Department of Agriculture briefs committee on AGRI program, highlights Protect and Prepare grant responses

Department of Agriculture staff gave the committee a detailed briefing on the Agriculture Growth, Research and Innovation (AGRI) program, describing how AGRI funds are used and highlighting several competitive grant programs that support processing infrastructure, livestock investment, and preparedness for disease and extreme weather.

Paul Huguenen, director of the Ag Marketing and Development Division, walked members through AGRI’s history, designated funding lines, and the mix of competitive and payment programs administered by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. He said AGRI was created to keep former ethanol‑related producer payments invested in agriculture and that the program currently distributes funds across 16 programs. “If you look at the total appropriation, you take away the designated spending that leaves us with about $5.8 million of undesignated spending for basically everything else,” Huguenen said.

Huguenen and Assistant Director Ashley Bresk highlighted three grant lines that have recently used undesignated funds to respond to sector needs: - Protect grants (biosecurity preparedness): created to help producers take steps—such as electronic ID or other biosecurity investments—to reduce the risk and spread of diseases like bovine tuberculosis, chronic wasting disease, African swine fever and highly pathogenic avian influenza. Fiscal 2024 requests were 127 applications totaling nearly $1 million, with roughly $400,000 funded. - Prepare grants (extreme weather preparedness): designed to fund proactive investments—irrigation, livestock pond dredging, portable fencing, hail netting—to reduce impacts of droughts, floods and hail events. Last year requests exceeded $1.5 million and roughly $500,000 was awarded. - Value‑Added and Meat/Poultry/Milk Processing grants: these fund equipment and infrastructure to retain and expand processing capacity; MDA staff emphasized coordination with the Agricultural Utilization Research Institute on technical assistance and external review of applications.

Huguenen also noted internal controls and audit results: the Department provided records to the legislative auditor and, of roughly $14.5 million in payments reviewed, the auditor recommended reclaiming about one‑tenth of one percent—an outcome Huguenen described as a testament to oversight procedures.

Committee questions and staff responses focused on monitoring and long‑term outcomes. Representative Hansen asked how the agency tracks projects years after grant completion (changes in ownership, closure, or equipment resale). Huguenen said AGRI uses a competitive review and front‑end vetting—requiring business plans on larger requests—and the department performed a follow‑up survey of past grantees showing 89% of respondents reported increased gross revenue after projects were completed. He acknowledged long‑term ownership changes can occur and said the department’s emphasis is on vetting projects before award and periodically following up where feasible.

Why this matters: AGRI funds support processing capacity, livestock infrastructure, water and waste investments and readiness activities; those investments affect producers’ ability to respond to animal disease and extreme weather and to retain processing capacity in rural communities.

Ending: MDA staff encouraged members to review the department’s full AGRI legislative report (grantee spotlights, maps and recipient lists by legislative district) and offered to provide additional program metrics to legislators on request.