Ohio Corn Growers

Exposing the sweetener scam

From corncommentary.com

By Cindy
Posted: February 24, 2010

The Center For Consumer Freedom is not only working to get the truth out about HSUS, they also have a website and advertising dedicated to exposing the sweetener scam.

“Most of what you think you know about sweeteners is probably wrong. Some of this is a product of simple misunderstandings. The rest is a giant scam.”

SweetScam.com includes great information about science and nutrition, sweetener myths and facts, how sweeteners are made and how they compare. Not only that, they have a couple of nicely done print and television ads with the message that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is just the same as other sweeteners and is being falsely accused of making us fat.

Meanwhile, as companies like Pepsi and Starbucks have been dropping HFCS from beverages, the March issue of Consumer Reports attempts to set the record straight, noting that taking this kind of action “may well have more to do with marketing than science.”

A sweetener made from cornstarch processed with enzymes and acids, HFCS has roughly the same composition as cane sugar—about half glucose and half fructose—and the same number of calories. Concerns that it’s directly responsible for rising obesity rates or somehow intrinsically more fat-inducing than sugar are largely unfounded, though researchers continue to study whether the body handles HFCS differently.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

OCGA's Washington, D.C. mission stresses need for corn markets

DELAWARE, Ohio - The corn industry is facing critical issues in the near future as important markets for corn, corn ethanol and the ethanol co-product of Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles (DDGS) need to be kept in tact and, in some cases, new markets need to be created.

Farmer board members of the Ohio Corn Growers Association (OCGA), along with staff members, recently traveled to Washington, D.C. to impress upon lawmakers the need to extend a critical "blender's credit" tax incentive (known as VEETC) for corn ethanol, open up one-way trade with Cuba and to inform them of the importance of agriculture jobs in each lawmakers' district.

In addition, members of the D.C. mission used the time to educate lawmakers and their aides on issues such as Indirect Land Use Change, which unfairly punishes corn ethanol and could keep it from becoming an "advanced biofuel" under the Renewable Fuels Standard II which requires the displacement of petroleum and diesel fuel with low carbon renewable fuels. The program also requires renewable fuels to meet certain greenhouse gas (ghg) emission reduction targets. It's important to remove the outdated modeling that shows Indirect Land Use Changes to reduce ethanol's low carbon footprint because if the U.S. is not a supplier, the European Union or Brazil would be happy to import their biofuels.

"We showed lawmakers a wide array of the implications that losing the VEETC credit and Indirect Land Use Change can have on a very important market for not only farmers but for national security," said OCGA Executive Director Dwayne Siekman.

If such changes aren't made, such as losing the blender's tax credit at the end of 2010, the Renewable Fuels Association states that 38 percent of current ethanol production would be eliminated, leading to a loss for farmers and ethanol producers.

Opening up one-way trade with Cuba would increase U.S. corn markets through exports of corn as well as Dried Distillers Grain.

OCGA thanked Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan (D) from Ohio's 17th district for stepping up to the plate to co-sponsor H.R. 4645, the Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act. The bill not only opens one-way trade with Cuba but lifts a current travel restrictions with Cuba.

"We currently export food to Cuba, and these changes will level the playing field for American farmers without totally lifting the Cuban embargo," said OCGA President John Davis. "H.R. 4645 provides an opportunity to preserve U.S. corn sales to Cuba and increases demand for Dried Distillers Grains, a high-protein animal feed."

Ethanol blender's credit offers 400 percent ROI

Recently, a nation starved for domestic energy supplies and sources, has managed to lose its way in the deep dark forest of the unknown that is the speculative science of indirect land use change. In typical American fashion – or at least this seems to be the new norm – we have missed the point, evaded the crux of the issue and been distracted by ne’re-do-wells with questionable motives.

So in the name of refocusing the energy debate, I offer up the bold statement that ethanol fuel is a slam dunk when it comes to offering a real solution. First, it is here today, not on a drawing board or in a lab and it helps us achieve many of our critical goals such as providing jobs, making us less dependent on foreign oil from often hostile sources, and it pollutes less than gasoline during its manufacture and use. And as a bonus, with biofuels like ethanol we also get a product that is renewable. Anything that directs our focus away from these fundamental truths should be looked at with a skeptical eye.

http://corncommentary.com/2010/02/23/government-earns-400-roi-on-ethanol-blenders-credit/

Cuba bill increases U.S. agriculture one-way trade

WASHINGTON (February 23, 2010) – The National Corn Growers Association today announced support of H.R. 4645, the Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act. This bill, introduced today by U.S. House of Representatives Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and Representative Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), will expand one-way trade and lift current travel restrictions with Cuba. Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Representative Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) are also sponsoring the bill.

“This legislation will increase one-way agricultural trade from the U.S. to Cuba,” said NCGA First Vice President Bart Schott, a grower from Kulm, N.D. “We currently export food to Cuba and these changes will level the playing field for American farmers. It is important to note, though, that it does not eliminate the embargo itself.”

H.R. 4645 provides an opportunity not only to preserve current U.S. sales of corn to Cuba, but also to increase demand for distillers dried grains and other corn value-added products such as poultry. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agricultural Service, Cuba was the tenth largest export market for U.S. corn during the 2008-2009 marketing year.

Steve Yoder, chairman of the Joint Trade Policy A-Team, from Dalhart, Tex., said, “There are just unnecessary restrictions on food shipments to Cuba.”

Presently, cash payments from Cuba are required before food leaves the U.S. port, instead of allowing for payment prior to delivery. Other countries selling agricultural goods to Cuba do not have this same type of restriction, creating a disadvantage for U.S. corn farmers. The “direct banking” provision only allows the Cuban buyer to make payment through a third-country bank outside of the United States. This adds yet another additional cost to each transaction involving the sale of our farmers’ products.

The bill also lifts travel restrictions to Cuba, an important step towards increasing the demand for U.S. agricultural exports. Without travel, demand for value-added agricultural products will not be as significant.

OCGA research shows growing support for and awareness of corn ethanol

CONSUMER BENCHMARK RESEARCH

The Ohio Corn Growers Association (OCGA) recently conducted a benchmark research project that showed significant improvement in Ohioans’ understanding of corn and its role in the economy, the environment and energy.

OCGA retained an independent research firm to take a baseline survey of 300 Ohio voters as the first phase of the project in February 2009. The same survey was conducted in January 2010 utilizing the same methodology to determine if OCGA’s media, consumer, member and legislative communications efforts resulted in a better public understanding of the corn industry in Ohio.

Our research showed that the public’s awareness of ethanol jumped significantly, as did the understanding of many issues that are important to Ohio’s corn farmers.

Click here to see the details of the research.

EPA's unusual re-evaluation of atrazine appears guided by politics

Ohio Farm Groups to EPA Administrator Jackson:
Don’t De-Stimulate Ohio’s Farm Economy

EPA’s unusual re-evaluation of atrazine appears guided by politics, not science

$28 per Ohio farm acre at risk if valuable herbicide is banned

DELAWARE, Ohio – As U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson visited Columbus on Thursday to highlight jobs and economic growth in Ohio under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, farm groups including the Ohio Corn Growers Association (OCGA) and American Agri-Women urged Jackson not to “de-stimulate” the state’s farm economy by allowing her cabinet to remove an essential tool from modern agriculture production.

OCGA Executive Director Dwayne Siekman emphasized the need to keep modern farming and Ohio’s economy thriving by allowing continued use of the popular herbicide, atrazine. It’s an essential tool that farmers rely on to produce a high-quality, abundant feed, fuel and food supply.

"It’s the most studied herbicide that the EPA has already ruled as safe.
EPA just completed the re-registration of atrazine based on the strength of abundant data and rigorous review over many years by scientific experts," Siekman said.

Future use of atrazine could be in question as the EPA under Lisa Jackson conducts an unusual and unprecedented re-review of the popular herbicide in response to unfounded claims by some environmental activists and anti-farming organizations--a move that seems political to farm groups.

Farmers have used atrazine for more than 50 years to keep weeds and grasses from robbing water and nutrients from crops. It is used on more than one-half of all U.S. corn, two-thirds of sorghum, and 90 percent of sugar cane. It is one of the primary elements that make Ohio and American agriculture so phenomenally productive.

“Atrazine is an essential tool that Ohio corn growers rely on to produce a high-quality, abundant supply of animal feed, fuel and fiber and contribute $2 billion a year in crop production to our state’s economy,” Siekman said. “We have the utmost confidence in its efficiency and safety and at $28 per acre in cost savings, its loss would result in a huge hit to farmers and Ohio’s economy.”

Today, 40% of the world‘s food supply would not exist without the use of atrazine and other crop protection products. Furthermore, atrazine also is the most widely used corn herbicide in conservation tillage systems, which can reduce soil erosion by as much as 90 percent, protecting water from sediment, the number one pollutant of US waterways.

“For over 40 years, my family has relied on atrazine to help our soil conservation by cutting down on intensive tilling and dramatically improving our production yields,” said American Agri-Women Past President Marcie Williams. “Without it, our costs would dramatically increase. Atrazine has withstood the scrutiny of 6,000 scientific studies, including a thorough review and re-certification at EPA just three years ago. Our members around the country who rely on atrazine would be significantly impacted if media hype about its safety were to trump regulation based on science.”

Mike Rowe of "Dirty Jobs" praises U.S. agriculture

I’m really bugged about something and I’ve decided to throw it out there. Here’s my question – Are the American farmers heading towards the same fate as America’s auto industry? I know some of you are already thinking “What the heck is this guy talking about?” but just stay with me for a few minutes.

I had a real interesting conversation the other day with a friend of mine. She was raised a God-favouring, true blue American gal. She believes in and supports America, proudly wears red, white and blue and even thought about enlisting in the Navy back in 1975 when she graduated high school. She wore a POW bracelet for 6 years (interestingly the name on it was John McCain III). She considers herself a moderate conservative and honestly, truly believes she puts her money where her mouth is. So what happens is she gets hooked on this thread started in our Water Cooler last year called Ford Pays For Its Prudence. (Check it out – it’s still going on.) Anyway, Mike posted there several times and got this gal to thinking about stuff. Turns out she’s owned a BMW for 21 years, is quite happy with it and hopes it lasts her the rest of her life. It also turns out that she had never considered buying an American car because she learned that foreign cars held their value better and, depending on what it was, lasted longer than American cars and she works hard for her salary and likes to get the best bang for her buck. In fact, because of those “facts” she had sworn she’d never buy an American car.

Then this auto crisis slams the country and all of a sudden she’s paying attention. She’s really troubled by the whole deal, the effect on our country’s economy and is concerned about all the folks who lost their jobs and families impacted by the disaster with no end in sight. To top it all off, billions of our hard earned tax dollars start getting pumped into 2 failing companies to prevent them from going into bankruptcy (again). And it’s not like we got a lot of extra dollars to spare, right? (Between you and me, I think we’re throwing good money after bad but that’s another story…)

Anyway, to cut to the chase, she tells me that because of that Ford/Prudence discussion, she realized that she was talking out of both sides of her mouth. She loves the good old US of A but is going to buy foreign cars for the rest of her life? What’s up with that? And now her tax dollars are going to support a couple of companies who are happily taking those tax dollars to keep them afloat. All of a sudden who cares if her BMW lasts forever and held its value better than a Chevy – that car just cost her (and millions of us) about what… $ 300,000 in taxes used as bail-out money? I dunno, you do the math but my point is that had everyone who says they support America bought American, would our auto industry be in the pathetic condition it is at the moment? I’ll go out on a limb and say nope. In fact, I’d bet on it.

Of course there’s no going back, no rewinding the video and playing it with a different ending or anything. But here’s the bigger question – what have we learned from the experience?

OK, OK, I’ll get to my original point. Maybe you haven’t read this article in the Wall Street Journal: Poachers Arrive at Egg Farms but I did and it hit me as to what’s bugging me. The article by Lauren Etter says in part: “A year after Californians approved stricter rules on the treatment of farm animals, Idaho and other states are trying to lure away the Golden State’s poultry and egg farmers with promises of friendlier regulations and lower costs.

In Idaho, as lawmakers convened Monday, Republican state Sen. Tim Corder said he would introduce legislation designed to attract California chicken farmers who might consider relocating. In Nevada, Pershing County is aggressively recruiting poultry farmers in California, the nation’s fifth-largest producer of eggs. Georgia’s poultry industry also has reached out to some California farmers in a bid to woo them eastward, California egg-industry officials say. The movement comes after California voters in November 2008 passed a ballot initiative called Proposition 2 designed to prevent “cruel confinement” of farm animals in cramped conditions, like small “battery cages” for egg-laying chickens, or “gestation crates” for pregnant pigs.

Such measures have grown more popular nationwide as the Humane Society of the United States and other groups have pushed to raise awareness of how animals are treated in the food-production system. Since 2002, similar provisions have passed in Florida, Arizona, Oregon and Colorado.”

I live in California and I’m one of those people who adopt abandoned dogs. I’ve sent my $25 checks to the Humane Society after watching particularly awful commercials on TV showing little pets horribly mistreated and suffering. I completely support spaying and neutering of animals in most instances and would adopt an abandoned pet before I’d ever get one from a breeder or pet store. I don’t eat veal but I’m not a vegetarian. I’m not the only one who doesn’t get a vegetarian who still wears leather belts, jackets or shoes or carry leather purses but that, too, is another story. Those are my choices and I’m not telling anyone else what to do – it’s a free country. I didn’t vote for the proposition they’re talking about because it didn’t make sense to me. I couldn’t buy into the emotion of seeing animals in cages and using the worst examples of some unethical people as the end-all be-all for every farmer in the state – passing that measure would negatively affect our food sources and our farmers.

I happen to believe that using emotion to manipulate voters is just plain unethical and wrong. Who wouldn’t get choked up to see a mistreated animal? And look, I’m sure that some farmers use methods that are not humane. I’m equally sure that there are many who don’t. Just like all blonds aren’t dumb and all polish people aren’t stupid, the few bad eggs shouldn’t represent the many good ones (sorry – I just couldn’t resist saying that). Should we put every good citizen in prison and let the prisoners run free? Just like you can’t say that every person who owns a puppy is going to treat it like the bozo down the street that runs a puppy mill, you can’t say that all farm animals are abused and all farmers are to blame. I don’t believe that keeping a chicken in a cage, free from bad weather or predators and feeding them well and making sure they stay healthy is a bad thing. My grandparents had chickens. I know what the chickens did all day and what they were happy doing and it didn’t include much else besides eating, “talking” to all their pals and laying eggs. Seriously (no disrespect to all the chickens out there).

I gotta think that the meat that arrives at my local meat counter had to come from healthy animals otherwise the USDA isn’t going put their “approved for consumption” stamp on it. I’ve never known the USDA to be tentative about avoiding salmonella (or other) poisoning. I don’t think animals who are miserable and unhealthy magically get converted into excellent USDA Grade AAA+++ meat. I love animals. I also love to eat and my favourites include a good steak for dinner and bacon and eggs for breakfast and I’d prefer not to spend a fortune on those things or get my beef and eggs exported from some other country. Nothing wrong with all that, right?

Then what smacks me in this article is this:

“Of course, moving to another state could be costly, too. Moreover, Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive of the Humane Society, said farmers who flee California may wind up facing tougher rules anyway, because more retailers are seeking food raised under strict animal-welfare standards.

“It’s not surprising that some of the factory farms would flock to states that are deregulated when it comes to animal welfare,” said Mr. Pacelle. But “that is not a long-term answer.”

Maybe it’s just me but Mr. P’s “that’s not a long term answer” comment sounds like it carries a threat. What does that mean? Is Mr. P and the Humane Society and all the well meaning animal savers going to go get these laws passed in every single state in the nation so that one day we wake up and every single farmer is out of business unless they grow vegetables? Are we going to go from watching the ruin of the auto industry to watching the ruin of the farmer?

I ask you – what is in America’s future? We’ve sent clothing manufacturing out of the country because 1) we can’t afford to make them ourselves, 2) we can’t afford the prices if we make them ourselves and 3) many of us never pay retail. Our own buying habits and “both sides of the mouth” talk has left Detroit and other US cities basically destroyed. We’re spending billions and trillions of our own tax dollars trying to recover from our own behaviour and simultaneously, we may be stupidly and naively destroying America’s farming industry. Another one bites the dust. Seriously folks, what’s next?

Like most people, maybe I really don’t want to know. I should sign off and go back to living my own life and pretend nothing bad is happening or point my finger at something or someone else. Someone else will fix it, right? It doesn’t involve me specifically at the moment anyway – I’m still having a steak for dinner. Our country will bounce back from seeing its industries shut down one by one, won’t it? I mean that can’t *really* happen – it’ll all be OK.

Then why do I feel this nagging sense of dread…?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. My friend? She decided to put her money where her mouth is – she and her husband just bought American – a Ford Edge. They love it.

http://www.mikeroweworks.com/2010/02/what-is-in-americas-future/

Dow Jones Newswires: Govt. raises forecast for some imports, corn is plentiful

DJ US Increases Wheat Imports, Despite Big Domestic Supplies

By Tom Polansek

Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES CHICAGO

(Dow Jones)--U.S. farmers suffered a minor blow this week when government officials raised the forecast for wheat imports, despite plentiful supplies of home-grown grain.

Hog producers in the southeast are shipping in more feed-quality wheat from South America and Europe because it is cheaper than transporting corn from the Midwest, traders said. The loss of business stings U.S. farmers eager to sell their grain, but analysts say the increase in imports shouldn't weigh on U.S. futures prices because it is relatively small.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, in a monthly supply-and-demand report, raised the estimate for 2009-10 wheat imports by 5 million bushels from January to 115 million bushels. By comparison, the U.S. grew 2.2 billion bushels of wheat for the crop year that runs through the end of May.

Increased wheat imports are part of "a very unique situation that is isolated to the east coast," said Greg Wagner, senior commodity analyst at AgResource Company, an agricultural advisory firm with contacts in cash markets around the world. "In the whole scheme of things, it's not something that is going to be widespread," he said.

The USDA did not raise its forecasts for U.S. wheat exports or other uses in the report, so inventories, which were already at a 22-year high, expanded even more. Producers, particularly of lower-quality soft red winter wheat, have struggled to find a home for their grain amid stiff competition for export business.

The increase in inventories was "not an encouraging thing for a wheat producer in Ohio or the United States," said Dwayne Siekman, executive director of Ohio Wheat Growers Association. Ohio is the country's top producer of SRW wheat, and the large supply depresses local cash prices, he said.

U.S. corn supplies are also comfortable. Ending stocks are at a four-year high, and farmers harvested a record crop for 2009-10, according to the USDA. Both wheat and corn can be used for animal feed.
The increase in wheat imports is "simply a matter of economics," Wagner said. Cheap ocean freight rates help encourage foreign purchases.

The USDA's forecast for increased imports confirmed chatter in the wheat markets about shipments of Brazilian wheat into the southeast for use as hog feed, traders said. The wheat is thought to have gone to Wilmington Bulk LLC, a North Carolina-based consortium representing several large hog and poultry operations in the region.

A spokesman for one of its principle owners, Murphy Brown LLC, did not return a call for comment. Murphy Brown is a subsidiary of Smithfield Foods (SFD), the country's largest hog producer.

"It pencils in," Wagner said. "You get very cheap wheat out of Brazil and bring it up the east coast and off load it and mix it in rations for hogs."

However, it does not look economically sustainable for the U.S. to continue importing wheat when comparing corn and wheat prices from various locations, according to U.S. Wheat Associates, a trade group focused on promoting U.S. wheat exports. Wagner agreed it would be surprising to see USDA increase its import estimate again.

There have been times in the past when foreign feed wheat, particularly from South America, has been offered at a "very low price" to U.S.southeast ports because there were no local buyers for it, said Vince Peterson, vice president of overseas operations for U.S. Wheat Associates.

Brazil, Argentina and other South American grain-producing countries "have relatively little storage capacity and need to move wheat out to make room for soybeans and other crops still to harvest," he said.

Despite the government's increased estimate, U.S. wheat imports are still in line with recent years and below what they were last year. The U.S. imported 127 million bushels of wheat in 2008-09 and 113 million bushels in 2007-08.

By Tom Polansek, Dow Jones Newswires; 312-341-5780; tom.polansek@dowjones.com

USDA report indicates increased corn demand from ethanol, decreased exports

The latest World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimate, released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture this morning, estimates a slightly higher demand for corn to produce ethanol and a minor decrease in corn exports from the 2009 crop. During this period, corn prices held stable at $3.70 per bushel.

“This report reinforces the importance of ethanol to corn growers across the country,” said NCGA President Darrin Ihnen, a grower from Hurley, S.D. “NCGA consistently advocates for government policies that reflect the important role that ethanol plays for growers and the public as a cost effective, environmentally friendly domestic fuel option.”

Estimated demand for corn from the ethanol industry increased by 100 million bushels to 4.3 billion bushels total, which takes into account approximately 1 billion bushels of distillers grains derived in the ethanol production process as livestock feed. USDA cites updated data from the Energy Information Agency as the reason for this increase. Over the same period, estimated exports dropped by 50 million bushels due to increased competition from Argentina.

The March WASDE should provide insight into what has happened to the portion of the 2009 corn crop that had to remain in the field over winter due to difficult harvest conditions. This information could impact supply estimates and prices.

Click here for the full report.

EPA ruling on ethanol shows farmers must continue to be good land stewards

DELAWARE, Ohio – A recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ruling on corn ethanol was welcomed by the ethanol industry and farmers as the agency confirmed that corn ethanol is superior to gasoline when it comes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Ohio Corn Growers Association (OCGA) applauds the EPA recognizes that corn ethanol provides a distinct advantage over conventional gasoline when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, with a reduction of more than 21 percent in some cases.
But a revised federal Renewable Fuels Standard requires the use of advanced biofuels, and current modeling concepts used by the EPA today’s corn ethanol might not meet future standards.
“The EPA is using the worst science out there but still coming to good conclusions about traditional ethanol. We continue to be disappointed that EPA choses to use the flawed theory of international indirect land use change in their calculations,” said OCGA Executive Director Dwayne Siekman. “The theory assumes that growing more corn means planting corn on a proportionately greater amount of acreage and will impact other crops or natural resources on a global basis. Today’s yield trends and factual land use data show this to be false.”
OCGA is encouraging farmers to reamin proactive in utilizing practices that reduce GHG emissions and not rely on the government to create more markets, such as ethanol.“The entrepreneurial spirit of farmers has always been there and the unpredictability of government decisions should be a wake up call to farmers to take ownership of the issue rather than rely on others,” Siekman said.
Modern farming reduces carbon in the air by 21 percent and is only responsible for 7 percent of the world’s GHG emissions. Farmers are capable of sequestering carbon by practicing no-till (which leaves the earth unplowed) and continue using the latest technology that reduces the amount of carbon, methane and nitrous oxide in the environment. Modern seed technology allows for farmers to use fewer pesticides and grow more corn on less land, thereby cutting down emissions and reducing their cost, in turn cutting the cost to consumers.
“Corn growers have always known that corn ethanol is a clean-burning fuel,” Siekman said. "Practices that would reduce carbon, methane and nitrous oxide must be adopted by corn farmers regardless of EPA's decision on whether indirect land use change calculations are included or not to have any consideration of being an advanced biofuel."
Meanwhile, OCGA and ethanol groups will continue to work closely with all interested parties in promoting the importance of corn ethanol as a market for its members and an important part of our nation’s domestic energy sector.