It's common to compare the agricultural production systems and outcomes of the United States with those in Argentina. Are we close, better, or far behind American production?

The first major difference is that the U.S., over the past five years, has sown between 82 and 84 million hectares of wheat, corn, and soybeans, with an average yield of 6.5 tons per hectare and nearly 540 million total tons produced.

In contrast, Argentina only reached 28 to 29 million hectares sown in the same period, with an average yield of 3.7 to 4 tons per hectare across the three crops, and a total average production of 100 to 107 million tons. Clearly, the differences are vast.

The disparity in available land is significant, and in addition, soils with waterlogging issues in the U.S. Corn Belt were drained between the 1960s and 1990s, incorporating high-potential lands into agriculture, which now make a major difference in states like Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Ohio.

Overall, the U.S. benefits from highly productive soils, more regular rainfall during critical periods, and excellent crop nutrition thanks to fertilizers and soil amendments. This makes a notable difference, especially in corn yields: Argentina averaged 7.3 tons per hectare over the last five years, compared to 11 tons per hectare in the U.S. In wheat, yields averaged 3.23 tons per hectare in the U.S. and 2.85 tons in Argentina. For soybeans, the figures were 3.41 tons per hectare in the U.S. and 2.61 tons in Argentina, based on the five-year average.

A common question is whether Argentina has and applies the same yield-maximizing technologies as American farmers. The answer is no.

The technologies are available in both countries, but Argentina's macro- and microeconomic conditions, infrastructure issues, and the well-known "Argentine cost" limit investments and the use of those same technologies. This explains the large productivity gap when analyzing national averages.

During a recent trip organized by the Fundación Producir Conservando to the United States, we visited farmers and universities in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas. We confirmed that the drop in international prices has also created negative gross margins for American farmers. They see this as a result of the global commodity surplus and tariff restrictions-measures imposed by the Trump administration, which ironically received strong support from voters in farm states.

Beyond macroeconomic differences, regulatory stability, and business environment, U.S. "agricultural policy" is renewed every five years in Congress. This process defines the rules of the game, active support programs, incentives, and both direct and indirect subsidies. This allows American farmers to plan loterm.

The pursuit of scale means that about 70-75% of U.S. farmland is under loterm lease contracts. This ensures the use of technologies whose results are visible only over the medium to long term, such as no-till farming, cover crops, replenishment of macro- and micronutrients, infrastructure works, land leveling, and irrigation.

Regardless of soil and climate differences between the two countries, Argentina undoubtedly has the potential for much higher yields than those achieved in recent years. That's why Fundación Producir Conservando projects 170 million tons by 2030. However, institutional, macroeconomic, financial, fiscal, and infrastructure limitations continue to hinder investment decisions, affecting future productivity. There is much to be done, changed, and improved.

The author is affiliated with Fundación Producir Conservando.