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 leaves of a crop 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 many 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 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 the activities of the livestock farm, 40 thousand liters of liquid manure are annually received, which is the main type of fertilizer for meeting 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 application 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, fertilizers - 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 receive 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. 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 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.

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

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 program.

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?”.

Even though the airport is one of the largest in Europe, it doesn't feel congested, as if as many passengers are let in 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 gone through all the screening procedures, filled out the customs declaration and received the luggage, we join the crowd of tourists from different countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, eager to see the United States. Hello America!

Washington

According to the program of our trip, we were in Washington for several days. Meetings were scheduled here with USDA (US Department of Agriculture) officials, representatives of farmers' unions, etc. As is customary in the capital, this city is quite clean, but there is not much fuss, however, there are "ebb and flow" 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 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 for Congressional Liaison at 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, while 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 a non-profit organization that does not pursue the goal of making 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 on 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?

More than 330 million people live in our domestic market. 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. Due to the fact that the climate has become hotter, corn is conquering more and more northern territories of the states, where it was previously grown on a limited scale 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 mainly 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.)

From the earliest days of the country's existence, agriculture has occupied a key place in the American economy and culture. Of course, farmers play an 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 recent 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 the increasing use of skilled labor have 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 are controlled by computers, and space technology is used to determine the best places to plant crops and fertilize the soil. In addition, researchers periodically come up with 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, the combination of overproduction, bad weather, and the Great Depression created 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 their independence from England in 1783, the Founding Fathers of America felt the need to develop a new system of 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.

Mass private ownership of small farms was not common in the South as it was in 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. Railroads 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. Technological progress continued to increase labor 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 has been conducting new research to breed pigs that need less grain to be fattened quickly, inventing fertilizers that increase grain yields, hybrid seeds that produce healthier plants, chemicals to prevent and treat diseases in 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 of dust storms” arose to describe 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 created by the depression, its establishment reflected the state's strong desire to provide stability for farmers and set 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 Rural Electrification Administration. 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 equipment, 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, giving 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 helped provide the agricultural subsidy support system for the cities for many years and remain an important form of social welfare for the poor and, in a sense, for 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 have questioned the wisdom of stimulating the production of more agricultural products than needed - especially when the surplus drives down prices and thus increases the need for government 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. A new compensatory payment program, introduced in the early 1980s to reduce expensive government stocks of grain, rice, and cotton, and to boost market prices, took 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 concern that the state was actually paying farmers for NOT farming. Congress felt the need for another change of course.

In 1985, as President Ronald Reagan called for a general government cut, Congress passed a new farm bill designed to reduce farmers' dependence 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 that counts when farmers are given deficit payments. This new law kept prices high and stable for some commodities and extensive government regulation of some 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 the most costly price and income support programs and allowed farmers to produce food 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, prices for crops and cattle fell. Despite low prices, farmers continued to try to increase their income by increasing production. In 1998 and 1999, Congress passed bailout laws that temporarily increased farm subsidies that the 1996 law tried 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.

Nearly every country with agricultural production provides farmers with some form of government support. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, as world markets for agricultural products became more disparate, 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 shrinking international markets for agricultural products, falling international prices, and increasing agricultural surpluses 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 limiting 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 World Trade Organization). 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 have approached the 21st century with some of the same problems 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 improved farmers' productivity (but not their income). 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.

Just as an industrial enterprise can increase profits by increasing its size and efficiency, many American farms have grown larger and larger and consolidated their operations 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 the modern US economy. The agro-industry includes various farming companies and structures - from small family companies to huge conglomerates or international companies that 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 roughly 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. The high cost of capital investment - in land and equipment - makes starting a full-time farm extremely 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.

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 independent as it seems to the imagination, for he is very dependent on the vagaries of the weather, and on the whims of the market, and on government policy. 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 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 settlers from Europe to adapt European crops and farming methods to the soils and climatic conditions of 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 of the ways to compete was 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 achievements (the prizes were contested for the best hay, the best livestock, the 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, who "discovered" new lands there or replaced 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 United States citizenship (or even is about to acquire it) could enter into ownership of a piece of public land by 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, peaking in 1916 at 13.6 million, or 14 percent of the population of the United States.

In helping to establish the family farm, the distribution of free or cheap land also had unforeseen consequences. By encouraging settlement on the prairie, 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 sowed 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 freight rates. Their activities led to the passage of "granger laws" in a number of states, establishing government agencies to regulate 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 cabinet member in 1889 (i.e., making him one of the "Secretaries of the President's Immediate Counsel and Staff"). 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 the government of each state 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 rocked the world economy, throwing thousands of workers and employees out into the streets and posing pressing political and economic challenges 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 a whole system of 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 lowering 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 securities to depositors, 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 free market practices. 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 are much cheaper to eat than people in 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.

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. Farm life once meant isolation from modern conveniences, but that is no longer the case.

One of the strengths of American agriculture has always been the farmer's receptivity to new machinery. 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 amount of farms and equipment went under the hammer to pay the debts of their 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 farmers only in part, because they combine farming with other, non-agricultural activities, seeking 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 capable of implementing 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 no-moldboard method is largely based on the use of chemical weed control agents 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, that is, the practical application of the 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 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 will the new urban migration to the 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 reversed. (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.