Courtesy of All Ag News, this comprehensive review of the detailed give and take in Senate Farm Bill negotiations by Agriculture Committee members is available. It’ll tell you more than you probably would ever want to know about how sausage gets made on Capitol Hill. But of extreme relevance to us in the renewable chemicals and biorefinery business are the stated reasons, given in the report, explaining why five of the 20 committee members voted against the upper chamber’s so called Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2013.

The good news, in short, is none expressed any objection to the bill’s provisions for programs such as the Rural Energy for America Program, the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, the Biorefinery Assistance Program and the Biomass Research* and Development Initiative. Here is the overview of the stated reasons why five Senators objected to the committee’s effort to date: The five Senators voting against the Senate Ag Committee’s farm bill were Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Pat Roberts of Kansas, John Thune of South Dakota, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Johanns, Roberts and Thune offered amendments and supported each other in amendments to change the target price-based program and to make changes to the food stamp program that would have cut the number of beneficiaries and costs. Gillibrand – on the other hand – voted against the bill because of the cut to food stamps.

*There’s one other really interesting and important tidbit in this report involving the value of agriculture research investment, although you have to get to paragraph 27 to find it. It is this:

USDA Chief Scientist Catherine Woteki says agricultural research is extremely important as it provides multiple benefits for ag producers and consumers – especially when it comes to the U.S. economy. For every one-dollar invested in ag research – Woteki says 20-dollars is returned to the economy.

If you’re skeptical of that analysis, take a look at agriculture’s record of achieving significant productivity gains on a shrinking amount of available land. In the article, Woteki and USDA Acting Deputy Secretary Michael Scuse touche on this topic: Scuse says ag production will have to increase 70-percent – and he says technology is a major part of that. In the past 30-years – Scuse says 40-million acres have been lost from agricultural production – yet production has increased because farmers are embracing technology. However – he says challenges arise because agriculture’s greatest success – through the use of technology – has led to the greatest criticism by those not living in Rural America. Woteki says people just need to look at the good track record of agriculture’s technology usage – as farmers and ranchers are producing safe food, fiber and fuel for the U.S. and the world. She says producers need to use all the tools in the toolbox to meet the growing demand of those products for the growing population.

Please stay tuned as Senate and House versions of the bill pass through the grinder of politics, positioning, and compromise.