Six South Dakota Corn board directors will represent growers through various National Corn Grower Association committees and action teams. The new committees start on October 1 of this year.

Those board directors include:

Jim Burg, Wesington Springs, SD: Production and Stewardship Action Team

Walt Bones, Chancellor, SD: Public Policy Action Team

Keith Alverson, Chester, SD: Ethanol Committee-Chairman

Chad Blindaur, Mitchell, SD: Trade Policy and Biotechnology Action Team-Chairman

Bill Chase, Wolsey, SD: BNSF Railway Ag Business Council, Association Relations Committee-Chairman

Darrin Ihnen, Hurley, SD: Association Relations Committee, Monsanto Grower Advisory Committee, Nominating Committee-Ch airman, AIC Executive Committee-Co-Chair

“The action teams and committees are an important part of what makes our association a respected leader in the industry and a powerful voice in Washington,” said incoming NCGA President Bart Schott, a farmer from Kulm, N.D. “It was inspiring to see so many farmers with passion and dedication who were interested in sacrificing time for these volunteer assignments.”

“Our directors share a common passion in improving conditions for all growers in our state and understand how important their voice can be on national and international levels,” said South Dakota Corn Executive Director, Lisa Richardson. “These committees can be time very time consuming with travel and phone calls, but our directors consider these appointments as opportunities rather than commitments.”

It has been 10 months since the EPA first delayed their decision on whether or not to move the minimum blend for non flex-fuel vehicles to E15 from E10. Twice, the EPA has delayed their decision because a lack of testing data. Finally, we may have some answers coming our way.

In a Congressional Hearing on Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Lisa Jackson said a decision on E15 for vehicles 2007 or newer should be announced by the middle of October. As for vehicles between 2001-2006, Jackson said that a decision should be made sometime in December.

“We are prepared to render our decisions within two weeks,” after getting the data, Jackson said.

There is no doubt that these potential moves would be a boost to the domestic ethanol industry, but failing to test vehicles prior to 2001 is an absolute failure by the EPA. Ricardo INC., an automotive engineering technology leader did its own study showing that E15 can be safely used in vehicles between the years of 1994-2000, which represent 25% of the vehicles on the road today.

While the ethanol industry will applaud any blend increase, there is concern that allowing only certain vehicle years will cause customer confusion at the pump. Besides confusion, the EPA is only delaying any potential growth of the clean energy economy in the United States.

“The EPA’s decision to bifurcate the E15 blend will likely confuse consumers and retailers, hindering additional ethanol sales,” said South Dakota Corn Growers Association President and Oldham, SD farmer, Gary Duffy. “Limiting E15 to only vehicles 2007 and newer drastically limits market penetration as those years represent such a small percentage of vehicles on the road today.”

Corn Comments Podcast with Jim Woster.

Plan to attend Growing On 2011, a special marketing strategies, outlook, and crop insurance meeting.

Growing On 2011 has become known as one of the most preferred educational meetings for agriculture in Farm Credit Services of America’s four state territory.

There will always be a pool of naysayers putting down ethanol, America’s only major renewable energy source when it comes to fuel. Activists love to use the word “Boondoggle” when describing it but if you have been paying attention to the industry lately, the clean-burning energy source is anything but.

The USDA posted a study this week showing the increased energy efficiency of corn ethanol. Previous studies showed a positive net energy gain of 1.7 to 1, but their most recent study shows a 2.3 to 1 gain in energy from the production of corn ethanol. This just shows the constant improvements to an industry that is increasing their all-around efficiencies through new technologies every day.

Last week, Ricardo Inc. released a study on the effects that E15 had on vehicles between the years of 1994 to 2000. The results showed that E15 would work just fine in those vehicles which represent 25% of the vehicles on the road today. This study is vital due to the EPA’s lack initiative in making a decision on whether or not to move the minimal ethanol blend for non-flex fuel vehicles to E15. It has been 10 months since the EPA’s first delay on this request.

Within the last six months, the Congressional Budget Office looked into the effects of using corn for ethanol when determining food prices. Results from their study showed that corn ethanol only caused a .5-.8% of the 5.1% rise in food prices between April 2007 through April 2008, an ethanol boom period. These results basically put the food vs. fuel myth to bed once and for all as farmers are continuing to produce more corn on the less land making them capable of meeting all demands.

These are just three examples of ethanol positives, while there are many more including benefits to the economy and environment, I encourage you all to do your part by sharing these positives you’re your friends and neighbors. The industry needs your grassroots efforts, because while corn ethanol is improving our country the naysayers and oil companies will never quit fighting to keep their competition down.

It is widely understood and accepted that corn ethanol production is carbon neutral because the carbon produced during production is more than absorbed by the following year’s crop. But by January 1, corn ethanol plants in the United States will have its greenhouse-gases regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency.

It’s obvious that carbon released from sources such as coal or natural gas should be recorded, but carbon released during fermentation and biomass burned for electricity should not be counted. The problem with the new EPA regulations is that they fail to recognize biogenic emissions, meaning it came from a biological source.

Another problem is that the new regulations don’t necessarily encourage ethanol plants to decrease their emissions; in fact experts believe the new regulations could discourage plants from improving emission standards. Without biomass electricity being considered carbon neutral, it will be difficult for facilities to improve.

The new EPA regulatory fees on greenhouse-gases could range from $5,000 – $10,000 plus annually for most plants.

“Those fees could be quite costly for some ethanol plants,” said Geoff Cooper of the Renewable Fuels Association.

The ethanol industry is appealing to the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider how it counts biofuel emissions.

The question is…if ethanol plants are getting charged for greenhouse gases, who will get credit for the sequestered carbon? It would make sense to credit the crop producers, but don’t hold your breath.

 Corn Comments Podcast with Jim Woster.

Farmers are feeding the world, they can fuel it too!

Please be sure to Register to Win Free Groceries for a Year with South Dakota Farmers Feed Us!