While young voters often find unfamiliar candidates listed on their election ballot, in Iowa they may find an unfamiliar position — the secretary of agriculture. In the state of Iowa, the secretary of agriculture is an elected position; and this year’s incumbent, Republican Bill Northey, will face Francis Thicke.

Iowans looking for a new direction in agriculture should look at Thicke’s campaign prior to the Nov. 2 election. In our conversations with Thicke, he laid out a vision of Iowa agriculture past cheap fossil fuels and with added benefits for rural communities and food consumers.

Thicke’s vision of Iowa agriculture is predicated on rising costs of fossil fuels in the coming years. Looking outside this October, it is easy to imagine the amount of fuel needed to power the combines and trucks necessary for harvest, not to mention the transportation needs of getting grains to markets.

Thicke explained that farmers currently sell corn crops off for the production of ethanol and buy back diesel fuel made from these same crops — they buy high and sell low. His proposal for wind-powered ammonia generation on the family-farm level is one innovative component to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and to produce wealth at a local level.

A focus on high value and value-added agriculture may be a welcome change to those interested in organic farming and local produce. Thicke himself is a dairy farmer who uses grazing fields — not confinement and corn — to raise his cattle. He is enthusiastic in talking about his own operation and in the ways farmers can bring agriculture in line with ecology. As he explains it, agriculture must move from the Industrial Age to the Information Age. We need to farm smarter, not bigger.

Producing food for local consumption would be part of this move to more localized, sustainable agriculture. He cites that despite the incredible amount of food produced in the state, we import the vast majority of our food into Iowa. The support of more programs similar to Farm to ISU would encourage farmers to grow ready-for-market foods and keep more wealth in the state.

Finally, Thicke proposes greater regulation of animal confinement farming of the sort that recently led to the recall of a half billion Iowa eggs and a break up of the monopolies that result in a majority of beef and pork production to be controlled by a handful of companies. We acknowledge that “stand up to Monsanto” makes a much better rally chant than managerial style, but the message is refreshing to those distrustful of the agri-business lobby.

None of the editorial members in attendance can profess to be an expert on agriculture or the economics surrounding it. Many aspects of Thicke’s campaign are easy to get excited about. Bringing agriculture into the “green economy” with local energy production, an ecological sensibility, and a greater focus on higher value crops strikes a chord with those of us who will pay the extra dollar for our produce at Wheatsfield.

Agriculture is of concern to all of us, in that we will end up eating what is produced. On the other hand, the majority of Iowa farmers who engage in the exclusive production of corn and soybeans and rely on high yields and big equipment may find the economics to be lacking.

If Francis Thicke is correct and fuel prices rise dramatically in the coming years, his proposal may ease the transition and bring Iowa agriculture into a new era. Regardless, take the time to review both candidates and make up your mind. The future of agriculture matters to us, not only as residents of an agricultural state, but as people who need to eat.