MY recent trips to the United States and Canada have brought home to me the fundamental difference between the North American and European approach to agriculture.
Across the 'pond,' the appliance of science is the yardstick by which almost everything is judged and assessed. Strange as it may seem, the word of scientists still counts for a lot in the land of the free.
There remains a high degree of scepticism
on the other side of the Atlantic about the bona fides of the European Union when it comes to issues such as international trade. US farming industry representatives still believe that producers in Europe are subsidised to the hilt. In saying this however, they conveniently forget that their own farmers can access significant production and prices support measures from both state and federal agencies.
One issue that unifies European and US agriculture at the present time is the common belief that food production will remain a positive economic driver for the foreseeable future. Security of food supply is now as big a political issue in the United States, as it is in the EU.
Optimism for the future of agriculture is now being reflected in land prices on the other side of the Atlantic. Farms in states such as Indiana and Illinois have increased in value by almost 50 per cent over the past 12 months. This trend has been fuelled by the almost doubling of corn prices in the same period. And with strong markets for grain predicted for the next two years at least, the outlook for land prices in the US during this period remains good – that's if you're selling.
Mind you, it is still possible to buy Grade 1 land in the Corn Belt for $3,000 per acre.
Milk production trends in the US are interesting. At the present time, producers in California are being advised to cut back output because of shortfalls in processing capacity. Meanwhile, states such as Kentucky are encouraging farmers into the state in order to start up new milk production units. In contrast to Canada, milk quotas do not exist in the US. The bottom line is margin over feed and fixed costs.
Vast tracts of the Corn Belt are devoid of livestock. This means that almost all of the crop nutrients delivered into the seed bed are artificial in nature. And with this year's doubling in fertiliser costs, this is now a huge input cost, which corn and soya have to absorb.
Meanwhile, at home, we still debate how best to handle the slurry produced on our farms. One thing this trip to the US brought home to me is the fact that slurry and other animal manures represent an asset and should be managed in ways that realise this potential in full.
The full article contains 469 words and appears in n/a newspaper.