Defenders (1870s) and the Populist Party (1890s). Members of the "Defenders of the Farmer" movement, more commonly known as the "Grangers", opposed the monopoly policy of the railway companies and the establishment of those high tariffs. freight traffic. Their activities led to the adoption in a number of states of "granger laws" that established government bodies regulating issues such as freight rates. Grangers and co-operative societies were created to operate shops, warehouses and other infrastructure that served farming communities. Although many of the cooperatives founded by the Grangers fell apart due to the inexperience of their leadership, the rest survived, grew stronger and, to a certain extent, serve as an example to this day. Farmers who sell California lemons under the Sunkist brand name do so on a cooperative basis; in many communities, co-op stores compete with private ones in farm-created produce.

The Populist Party united the Grangers and many other predominantly rural groups in a powerful political protest movement that drew attention to some of the injustices in United States life. The Populists reached their peak in the 1892 presidential election campaign, winning about eight percent of the popular vote. Populist goals such as the free minting of silver coins (to attract more money into the economy) became the subject of national debate and entered the program of the Democratic Party in the 1896 elections. Although the Democrats lost that time, the farmers and their allies managed to get their concerns high on the political agenda. Farmers proved to be a powerful enough social force to win the respect of political leaders, who henceforth invariably paid close attention to their problems.

GROWING ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

Farmers campaigned for a wide variety of government programs, although they often disagreed about which programs to support. Early farmers on the western frontier, for example, supported a federal program to build roads to make it easier to get goods to market. They also supported other domestic development programs, building canals, dredging rivers and, subsequently, land subsidies to railroad companies. Land policy reflected profound differences between the farmers who lived in the frontier regions and those who inhabited the populated old parts of the country. Frontier farmers wanted cheap or even free land so that they could expand their land. The farmers of the populated areas preferred the already established order of things; the expansion of agricultural land was fraught with a glut of the market, threatening to drop prices and losses.

Until the 1960s, there were almost no federal programs directly related to farmers. Agricultural policy was handled by the head of the patent office, which collected agricultural statistics and conducted some limited farming experiments. But in 1862, Congress established the Department of Agriculture, giving its minister the status of a member of the cabinet in 1889 (i.e., making him one of the "secretaries to the direct advisers and employees of the President"). Since then, the federal government has been directly involved in the formation and implementation of agricultural policy.

Initially, the Ministry of Agriculture had almost no direct contact with farmers, mostly organizing research and collecting statistical data. After 1900, Congress gave the ministry other functions, such as forest protection and food standards.

A few weeks after the establishment of the Department of Agriculture, Congress passed the historic Morrill Act, allocating thousands of acres of federal land to each state government for the establishment of a system of agricultural and technical colleges. In subsequent years, state governments established 69 such institutions, called land grant colleges. These colleges have played a key role in the development of agricultural research and education for generations of farmers.

Around 1900, agricultural leaders expressed concern that the results of agricultural research conducted by government departments were not becoming the property of farmers and were not being applied in practice. Many farmers were skeptical about the recommendations of government consultants and continued to proudly follow the traditions of their fathers and grandfathers, rejecting newfangled ideas such as crop rotation and grain selection. To promote the merits of the new farming methods, government departments have set up several demonstration farms. They joined forces with business and farmer groups in the field, hired advocates to travel from farm to farm, explaining and demonstrating new methods that could increase productivity and increase farmers' incomes. In 1914, Congress raised this kind of activity to the level of federal programs by establishing the Agricultural Service. This service, funded jointly by the federal government and each state's land colleges, created a network of permanent representatives who opened offices in each county to provide advice to farmers and their families.

The development service was born during the prosperity of American farming. The prices of agricultural products rose sharply between 1900 and 1914, and increased even more with the onset of the First World War, which created an acute demand for food. Far from the battlefield and with relatively wide access to labor-saving machinery, American farmers had no problem scaling up production. Agricultural prices doubled from 1914 to 1918 and continued to rise through 1920.

However, this period of great prosperity was over, and American farmers entered a period of new crisis. In the 1920s, prices began to fall, and even worse times lay ahead. In 1932, the average level of agricultural prices fell to less than one third of the 1920 level. Thousands of farmers found themselves unable to pay their mortgages, and their land became the property of banks or other creditors. Farmers were not alone in their misfortunes. The storms of the Great Depression of the 1930s shook world economy, throwing thousands of workers and employees into the streets and setting urgent political and economic tasks for the country's leadership.

The government's response to the Great Depression ushered in a new era in American agriculture. Much of today's agricultural policy is rooted in that desperate decade of the 1930s, in programs put forward by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who held office from 1933 until his death in 1945. These programs were part of what Roosevelt called the New Deal for the American people.

AGRICULTURAL POLICY TODAY

The agricultural policy of the United States government is determined by whole system legislative acts. Every four years, Congress debates and passes a major "Farming Act." In addition to it, many aspects of agricultural policy are formed as a by-product of legislative acts regulating other areas of activity. Laws on taxation, for example, help to attract funds from private investors in the development of certain areas of agriculture.

Territory limitation. Based on the theory that overproduction is the main reason for the decline in agricultural prices, the government encourages farmers to limit the amount of land they can plow. This approach was introduced with the passage of the Agricultural Control Act of 1933, one of the major pieces of legislation in the New Deal, which provided special subsidies to farmers who agreed to mothball some of their land.

Ensuring the price level. Certain basic commodities are subject to the practice of securing price stability through government subsidies. Here is an example of how such a system works: Congress sets a price of, say, $2.55 per bushel of corn (one bushel is 35.2 liters) to indicate the estimated value of the crop. Corn growers who agree to the planting restrictions can borrow $2.55 for each bushel of corn they turn over to the government. They practically pledge their crops to the government for the loan they provide. If corn rises above $2.55, farmers can reclaim their crop, sell it on the open market and repay the loan. The money raised in excess of the loan amount goes to the farmers. If corn prices remain below $2.55, farmers can default on their loan repayments without any penalties. The government only turns the corn crop into its own property and either mortgages it or sells it at a loss. There are no upper limits on the amount of subsidies paid to stabilize prices.

Compensation payments. Even more important than stabilizing loan prices are compensation payments, which are a direct contribution to increasing farmers' incomes. Congress sets target prices for various crops. Again, in order to receive benefits, farmers must withdraw part of their land from land use. If the market price received by farmers for a crop is lower than planned, the difference is compensated by the government. Compensation payments are limited to $50,000 per year.

The policy of ensuring the level of prices and compensation payments applies only to such basic goods as grains, meat and dairy products and cotton. The production of many other products is not subject to state subsidies. Despite the temptation of $20 billion in subsidies (allocated in a recent year), many farmers have chosen not to seek government assistance. Only one out of five farms receives the subsidies.

market quotas. A number of direct restrictions are imposed on the trade of a number of crops, including oranges and lemons. So-called market quotas limit the amount of a given crop that can be put on the market from week to week. By limiting sales, these quotas are designed to increase purchase prices for farmers. Quotas are introduced by the decision of the manufacturer's committees of a given state or region. Market rules are put into effect by voting on the proposals of those farmers who are directly affected by them, and become legally effective after they are approved by the Minister of Agriculture. A farmer who allows himself to continue to ignore these regulations runs the risk of prosecution.

Farm lending. Farmers have always considered access to loans and credits as a fundamental problem of their activities. As early as 1916, the federal government began to promote the development of private cooperative farm credit programs. New Deal legislation, in particular the Farm Credit Act of 1933, increased the government's role in this area. Today, the farmer has wide access to a developed network of credit from private, cooperative and public financial sources. One of the most important components of this network is the Federal Farm Credit System, which consists of three groups of banks, each of which is endowed with specific functions: lending for the purchase of real estate, lending for the purchase of agricultural implements and seeds, and lending to cooperatives. The country is divided into twelve zones, in each of which there are three federal banks, one for lending to each of the above areas of activity. Banks finance their operations by issuing and selling to depositors valuable papers just like business corporations. Because banks traditionally lend money at high interest rates, they can borrow at low rates, which keeps the cost of lending to farms down. Another source of credit for farmers is the Office of Local Farm Affairs, a sort of last resort to turn to when there is nowhere else to go.

Soil conservation. A number of federal programs are designed solely to stimulate soil conservation. Under one such program, for example, the government bears part of the cost of planting grasses or legumes in used land to reduce the risk of soil erosion.

Irrigation and water supply. The federal system of dams and irrigation canals provides subsidized water supplies to farmers in 16 western states. Subsidized irrigation contributes to 18 percent of the country's cotton crop, 14 percent of barley, 12 percent of rice and 3 percent of wheat.

Broad government agricultural programs over the years have built a solid foundation of support for farmers. Congressmen and senators representing the agricultural states continually seek Senate approval for program after program to serve the diverse interests of farmers. But these programs are also subjected to considerable attacks. Partly because, according to their opponents, different programs often contradict one another. For example, they say, the government pays some farmers to exclude certain plots of land from production, while giving them tax breaks for plowing and cultivating others.

A number of legislators and Presidents called on Congress to weaken the government's role in agriculture, phasing out subsidies, and eventually eliminating government programs to buy surplus crops and directly lend to farmers. It has been argued that such programs represent unacceptable state interference in the practice of free market. However, many aspects of current agricultural policy are protected by powerful economic interests, and proposals to change the system generate active debate in Congress.

US AGRICULTURE TODAY

As the 20th century draws to a close, Americans reflect on the successes and failures of their agriculture. There is much to be proud of, but much also raises painful questions.

Successes are obvious and many farmers are not averse to boasting about them. Posters along highways in parts of the Midwest remind travelers: “One farmer feeds 75 people. Through the bounty of nature and the skillful use of machinery, fertilizers, and chemicals, the American farmer is virtually unrivaled in producing plentiful and cheap produce. The US accounts for half of the world's production of soybeans and corn, and 10 to 25 percent of cotton, wheat, tobacco, and vegetable oils.

By all accounts, agriculture in the United States is big business. There was even a special term "agribusiness", reflecting the gigantic weight of agricultural production in the American economy. This term refers to the entire agro-industrial complex from an individual farmer to a multinational chemical concern. Agribusiness includes farmer cooperatives, rural banks, agricultural transporters, consumer goods traders, agricultural equipment manufacturers, the food processing industry, grocery chains, and many other businesses.

Both domestic and foreign consumers benefit from the low cost of the American farmer's products. Americans food is much cheaper than the inhabitants of many other developed countries. Moreover, one third of the acreage in the United States is sown specifically for export to Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In 1981, the level of agricultural exports reached $43.3 million. Imports of agricultural products are much smaller, which creates a corresponding preponderance in this area of trade.

One of strengths American agriculture has always been served by the farmer's susceptibility to new technology. Computers are just the latest in a long line of inventions that have helped the farmer increase productivity and reduce production costs. However, farmers are as traditionalists as they are innovators. They have a deep conservatism and respect for tradition, which keeps rural communities stable in times of rapid change.

However, in addition to the bright sides of American agriculture, there are also dark sides. American farmers have experienced periods of recession followed by periods of prosperity, and some farming practices have created environmental and other concerns.

Oversupply of agricultural products and low prices make it difficult for many farmers to generate income. The cost of the equipment, fertilizers, and pesticides purchased by them is growing faster than the proceeds from the products. Add to them worries and high rates of bank interest on loans.

At the turn of the 1980s, a period of economic difficulties began. Agricultural exports were falling in part because of the high value of the US dollar (which inflated the cost of American goods to foreign buyers). Grain prices fell and interest on loans rose. Many farmers found it too difficult to pay back mortgages and loans made earlier when prices (and incomes) were higher. As in the 30s, a significant number of farms and equipment went under the hammer to pay their debts. former owners. In dozens of farming communities, the crisis has led to the closure of banks, farmers' cooperatives, and small businesses. A number of government and private programs have emerged to help farmers, but many wondered if the good times had come to an end.

Some observers have suggested that the small family farm is no longer viable in the United States. Farmable in the United States. Farms are getting bigger and bigger, but the number of people working on them is shrinking. The outflow of the population from rural areas contributed to the growth of unemployment and social problems in the cities. Today, only 2.4 million people are farmers (out of a total US population of 230 million).

In fact, one third of them, or even more, are only part farmers, because they combine farming with other, non-agricultural activities, trying to extract additional income. Meanwhile, more and more farms are being taken over by corporations, from small family-run farms to giant conglomerates. About one-fifth of all farm income comes from corporations.

Defenders of the family farm denounce the tendency for farms to be enlarged and taken over by corporations. According to them, corporations think only about the "final profit" (that is, net income) and are more willing than family farms to resort to methods that are dangerous to the environment. Owners of family farms, they believe, have a greater sense of respect for the land and responsibility for its preservation than corporations. But corporations also have their advocates, who point out that corporations tend to have more capital than family farms and are therefore able to implement environmental protection measures that only pay off in the distant future.

Both family farms and corporations have come under fire for environmental damage. Since the 1940s, the use of artificial fertilizers and chemicals to control weeds, pests, and plant diseases has increased manifold in American agriculture. Having proved to be an indispensable tool in increasing yields, these funds also gave rise to many problems. Atmospheric precipitation, spreading and seeping through the upper layers of the soil, carried fertilizers into groundwater, rivers and lakes, deteriorating water quality and stimulating the growth of unwanted aquatic plants. Toxic chemicals, including those that are carcinogenic and fraught with other diseases, have at times penetrated the air, water and food resources of the country. They also caused direct harm to the health of farmers and their workers, although chemical manufacturers claim that their products are safe if used strictly according to the instructions. Over the years, many types of agricultural pests have developed immunity to relatively mild chemicals, so farmers have to resort to stronger and more expensive chemicals.

A LOOK INTO THE FUTURE

Thinking about the future, the American farmer can only be sure of one thing, even greater changes lie ahead. The breathtaking research and development programs currently underway in public, academic and private laboratories promise to build on the trends that have emerged in recent years.

Many innovations are being considered. For example, the “non-moldboard method”, in which the seeds of a new crop are planted directly in the stubble of the harvested crop, without turning over the soil layers with a plow. The dumpless method is largely based on the use of chemicals weed control and therefore causes criticism. Nevertheless, it reduces soil erosion and reduces labor and fuel costs, which is why many farmers willingly resort to it.

Some other innovations are born of biotechnology, i.e. practical application achievements of biological science. A number of companies are actively leading the way in the use of genetic engineering methods, breeding new plant and animal species with desired characteristics. Will we see in the future new, more resilient and productive plant varieties that require less fertilizer and have increased resistance to diseases and pests? Biotechnologists hope so. Among other things, they predict, the fruits of their labors will enable farmers to reduce their dependence on toxic chemicals, thereby contributing to a healthier environment for all.

It is perhaps more difficult to predict possible social and demographic changes. Is the family farm doomed, as some fear? Or a new migration of citizens to countryside bring with it a new boost of resilience to the agricultural sector? A likely clue is that, in fact, the number of small farms has increased in recent years, while the long-standing trend of depopulation in rural areas has not only reversed, but also reverse side. (The number of small and large farms is growing, while the number of medium-sized ones is declining.)

While innovating and evolving over time, agriculture remains the foundation of America's wealth and prosperity. This bond that holds past, present, and future together is fundamental to the American way of life.

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 therefore, recently, 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. Factors such as the amount of additional crop obtained, its estimated price and the cost of fertilizer are taken into account. 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.

Another 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 studies have 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, therefore, it is in accordance with it that the technology of growing crops must be developed. It was also experimentally found that weather conditions have a great influence, for example, on corn yield, which can be expressed in additional production or, conversely, in the lack 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 prices on grown products and high production costs. We found this out after talking directly with farmer Lindsay Greiner 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 costs. 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 soybeans, 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 apply additional nitrogen (in spring) - 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, in order to reduce the pesticide load on environment insecticides are applied to the soil in liquid and granular form.

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 we can see, the most production costs fall on 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 American farmers have had little or no return on growing corn.

During the corn growing season, pre- and post-emergence herbicides are applied, so there are essentially no weed problems.

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 pathogen of which is contained 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 effective use 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.

Conclusion

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

It might be useful to read: