About the author: Jere White is the Executive Director of the Kansas Corn Growers Association. Connect with Jere on such topics as atrazine, corn and ethanol on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/kscornhead.
Robert James Bidinotto wrote an article this week on the spurious attacks on atrazine and highlighted the why consumers and farmers alike benefit from this herbicide. On behalf of the Kansas Corn Growers Association, I applaud Mr. Bidinotto on telling the story and history of the fear-mongering spread by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
Mr. Bidinotto begins by recounting how NRDC essentially got the chemical growth agent alar, commonly used on apples, banned by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after employing a campaign with actress Meryl Streep which “claimed that alar ‘might’ eventually cause thousands of lifetime cancer cases due to apple consumption by preschoolers. It was later revealed by Bidinotto that NRDC’s “junk science” used experiments which gave lab mice doses of alar that were “so outrageously high that 80 percent of the animals were poisoned to death.”
NRDC is attempting the same fear-mongering tactics with atrazine now and has successfully convinced the EPA to review the chemical for safety just six years after it was re-registered by the same government agency.
Click here to read the rest of Jere’s blog about the Atrazine insanity.
If you thought Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) was a crazy and unprovable theory, now ethanol is being challenged by something even crazier – the Global Rebound Effect.
The Clean Air Task Force has filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency over the Renewable Fuel Standard for failing “to account for the “global rebound effect” when analyzing the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels.”
It is doubtful that a truly sane person could put any credence in this theory, which goes on the assumption that, “By displacing some gasoline from the US market, the RFS reduces overall demand for petroleum, which in turn leads to lower prices, increased consumption, and higher greenhouse gas emissions in other countries. If EPA had considered the “global rebound effect” in its analysis of different biofuels, only a few of those fuels would have met Congress’s emissions reduction requirements.”
Using this theory, ANY action the United States might take to reduce gasoline consumption – from using more ethanol to increasing vehicle fuel efficiency – will result in INCREASED gasoline use elsewhere in the world. So, it makes no sense. As Renewable Fuels Association president Bob Dinneen puts it, “Whatever environmentalist activists call this new theory, I call it nonsense.”
Near as I can tell, this theory was proposed in August of last year by Steven Stoft, founder of the Global Economic Policy Center. In something he wrote called, “Corn Whiskey vs. the Climate,” Stoft says, “More ethanol use causes less oil to be imported, which causes a lower world “oil” price, which causes more liquid-fuel use worldwide. This same effect applies to conserving oil as well as to replacing it with ethanol, or even to pumping more oil from Alaska.”
Perhaps the environmentalists have come up with this new theory as another rabbit for EPA to chase now that ILUC is getting tired, but this is seriously crazy talk. Does this mean we should not bother trying to reduce our use of oil at all? If someone can explain the reasoning here, I would love to hear it.
Agricultural biotechnology delivers more than just streamlined pest management options or the promise of healthier, higher quality crops. Biotech-derived crops allow growers to adopt sustainable farming practices ranging from conservation tillage to integrated pest management. Those practices protect soil, water and air quality and allow producers to sustain our natural resources as well as our lives and lifestyles.
The Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC), with funding from the United Soybean Board, has produced Facilitating Conservation Farming Practices and Enhancing Environmental Sustainability with Agricultural Biotechnology, a thorough exploration of the environmental benefits of biotech crops.
Faces of happy family corn farmers will adorn Capitol Hill publications, frequently used web sites, the Metro and Reagan National Airport during the month of June with a major educational program aimed at policymakers and opinion leaders in Washington DC.
The Corn Farmers Coalition unveiled a 250,000 bushel ($1 million) ad campaign this morning that is being sponsored by corn farmers from 14 states and the National Corn Growers Association. Among the corn farmer faces in the ads that will be popping up around DC are Kurt Hora and his family from Washington, Iowa (pictured); John & Sue Adams of Atlanta, Illinois; Adam Howell of Indiana; and the Stirling family from Illinois.
“We feel it’s important to promote the products that we raise and to show to our consumers that we’re raising them in a safe and affordable and environmentally friendly manner,” Kurt said during a press conference this morning. Kurt and his family raise both corn and hogs.
John Adams echoed that sentiment and said the reason he wanted to be involved in the project was because he found people in Washington, even those from Illinois, have misconceptions about agriculture. “Two years ago I came here and was quite shocked. A lot of the people we were meeting with didn’t realize the family farm still existed,” he said. “We were hearing that ‘we didn’t know that there were any farms back there in Illinois, we thought they were all big corporate farms’ and that really bothered me a lot.”
The Corn Farmers Coalition did advertising last year, but director Mark Lambert says there will be new elements to this summer’s campaign. “We’re going to be advertising in the programs at the Washington Nationals baseball games for all their home games during the months of June and July,” said Mark.
Mark says they expect other state corn grower groups to pick up and use the ads in individual states and they are helping to train corn farmers in social media to get more involved in spreading the family farm message on line.
Listen to comments from Kurt and John from this morning’s press conference here:
The New York Times did an interesting piece this week under “Remarkable Creatures” on the ancestry of corn.
Although it does appear the author is confusing sweet corn with field corn – a common mistake – it does provide some fascinating background about this “a-maizing” plant that took some CSI-style sleuthing to uncover.
“The bright yellow, mouth-watering treat we know so well does not grow in the wild anywhere on the planet, so its ancestry was not at all obvious,” says the article, referring again only to sweet corn, although all types of corn likely have a common ancestry, which is believed to be a Mexican grass called teosinte. The corn ancestry trackers believe that southern Mexico was the “cradle” of maize evolution thousands of years ago when early agriculturalists bred this “grass with many inconvenient, unwanted features into a high-yielding, easily harvested food crop.”
A really good history of corn – or maize or Zea mays, whatever you prefer – can be found here on Sacred Earth plant profiles. “It is difficult to estimate how many hundreds or thousands of years it might have taken for corn to evolve into the shape and size we know today, but so far the oldest archaeological evidence for domesticated corn comes from Guilá Naquitz Cave near Mitla in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, which has been dated to approximately 6250 years ago,” according to the website, which also notes five basic types of corn – dent, flint, pop, sweet and waxy.
Corn was even venerated by the early native American civilizations, according to Sacred Earth. “It is closely associated with various creation myths throughout the Americas, which tell the story of how the people learned how to grow and use corn directly from the Corn God or Goddess him/herself. The Mayans revered this God as Yam Kaax, who is described in the Popol Vuh, the Sacred Book of the Mayans. Corn is linked to the very source of creation itself, for when the Gods decided to form the world, they prepared different brews from corn which were to provide strength and substance to their creation. They formed the first man and the first woman from white and yellow corn masa, which transformed into human flesh and blood.”
Maybe that’s what “King Corn” was talking about – “You are what you eat.”
Flex-fuel vehicle (FFV) drivers in central Illinois have more choices at the pump now thanks to a blender pump just installed in Sullivan, Illinois. The pump is the first of 20 planned in the state under a pilot program approved by the Illinois Department of Agriculture with support from the state Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, the American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest and the Illinois Corn Marketing Board.
During the official ribbon cutting ceremony, state officials and corn grower representatives addressed the success story of Illinois corn farmers and the Illinois ethanol industry partnering with petroleum marketers to increase consumer choice. “We’re excited to see this blender pump in Sullivan,” said Jim Rapp, Illinois Corn Marketing Board Chairman and a corn farmer from Princeton, IL. “Consumers deserve a choice and the opportunity to choose the fuel that best fits their needs and their pocketbook.”
Past National Corn Growers Association president Leon Corzine, a grower from Assumption, Illinois, was one of the many who were at the promotion offering discount pricing on ethanol blended fuel and $10.00 E85 coupons for FFV owners.
E-K Petro Mart owner Jon England received a $20,000 grant for participating in the Blender Pump Incentive Pilot Program. Each two-sided pump offers both regular unleaded gas blended with 10 percent ethanol plus a flex-fuel option that dispenses E85, E50, or E30 for E85-capable FFVs by blending regular unleaded gasoline with E85 from a second tank. “It’s nice to have a choice,” England said. “Somebody can come in and pick the product that best suits their economic situation.”
First, they took over the IndyCar Series, after the U.S. ethanol industry worked hard to get the series to switch to 100 percent ethanol – now Brazil wants to take over our domestic ethanol market that has taken decades to develop to lessen our own dependence on foreign sources of energy. They’ve even adopted the “e” logo developed by the U.S. industry!
The Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) is taking their promotion of imported sugarcane ethanol to Washington DC next week by offering a 54 cent per gallon discount on gasoline the Tuesday before Memorial Day at two Capitol Hill gas stations to draw attention to a 54 cents per gallon tariff on imported ethanol.
“The one-day discount will provide Washington area residents with a preview of how Americans across the country could save money at the pump if Congress ends this unfair import tax later this year,” reads the UNICA release on the promotion.
Sugarcane ethanol has already gotten a boost from California’s contested low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) which seems to give it an advantage over corn-based ethanol. UNICA is also using the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) designation of sugarcane ethanol as an “advanced renewable fuel” to promote their product.
With exports of U.S. corn ethanol on the increase and the ethanol tax incentive with the associated tariff on imports set to expire at the end of the year, the very real possibility exists that we could end up exporting our domestic fuel and importing foreign ethanol. That would kind of defeat the whole “energy independence” goal, doncha think?
Brazil has done a tremendous job of decreasing their own reliance on foreign sources of energy. As Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis puts it, “The only thing we should be importing from Brazil is their resolve to become energy independent.”
The U.S. ethanol industry needs to take a cue from Brazil and become even more aggressive in promoting home-grown fuel. We have built a market here at home, we need to keep it.
According to a recent Renewable Fuels Association report, the U.S. became a net ethanol exporter in 2010. A rise in global demand has many countries, including Brazil and some in the Middle East, looking for a low cost ethanol source which America capably provides.
In light of this, the consequences of the arbitrary 10 percent cap on ethanol currently imposed by the U.S. government are obvious. Instead of capitalizing on our growers’ ability to continuously meet growing demands for fuel, feed and food, regulations limit ethanol’s growth depriving the public of the economic and security benefits of homegrown fuel.
Government regulations cause the fuel we need to go overseas. If regulators tore down the blend wall, consumers could benefit immediately from the flow of renewable, economical corn ethanol into the domestic market. By increasing the level of ethanol allowed in an average tank of gasoline, our country would take a significant step toward its stated goal of energy independence.
U.S. ethanol is an international bargain. Currently, Iowa ethanol plant-gate prices are 50 cents per gallon lower than Brazilian ethanol prices. According to RFA analysis, this translates to savings of 11 cents per gallon on E10 ethanol made in the U.S. instead of Brazil. Global buyers take advantage of these savings. Shouldn’t we?
Let’s not miss out on the savings and security a domestic energy supply provides. The U.S. government should learn what the rest of the world already knows; our nation’s corn ethanol provides a viable solution to growing energy demands.
Illinois corn growers are among many in the agriculture industry taking a stand against Chipotle for its support of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). As they point out in a post on “Corn Corps,” Chipotle is supporting HSUS efforts to regulate animal agriculture in Ohio:
Chipotle is a corporate sponsor for their effort. They are allowing ballots to be placed in their stores throughout Ohio to make it easier for unsuspecting patrons to vote in their favor, bringing us one step closer to ending animal agriculture in the United States.
The question is – will it do any good? As agricultural journalist Trent Loos points out in a comment on one of the fan pages, “I do not want to dampen anyone’s spirits here but I will tell you I chased this rabbit two years ago. Owner Steve Ells agrees with HSUS rheotric and does not even eat meat himself. The best you are going to do is NOT go there and tell you friends and neighbors there are good alternatives.” To get an idea of where Ells stands, check out his testimony in support of the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act. There is a prominent link to this from the main page of the Chipotle website.
Chipotle wants to appeal to the market segment that wants organic food, promoting that fact on its own Facebook page. “That’s why we serve meats raised without antibiotics or added hormones. And it’s why we buy local and organic produce when we’re able. And why we prefer to work with small family farms that raise their animals responsibly and humanely.”
That’s fine, if that’s what they want to do and how they want to position themselves in the very competitive chain restaurant market. The problem is they believe that if Chipotle can do it, all restaurants can – and, more problematic, SHOULD. That’s where we draw the line, so it’s important for people who do not think that way and do not want to support the HSUS agenda to be aware of it. Yes, we should find some place else to get our burritos if we feel this restaurant chain is actively working against our industry – and we should inform others about it. But, it is doubtful we are going to change their minds if there is a market segment that responds positively to that agenda and will patronize them because of it.
So, boycott away – but changing their minds may be like trying to convince HSUS that cage-free chickens is a dumb idea.
Last week, I got up with the roosters and helped to make breakfast on the ranch for 20 students coming out to work on a project. As I’m cooking up scrambled eggs that I gathered from the ranch’s chickens, I was teased about how I’m turning into a “real” ranch hand. I’m also becoming obsessed with food. Well, maybe not obsessed, but at least more aware. That is why things that I may have not noticed before I do now. Take for example Whole Foods new “local food” campaign. They are now labeling all of their fruit and produce by country, and sometimes, city of origin (also known as food labeling a separate topic for discussion). The idea is to support local farmers first, and then to support American farmers second.
There are several driving factors for this change at Whole Foods one of which is that many people believe that as much as possible, they should eat local food. While the definition of local food varies, basically it is food that was produced within 250 miles of where you live. Second, people believe our food supply is not safe so supporters of the local food movement want you to get to know your farmer because they believe you’ll feel safer eating your food if you know who grew it.
Oftentimes, these same people are promoting that the local food movement will feed the world (and save Africa, yet another discussion you can read about here) but there are some serious problems with this way of thinking. Many people in our country do not live in areas that can even begin to produce food within 250 miles….Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada are just three states that could never produce enough food to feed their populations because they don’t have enough water and they would have to put land into production.
People are criticizing agriculture for the amount of land they use when in reality, farmers are producing MORE each year using LESS land. Hey enviros – are you prepared to put millions of acres of land back into production to ensure your local food supply?
People are also criticizing agriculture for the amount of irrigation needed to grow your food. Do you realize that the local food you eat is irrigated? No food grows without water. That being said, there are companies dedicated to creating hybrids that require less water but still have high yields. There I go again, it’s that less is more thing ag’s got going on.
Don’t get me wrong, I say this all the time and will continue to say it, I’m all for local food production and the support of small, family owned farms – I live on one. But we can not feed the world with local food production. However, production farmers can and will feed the world in a sustainable manner all while producing more from less. Now that’s something we need to get behind.
The 
Faces of happy family corn farmers will adorn Capitol Hill publications, frequently used web sites, the Metro and Reagan National Airport during the month of June with a major educational program aimed at policymakers and opinion leaders in Washington DC.
A really good history of corn – or maize or Zea mays, whatever you prefer – can be found 
Flex-fuel vehicle (FFV) drivers in central Illinois have more choices at the pump now thanks to a blender pump just installed in Sullivan, Illinois. The pump is the first of 20 planned in the state under a pilot program approved by the Illinois Department of Agriculture with support from the state Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, the American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest and the Illinois Corn Marketing Board.
Past 
The Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) is taking their promotion of imported sugarcane ethanol to Washington DC next week by offering a 54 cent per gallon discount on gasoline the Tuesday before Memorial Day at two Capitol Hill gas stations to draw attention to a 54 cents per gallon tariff on imported ethanol. 
Illinois corn growers are among many in the agriculture industry 
