Government funds biorefinery developments

To increase the production and use of renewable-energy sources, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is soliciting federal grants for biorefinery projects.

One such project, the Biorefinery Assistance Program, provides guaranteed loans for the development and construction of commercial-scale biorefineries or for the retrofitting of existing facilities (including, but not limited to, wood-products facilities and sugar mills) for the development of advanced biofuels.

“Renewable-energy production is a key to sustainable economic development in rural America,” said U.S. Agriculture Sec. Tom Vilsack. “We must rapidly escalate production of biofuels to meet the 2022 Federal Renewable Fuels standard goal, and much of this biofuel will come from feedstocks produced by America’s farmers and ranchers. This will be an increasing source of income for rural America and it represents an opportunity to increase the number of green jobs available not only to farm families, but also to residents of rural communities.”

Vilsack specifically mentioned feedstocks – crops or products that can be used as or converted into biofuels and bioenergy. Common feedstocks include soybeans and rapeseed while alga and ethanol byproducts are emerging feedstocks.

Farmers of these and other sources of feedstock can benefit from biorefinery developments because of increased market opportunity. However, the advancement of this renewable energy comes with a price tag.

According to a blog at Biofuels Digest, “Because biofuels projects cost in the hundred of millions, the “family member” guarantor of choice in the U.S. is Uncle Sam – the one with the balance sheet and the policy interest to make commercial biofuels happen.”

But programs such as the Biorefinery Assistance Program expand the promise for biofuels in America.

Program Information:

• Eligible applicants: Individuals, tribal entities, state-government entities, local-government entities, corporations, farm cooperatives, farmer cooperative organizations, associations of agricultural producers, national laboratories, institutions of higher education, rural-electric cooperatives, public-power entities and other groupings of any of the previous entities

• Loan limits: Maximum of $250 million; no minimum requirement; maximum loan will be reduced by the amount of other direct federal funding the eligible borrower receives for the same project

Eligible projects:

• Projects must be located in a rural area (50,000 or less population)
• Projects must use “eligible technology,” which is defined as either:

1. A technology that is being adopted in available commercial-scale operation of a biorefinery that produces an advanced biofuel; or
2. A technology not described in the previous paragraph that has been demonstrated to have technical and economic potential for commercial application in a biorefinery that produces an advanced biofuel

In 2009, this initiative, and other provisions within the overarching program to stimulate energy development, funded 1,557 projects in 50 states, the territory of Puerto Rico and the Western Pacific Islands, expecting to reduce greenhouse gases by 1.5 million metric tons of carbon. These investments will generate a projected equivalent of 1.5 million kilowatts of electricity.

As America works to develop a clean-energy economy, the use of programs like the Biorefinery Assistance Program, is vital. This program, and others modeled like it, provide rural, green jobs and propel us toward energy independence. They also provide more economic incentive for American farmers to continue the production of feedstock crops.

*Photo obtained from www.clear.certh.gr/img/bio-refinery%201.jpg

Biological research advances American agriculture

Industries large and small utilize research and technology to develop and provide goods and services to society. Now, the U.S. agriculture sector can reap more technological benefits resulting from biological research under the direction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Agriculture research has produced disease testing for livestock, specialty-crop varieties and GPS technology for farm equipment to name a few.

The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), sponsored by USDA and created within the 2008 Farm Bill, established a competitive grant program to provide funding for fundamental and applied research, extension and education in food and agricultural sciences with a focus in six development areas. Grants that emphasize sustainable agriculture are preferred.

Priority Issues for Grant Applications

1. Plant health and production and plant products
2. Animal health and production and animal products
3. Food safety, nutrition and health
4. Renewable energy, natural resources and environment
5. Agriculture systems and technology
6. Agriculture economics and rural communities

"By focusing our resources on achievable and measurable outcomes, USDA's investment in science will help address some of America's – and the world's – intractable problems," said USDA chief scientist and director of USDA's Nation Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Robert Beachy.

"Today's announcement demonstrates USDA's commitment to supporting research, education and extension to bring about true change in areas like climate change, obesity and bioenergy."

In addition to the six priority issues for grant funding, the 2008 Farm Bill added conventional (classical) plant breeding, conventional (classical) animal breeding, renewable energy, domestic-marketing strategies and rural entrepreneurship as grant focal points.

There are also five designated primary challenge areas around which AFRI is structuring the grant program.

Challenge Areas

1. Keep American agriculture competitive while ending world hunger
2. Improve nutrition and end child obesity
3. Improve food safety for all Americans
4. Secure America’s energy future
5. Mitigate and adapt to climate change

Agriculture Sec. Tom Vilsack allotted $262 million to this effort. State agricultural experiment stations, colleges and universities, university-research foundations, other research institutions and organizations, Federal agencies, national laboratories, private organizations or corporations and individuals are eligible to apply for grants. Grants are awarded on a 10-year basis and some grants are eligible for renewal upon conclusion of the term.

The benefits of research and technology to society cannot be quantified. The USDA has stepped to the plate to motivate the sustainability, efficiency, profitability and development of one of the nation’s most economically providing sectors.

Do you agree that the selected issues and challenge areas should be addressed, or are there other issues? Should more or less money be awarded for research grants? Do you think the research will result in significant technological gains?

*Photo obtained from http://ucommphoto.nmsu.edu/newsphoto/anderson_john.jpg

Workshops to stimulate American Agriculture

A series of workshops throughout the coming months will feature discussions about competition and regulatory issues in agriculture.

These all-day forums, sponsored by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of Justice (DOJ), were first announced by Attorney General Eric Holder and Agriculture Sec. Tom Vilsack Aug. 5, 2009.

"In my travels across the country, I hear a consistent theme: producers are worried whether there is a future for them or their children in agriculture, and a viable market is an important factor in what that future looks like," said Vilsack. "These issues are difficult and complex, which is why this is so important and long overdue."

According to a USDA-issued news release, five workshops will promote dialogue among interested parties and foster learning with respect to the appropriate legal and economic analyses of these issues, as well as to listen to and learn from parties with experience in the agriculture sector.

Workshops involve farmers, ranchers, processors, consumer groups, agribusinesses, government officials and academics. This collection of stakeholders will create a forum for discussion and will ensure various industry perspectives.

Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock spoke about the scope of the workshops.

"Agriculture ranks as one of the top sectors of most state economies. And while the agricultural heritage of each of our states differs—sometimes dramatically—the concerns about market concentration, transparency and effective regulation cross geographical boundaries, and are shared concerns irrespective of the crops we produce and the animals we raise."

The first workshop, held March 21 in Ankeny, Iowa, focused on “issues of concern to farmers,” including seed technology, vertical integration, market transparency and buyer power.

Brownfield posted audio from the first workshop featuring its opening commentators.

All meetings are free and open to the public. There is time allotted for public testimony at the conclusion of the workshops.

Upcoming workshops:

• Poultry industry – May 2, in Normal, Ala. – Attention will be given to production contracts in the poultry industry, concentration and buyer power.
• Dairy industry: June 7, in Madison, Wis. – Specific areas of focus may include concentration, marketplace transparency and vertical integration in the dairy industry.
• Livestock industry: August 26, in Fort Collins, Colo. – Specific areas of focus will address beef, hog and other animal sectors and may include enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act and concentration.
• Margins: December 8, in Washington, D.C. – Discussions may be about discrepancies between the prices received by farmers and the prices paid by consumers; discussions from previous workshops will be incorporated into the analysis of agriculture markets nationally.
• Each workshop is designed to highlight the management issues facing a particular agriculture sector.

“According to many farmers and ranchers, the DOJ and USDA workshops are long overdue as an essential step to address concentration of ownership within agriculture,” stated the Kansas Rural Center.

Many in the industry consider the workshops the government’s renewed commitment to strengthening one of its premier industries, while others think that they are the first steps to moderating “Big Ag.” Holder noted that some farmers are “suffering from a lack of free and fair competition in the marketplace.”

Vilsack commented that insights gleaned from the workshops would be used in consideration of the 2012 Farm Bill. Lessons learned will be used to structure broad policies rather than develop a massive oversight system. Government officials were quick to note that potential anti-competitive practices are being studied and antitrust regulations will continually be further enforced.

“‘This is not just about farmers and ranchers,” Vilsack said. “It’s really about the survival of rural America.”

Is the format of the meetings conducive to change? Should other topics be addressed and discussed?

*Photo obtained from farmamerica.org










Carbon – An Agricultural Commodity?

Much of America’s farm community is opposed to proposed cap-and-trade legislation that could have severe repercussions for the agriculture sector.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act (HR 2454), aimed to address global warming, was recently approved by the U.S. House of Representatives and is currently being considered by the Senate. It places greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions limits on and offers a cap-and-trade system for affected businesses.

“This is not a vision for American agriculture, it's a death sentence,” said U.S. Sen. Mike Johanns, R – Neb.

The agriculture industry, responsible for 8 percent of the nation’s GHG emissions, is feeling pressure to be on-board with Congress’ attempts to limit industries’ carbon footprint.

Increased energy prices will result from the legislation’s potential passage as industries raise prices to maintain production costs, in turn, elevating farm-production costs at all levels.
In a Corn & Soybean Digest article, Johanns states:

“USDA testified that the costs of fuel, oil and electricity will increase by about 22 percent. And here's a staggering estimate: The bill drives 59 million acres of cropland and pasture out of production by 2050. With millions of acres coming out of production and energy prices going through the roof, it’s not surprising that USDA also predicts significant declines in farm production. USDA’s testimony shows that corn production will decrease by 22 percent, soybean production will drop by 29 percent, beef production will decline by 10 percent and pork production will sink by 23 percent. This decline in production will threaten our nation’s food supply and is estimated to drive up food prices by as much as 5 percent.”

A blog posted at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis calls farmers “victims” of the proposed legislation. Foundation analysts found that it would adversely affect farmers:

• Farm income is expected to drop $8 billion in 2012, $25 billion in 2024, and more than $50 billion in 2035.
• The average net income lost throughout the 2010-2035 timeline is $23 billion – a 57-percent decrease from the baseline.
• Construction costs of farm buildings will increase 5.5 percent in 2025 and increase 10 percent by 2034 (from the baseline).
• By 2035, gasoline and diesel costs are expected to be 58 percent more and electric rates 90 percent more.

But not everyone in agriculture is aggressively opposed to cap-and-trade legislation. For example, some groups have remained neutral about the issue, claiming it’s better to have a spot at the table when negotiating legislation rather than to be outright opposed.

USDA Sec. Tom Vilsack believes farmers should view the legislation as an opportunity rather than as economically damaging. Farmers would receive credits (payment) for using farming techniques that don’t emit carbon dioxide.

Production agriculture is not included in the current legislation as one of the industries that is required to cap their GHG emissions, but it can provide emission-reduction offsets to companies in industries that are required to cap their emissions.

According to ecomii, an environment resource, “The government issues credits, which allow companies to pollute a certain amount, as long as the aggregate pollution equals less than the set cap.” Regulated industries, such as fuel refineries and energy suppliers, either take it upon themselves to develop cleaner facilities to maintain compliance, or they can purchase emissions credits from other businesses that have credits available when they need to exceed their allotted emissions.

Farmers can limit their carbon footprint by practicing no-till and reduced-till techniques and can also convert cropland to grass.

In a Rapid City Journal article, Vilsack is reported as saying that conservation measures such as carbon credits contain the potential for billions of dollars in income for farm families. He said he is convinced that climate change is a fact and that changes in farming practices can help.

But with legislation stalled in Congress, “there's an almost-complete collapse of the market for carbon credits,” states Sarah McCammon of Iowa Public Radio. “That means profits are drying up for people who are paid to create those carbon credits — like farmers who manage their land in ways that capture carbon dioxide in the soil.”

In a segment titled, “Farmers Hurt By Collapse Of Carbon Credits Market” available at WBUR Radio online, the reporter talks about the economics of carbon offsets bought and sold via contracts, a scenario of paying someone to reduce emissions for you. For example, farmers that engage in no-till farming receive monetary payback for their “green” efforts. The reporter states that the global carbon market is valued at $125 million.

“It is important to set up an offset system to reward American farmers for doing the right thing, whether they’re raising crops or raising livestock,” Vilsack said. “Various studies show it’s (cap and trade) a net plus for agriculture.”

The failure to pass climate-change legislation could lead to regulation of emissions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If legislation dies in the Senate, the EPA has publicly declared its intentions to regulate carbon. Many believe that the EPA would include more industries for regulation and impose stricter policies.

Several ag-industry figureheads have voiced their discontent for EPA oversight.

“We believe the EPA’s greenhouse gas requirements will lead to costly and ineffective regulations on America’s farmers and ranchers,” said American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman. “We vehemently oppose regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act because we believe it will require livestock producers and other agricultural operations to obtain costly and time-consuming permits as conditions to continue farming.”

Do you feel farmers are unfairly regulated or not regulated enough? In what other ways can farmers contribute to an improved environment? Are other industry sectors being ignored that should be mandated?

*Photo from The Journal of the American Enterprise Institute

Program supports development of U.S. producers

Earlier this month, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) implemented a new support program to help America’s farmers hurt by the recent economic crisis. USDA Sec. Tom Vilsack introduced the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers Program, also known as the TAA for Farmers Program.

"As we work to help rural America recover from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers Program will create new opportunities for producers hurt by import competition," said Vilsack. "Eligible producers will receive much-needed technical assistance and cash benefits to help them adjust to the current economic environment."

Farmers receive financial assistance after meeting eligibility requirements and upon completion of stringent training and education courses that can last up to three years.

According to USDA, the TAA for Farmers Program helps producers of raw agricultural commodities and fishermen adjust to a changing economic environment associated with import competition by means of technical assistance and cash benefits.

It’s not another subsidy, said Kevin Klair, extension economist at the Center for Farm Financial Management at the University of Minnesota.

“Congress was very intentional when structuring this program. Important management and competition issues were considered to make it most effective,” said Klair.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) reauthorized and modified the TAA. The Act includes measures to modernize the nation's infrastructure, enhance energy independence, expand educational opportunities, preserve and improve affordable health care, provide tax relief and protect those in greatest need, according to the Obama administration.

Eligibility

• The commodity on which the farmer claims losses must qualify for the program as determined by the USDA (notifications issued in Federal Register notices).
• Farmers must have experienced a greater than 15-percent decrease in the national average price, the quantity of production, value of production or cash receipts of the commodity compared to the average of the three preceding marketing years, and imports contributed importantly to this decline.
• Applicants must complete a series of workshops/education sessions.
• Farmers can apply until April 14.

The public had the opportunity to weigh-in about program procedures and eligibility criteria in August. Most public commentary centered on payment limitations with consideration to adjusted gross income and specialty crops, a well as consideration to the length of intensive training about how to use the program. There is an additional 30-day period for public comment commencing March 1.

Farmers may receive $4,000 in assistance after an initial series of free technical-training classes. Klair said farmers are eligible to receive an additional $8,000 after writing an approved long-term business-adjustment plan to aid them in their future operations.

“It teaches farmers how to be more-efficient U.S. producers,” said Klair, who said the program has received numerous inquiry calls.

Klair said the “downside” to the program is its strict qualification requirements.

“It would be great if everyone could qualify,” said Klair.

Farmers can appeal a denied application.

To learn more about the intricacies of the program, visit http://www.fas.usda.gov/ITP/TAA/taa.asp or http://www.taaforfarmers.org/.

Should the federal government take more or less of a role in financially assisting farmers? How can farmers relay the significance of this program to media/the public if criticized?

Ag event delivers industry development

“Cruising to success” was the theme of the 2010 Commodity Classic – America’s most-celebrated annual agricultural event. Held March 4 – 6, in Anaheim, Calif., the Golden State welcomed thousands of farmers to appreciate and advance the commodity sector of the agriculture industry.

Agriculture commodities are in-demand goods that are produced without fixed quantities. The balance of demand/supply of a commodity’s market dictates its price. Corn, wheat and soybeans are the U.S.’s main commodity crops, but in recent years, sorghum has established a presence in the commodity market.

Nearly 4,300 attendees attended the 15th Classic this year, including 1,363 growers from all over the country and more than 130 media outlets. According to the show’s Web site, it has more than doubled in size since the first Commodity Classic was held in 1996.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, addressed the convention during its opening ceremony. He highlighted agriculture’s significance to America’s economic health and prosperity, citing that every billion dollars of ag trade generates 9,000 jobs. Vilsack stated that he also believes that the USDA should be spearheading efforts to help the public realize the importance of agriculture.

“If you were Olympic downhill skiers you would be getting a gold medal or if you were professional athletes you would be going in the Hall of Fame. If you were CEOs, you would be getting big bonuses, but you’re not.”

Vilsack said he believes that the value system of the country is rooted in rural communities, which are faring poorly economically. Providing opportunities and alliances for farmers is important to help people invest and understand and to safeguard industry success, he said.

Top agriculture companies and organizations showcased new products, technologies and services that promise to enhance commodity growth. Numerous education sessions and briefings about ag issues were held concerning a variety of topics:

• Farming Your Online Community: Social Media & Beyond
• Marketing Strategies Your Lender Will Love
• What Capturing Carbon Means for Ag
• Take Technology to a Higher Level on Your Farm – and Make It Pay
• What's Next For Ag-Based Biofuels?

Event buzz surrounded discussions about potential in cellulosic ethanol, particularly regarding the use of forage sorghum as a feed stock, the extension of the biodiesel tax credit and the magnitude of trade/exports to the agricultural commodity community, among others.

For a glimpse into the event, visit AgWired’s photo album.

This year’s convention introduced and reiterated vital issues, products and technologies to the progression of the national agriculture sector. Industry members and consumers alike have much to look forward to as the months unfold.










Rural Tour: Renewing America’s Promise

Concerts, comedians and a variety of shows regularly travel the nation to educate and entertain. Most recently, the president’s Rural Tour has been making pit stops throughout the U.S. to elicit feedback about and support for government involvement in programs to better rural America.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is spearheading the awareness initiative that began June 30. The tour, designed to facilitate conversation via a blend of education outreach and community forum feedback, is part of the Obama Administration’s plan to “renew America’s promise.”

According to the USDA, “The variety of topics that will be addressed reflects the array of issues facing rural America, including broad-based rural health, economic development, infrastructure, education, energy, natural resources and agriculture.”

At each stop, Vilsack, alongside local elected officials, discusses how the USDA and other federal agencies are working to strengthen rural America by means of current and proposed government programs. Attendees then have an opportunity to voice opinions, suggestions and concerns in efforts to promote a dialogue between government and constituents.

“Government does not have all the answers, but it can help share innovative ideas and problem-solving techniques from communities with the rest of the country,” Vilsack said. “Building a foundation for success and prosperity for the new 21st-century economy will take a collective and collaborative effort with all of us talking, debating and solving together.”

Vilsack encourages citizens to “call, e-mail, write, videotape, photograph, you name it,” to offer input about the state of rural America.

Highlighted agricultural topics include rural broadband access, climate-change legislation and forest management, with emphasis on localized concerns.

Discussions involved ag-debt restructuring in Iowa, obstacles facing the dairy industry in California, carbon sequestration in Virginia and creating business-relationship opportunities among food industry entities in Ohio.

Scottsbluff, Neb., will welcome the tour this week to discuss production agriculture, and Las Cruces, N.M., will conclude the nine-stop circuit with a discussion aimed at rural infrastructure.

You can get more information and updates about the Rural Tour at RuralTour.gov or at Twitter or Facebook.

A summary of the tour can be viewed in a YouTube video created by the USDA.

Is the Rural Tour a success? Should other states/topics have been included for discussion? Can members of the agricultural industry model a similar tour for industry-specific topics in the future?

Cap-and-Trade Reforms – Climate Change Cure?

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack advocates the passage of proposed cap-and-trade legislation with Congress to combat the divisive issue of climate change.

Climate change, or global warming, refers to the variation of modern climate patterns and is said to be the result of natural geographic forces and human outputs on the environment. Such human outputs include land use, deforestation, animal agriculture and carbon discharges.

Vilsack is confident in the reality of global warming and has referenced fisheries in Alaska and forestry in Colorado as examples of its destructive effects.

The Obama administration is promoting the establishment of a revised domestic cap-and-trade system aimed to reduce energy emissions. Vilsack testified to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture in March, outlining the administration’s goals to decrease emissions 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050.

Legislation details can be located at http://thinkcarbon.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/the-waxman-markey-bill-at-a-glance/.

“USDA believes that the agriculture and forestry sectors hold the potential to deliver substantial emissions reductions, including carbon sequestration, under a national climate change policy,” said Vilsack.

Many farmers oppose the legislation because they either don’t believe in global warming or consider the cap-and-trade system to be a financial burden, or both. Vilsack is aware of the apprehension many in the industry are experiencing, but is confident that the potential reforms “will likely outweigh the costs” and will actually bolster the national farm community.

"Over the long haul, it is potentially tens of billions of dollars of net income opportunity for farmers," Vilsack said.

Some agriculturalists are leery of prospective increased energy costs and increased input (fertilizers, pesticides, chemicals) costs. Georgia Congressman Jack Kingston has publicly declared his opposition.

“Agriculture is inherently an energy-intensive industry and this bill does nothing to mitigate that fact. From tractor fuel to fertilizer to livestock feed, farmers across America are especially vulnerable to this proposed national energy tax. Our farmers are already struggling with the high cost of fertilizer and feed and gas prices are going up. Now, in this time of economic downturn, is not the time to further drive up the cost of farming and the cost of food. American farmers can’t afford it and neither can American families.”

Vilsack has countered with this example:

“A Northern Plains wheat producer, for example, might see an increase of 80 cents per acre in costs of production by 2020 because of higher fuel prices. Based on a soil carbon sequestration rate of 0.4 tons per acre and a carbon price of $16 per ton, a producer could mitigate those expenses by adopting no-till practices and earn $6.40 per acre. So, this wheat farmer does better under the House-passed climate legislation than without it. And, it's quite possible that this wheat farmer could do even better if technologies and markets progress in such a way that allows for the sale of wheat straw to make cellulosic ethanol.”

Vilsack says the government will aid agriculturalists by assisting them in adopting new technology use and conservation practices.

“Well you know farmers, I know farmers. There's no question that they are going to be looking for alternatives. They are going to be looking for technology changes, for renewable energy sources, for biofuels, all of which could potentially benefit them in terms of lower costs," said Vilsack.

Judging from his experience with the 17 stops completed in the Rural Farm Tour, Vilsack told ag broadcasters he believes the cap-and-trade legislation should pass through Congress without resistance.

Should other industries be targeted for inclusion in cap-and-trade regulations? Are farmers being treated unfairly? Should the agriculture sector try to amend proposed legislation?

Welcome Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack

On Jan. 20, President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden will be sworn into office along with the new cabinet Obama has chosen. Among the new cabinet members is Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.

He will have the responsibility of developing federal policy on farming, agriculture, food and food safety. It will also be his duty to re-examine the nation’s biofuel policy.

Vilsack’s political career started in 1987 when he ran for mayor in Mount Pleasant, Iowa and served three terms. Vilsack was elected to the state Senate in 1992 and re-elected in 1994. He made his mark shaping tax-cut and economic-development legislation for the Democratic majority.

In 1998, Vilsack was elected Iowa’s governor, the first Democrat to win in 32 years. He won the election with strong support from organized labor and called his win a "victory for Iowa’s working- and middle-class families." He promised to focus on education, health care, the environment, a fair tax system, property-tax relief and keeping young people in Iowa. In 2008, he briefly ran for the Democratic presidential nomination, but ended his bid and endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Vilsack was orphaned at birth and raised by a Pittsburgh family. He received a Bachelor's degree from Hamilton College in New York and received a J.D. from Albany Law School.

Numerous farm groups and lawyers approve of Obama’s decision to appoint Vilsack. Democrats and Republicans alike believe his experience as Iowa governor will be to the nation’s advantage.

“His nomination is a positive thing for the state of Iowa and agriculture in general,” said Iowa state Rep. David Tjepkes, R-Gowie. “He has valuable experience with renewable energy, conservation and rural development programs.”

“He has a good basic foundation in farm issues,” said Iowa state Rep. Dolores Mertz, D-Ottosen. “He’ll have a solid working relationship with U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee.”

Environmentalists also support Obama’s choice.

“We’re encouraged by it,” said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group. “He thinks we need to reform the subsidy system, recognizes the importance of the food programs and he’s very good on conservation.”

Commodity and agriculture analysts believe that Vilsack will have to act fast on unimplemented farm subsidies and lower crop prices, as well as manage controversies over trade, food safety and animal welfare. Vilsack has talked about reducing subsidies to some megafarms, supports better treatment of farm animals and wants healthier food in schools.

However, Obama’s choice is not appealing to all. He received some criticism because Vilsack supports alternative fuels like corn-based ethanol and biotechnology, which are disliked by people who want to shift government support from large-scale agricultural interests to smaller farms.

Obama says that Vilsack’s experience as governor of a rural state makes him well qualified.

“As fiercely protective of family farmers and the farm economy as he has been, he’s also been forward looking on rural development and renewable energy,” said Obama.

What do you think of Obama’s Secretary of Agriculture choice? Please comment below.