Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Fertilizer Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers Minnesota Made fertilizer grant to turn local coproducts into fertilizers
Summary
Representative Nelson introduced House File 17 01, a proposal to create a Minnesota Made fertilizer grant program that would help convert locally produced coproducts into blended fertilizers.
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Fertilizer Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative Nelson moved House File 17 01, proposing a Minnesota Made fertilizer grant program designed to help turn local coproduct streams into usable fertilizer blends.
Randy Terstig, a farmer from Olivia, testified in support and described the scale of nutrient removal from crops and the risks associated with imported fertilizer. He told the committee Minnesota has about "over 20,000,000 acres of farmland" and walked through nutrient removal examples, saying a 200-bushel corn crop removes "about 80 pounds of phosphorus," a 50-bushel soybean removes about "42 pounds of phosphorus" and a five‑ton alfalfa crop removes about "300 pounds of potassium." He argued that many locally produced co‑products — animal manures, calcium products from sugar beet production, potassium from wood ash and other biological additives — are being underutilized and could be blended and processed locally into pelletized, single-pass fertilizers that include micronutrients.
Terstig said smaller processing plants could make fertilizer suitable for specialty crops, truck farms and homeowners, and could reduce field stockpiling of materials that cause runoff and neighbor complaints. He estimated a small plant could cost on the order of $2–5 million and stressed that high equipment costs make grants or matching funds important.
Committee members raised questions about program parameters. Chair Hansen and Representative Smith asked whether the grants would be competitive; Representative Nelson and others indicated the bill envisions a competitive grant program rather than a named appropriation. Smith and others urged clearer parameters to prioritize new startups or infrastructure versus ongoing operations; Terstig said existing operations should be eligible if they demonstrate a plan to increase utilization of in‑state coproducts.
Representative Nelson moved to lay House File 17 01 over; the committee laid the bill over for further work. Members encouraged the author and potential applicants to refine eligibility criteria and demonstrate how projects would complement existing state programs or local financing.

