Iowa college students were put to the test recently by the Iowa Corn Promotion Board.  They were challenged to create a video depicting their school spirit while being true to Iowa’s homegrown fuel, corn-ethanol.  With a Grand Prize of $5,000 on the line, students met the challenge head on. 

The following three videos were selected as the finalists.  The video with the most views on Iowa Corn’s YouTube Channel by Sept. 1 will be the winner. 

What a fun way to celebrate Iowa’s number one crop, corn!

Becky Finfrock
ICGA/ICMB Communications Assistant


For those of you just beginning your quest for more knowledge about Illinois agriculture (and maybe for some of you that work within the Illinois agricultural industry every day and just didn’t think through this particular issue), let me describe to you corn’s ethanol quandary.

Illinois farmers are really good at growing corn. They grow more and more corn every single year, using less inputs (less land, less water, less chemicals) to do it, and thus, they need more markets for this corn. This is one of the primary goals of the Illinois Corn Marketing Board – to develop markets for Illinois corn.

Corn-based ethanol is our largest Illinois market for corn and presents the most opportunity for growth, in turn, demanding more corn. This is good because we have corn coming out our ears. No pun intended.

Right now, nearly every gallon of gasoline that you purchase at the gas station is 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol; this product is referred to as a 10% blend. A 10% blend is the highest blend the EPA will allow. But we (Americans) have now reached the point where there are no more gallons of gasoline sold to blend 10% ethanol into, thus, the market is no longer growing and we have more and more corn that will be losing its value.

The ethanol industry has asked EPA to consider a higher blend of ethanol in every gallon of gasoline. They suggested 15%, which barely makes a difference per gallon of gasoline, but makes a huge difference to the ethanol industry and thus, to corn farmers in Illinois. This opens up more market space for ethanol and for the corn that creates it.

The EPA, being the EPA, has hesitated to approve a 15% blend. They argue that testing data from US Department of Energy on what a 15% blend really means hasn’t been provided to them.

In response to their stalling, the National Corn Growers Association, the American Coalition for Ethanol, and the Renewable Fuels Association sent a letter today asking US EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to consider an immediate move to a 12% blend which opens up a market for ethanol and allows existing plants to keep … well … existing.

The bottom line for corn farmers is that we need additional markets for corn or corn farmers will go out of business.

The bottom line for environmentalists is that we need a green, renewable fuel supply to address climate change and emissions concerns.

The bottom line for Americans is that we need domestic energy so we can reduce our oil imports and quit funding the countries that hate us.

The bottom line for the US EPA is that a 12% blend of ethanol moves us a step in the right direction. And frankly, if underdeveloped and developing countries can make an investment in green, renewable, domestic energy and Brazil can use up to 23% ethanol blends in their conventional vehicles with no problems … why can’t we?

Dave Loos
ICGA/ICMB Research and Business Development Director
(and ethanol guru!)


Tomorrow, I set off for Washington, DC along with twenty of so of my favorite Illinois corn farmers.  While we’re there, we’re going to talk corn policy for a bit (determining as a nation of corn farmers what it is that we stand for and what will allow us to continuing growing corn for generations and generations) and we’re going to chat with our Illinois elected officials.

That’s what I wanted to focus on today … how important it is to make time to tell your elected officials what you think.

I know there are quite a few folks that are discouraged and even a little jaded when it comes to politics these days.  I’m one of them at times.  And I know there are swarms of people who are frustrated that politicians seem to seek only their own reelection instead of seeking to do their job and serve the people in their district.

What I say is look at the cards you were dealt and play them.

The system is what it is.  And until it changes, our goal (and yours too!) should simply be to play the largest part within the system that you can.  That means getting involved, knowing your Congressman, Representatives, and Senators, and calling them or visiting them.  Because they actually do want to hear from you!

Millions of issues come across the House and Senate floor every day and your Congressman can’t possibly know the details of every single one.  Often, he’s looking to his peers and his party to determine what his/her vote will be.  But one simple conversation with you might put that issue into perspective and make him think a little harder about his vote.

Perhaps you can relay to your elected official that your farm has been in the family for a hundred years and now you are worried that you might lose it due to estate taxes.  Perhaps you can talk about your desire to grow your livestock operation, but fear the EPA or the animal rights extremists will ruin your investment.  Perhaps your family has occupied the same small town for generations and is now seeing an economic improvement from a local ethanol plant that you’d hate to see go under.

Whatever your specific instance, you have experiences that mean something to your Congressman … experiences that he or she cannot understand until they have spoken with you.  Experiences that might ultimately flavor his final vote in a way that you can’t even imagine yet.

All this bang for your minimal investment to go see him or call him in the first place.  Can you imagine if you kept this contact up?  What context you could offer her decisions if you had a relationship with your elected official or her staff?

This is what the Illinois corn farmers will be doing this week – offering context to the myriad of decisions being made in the House and Senate.  They will discuss how higher blends of ethanol would create markets for Illinois corn.  They will thank Congressmen Johnson and Halvorson for their vote to move a free trade agreement with Cuba out of House Ag Committee which will open up markets for Illinois corn if passed.  They will explain to the Illinois Delegation what better infrastructure on the Illinois and Mississippi River could mean for Illinois’ competitiveness worldwide.

You could do this too.

Open up the lines of communication.  Call or email your elected officials today.

Lindsay Mitchell
ICMB/ICGA Marketing Director


During a recent tour of Illinois River Energy in Rochelle, IL, the Illinois Corn Marketing Board and staff learned about new and innovative techniques to produce ethanol that lesson the energy requirement and create more valuable co-products.  Corn-based ethanol gets more and more efficient every day!
Did you see in this recent study by Stanford University, the researchers determined that high yield agriculture prevented the equivalent of 590 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere?  According to the researchers, their results, “Dispel the notion that modern intensive agriculture is inherently worse for the environment than a more ‘old-fashioned’ way of doing things.”
High yield agriculture is good for the environment.  And these higher yields are what is producing enough corn to fuel our countries green-energy revolution. 


Today’s post comes from an Op-Ed in yesterday’s Washington Times by Robert Zubrin.

Let the market decide – oil, ethanol or methanol

Ladies and gentlemen of the left and the right: Let’s be realistic. There is no chance whatsoever that the U.S. political system will either: A) Pass carbon or gas taxes sufficiently punitive to compel Americans to curtail their driving substantially, or B) Support rapid expansion of offshore drilling for the foreseeable future.

Therefore, if neither conservation nor production is in the cards, how can we hope to deal with our nation’s dangerous and ever-growing dependence on foreign oil?

Here’s my answer: We need to cure our cars of their oil addiction. To paraphrase Shakespeare, the fault is not in ourselves, but in our cars; we are made underlings.

Let’s stop the guilt-ridden breast-beating and place the blame where it belongs. We are not addicted to oil. Our cars are addicted to oil. They are like a tribe of people who, because of some unfortunate flaw, can only eat one kind of food, say herring. Thus, if the herring merchants combine to rig up the price of their product to $100 per pound, the tribesmen have no choice but to submit. They would be far better off if they could become omnivores, capable of eating steak, ice cream, corn, eggs, apples, etc., as the power to use such alternatives would make them immune from herring-cartel extortion.

Our four-wheeled servants have the same problem; they can only drink one kind of fuel. Unfortunately, because we are the ones who must foot the bill for their singular habit, their problem is our problem. We need to cure them.

Fortunately, such a cure is at hand. The technology exists to make cars that are fully flex-fueled, able to run equally well on gasoline, ethanol or methanol, in any combination. If installed at the time of manufacture, the inclusion of this feature adds only about $100 to the cost of a typical car. The benefits of making such a childhood immunization against oil addiction a standard requirement for all new autos sold in the U.S. would be profound.

Were it the rule that only oil-addiction-immunized cars could enter the U.S. market, foreign carmakers would waste no time in switching over their entire lines to flex fuel. Thus, not only Japanese cars sold in America, but also those sold in Japan and everywhere else would be omnivores, as would nearly all other cars sold in any serious way internationally. Within a very few years, there would be tens of millions of cars in the U.S. endowed with the capacity for fuel choice, and hundreds of millions more internationally. Under those conditions, gasoline would be forced to compete at the pump against both methanol and ethanol made from any number of potential sources all over the world. This would put a permanent competitive constraint against future rises in the price of oil. Such a constraint is vitally needed, as without it, current $75-per-barrel recession oil prices could easily explode under conditions of economic recovery to levels of $150 per barrel or more, thereby aborting the recovery itself.

While ethanol can make a significant contribution – it has replaced 7 percent of the gasoline used in the U.S. and more than 50 percent in Brazil – the real key here is compatibility with methanol, which can be made in limitless quantities from anything that either is or once was a plant, including coal, natural gas, recycled urban trash or any kind of biomass, without exception. Its current price on the international market is $1 per gallon, equivalent in energy terms to gasoline at $1.90 per gallon – without any subsidy. If we cure our cars so they can drink this fuel, we will protect ourselves from extortion by the oil cartel, forever.

A bill has been introduced in Congress to do exactly that. Known as the Open Fuel Standards (OFS) Act, it has truly bipartisan support, with its Senate version (S.B. 835) sponsors including such liberals as Sen. Maria Cantwell, Washington Democrat, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota Democrat; moderates such as Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, and Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican; and conservatives such as Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican, and Sen. John Thune, South Dakota Republican. Similarly, its House version (H.R. 1476) supporters run the political spectrum from Rep. Eliot L. Engel, New York Democrat, to Rep. Bob Inglis, South Carolina Republican. Under the bill’s provision, by 2012, 50 percent of all new cars sold in the U.S. will need to be fully flex-fueled, with the number rising to 80 percent by 2015.

With a stroke of a pen, Congress can break the power of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to tax the world. The OFS bill will not cost the Treasury a dime, and it will protect the nation from hundreds of billions of dollars of potential losses because of future petroleum price increases. Those reluctant to support it need to answer the question: In whose interest is it that Americans lack fuel choice? In whose interest is it that our cars remain addicted to oil?

Robert Zubrin is president of Pioneer Astronautics and the author of “Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil” (Prometheus Books, 2007).


Facebook. Twitter. YouTube. Flickr. Blogger.

What do all of these things mean to you? Everyone uses social media in different ways and for many different reasons. However, everyone can agree on one thing – social media has changed the way that our world communicates, and it is not going to go away. 470,334,100 people are on Facebook today. That is more than the population of the entire United States. Not only that, but these 470,334,100 people all have access to what you say.

I don’t want to bore everyone with facts and statistics, but these are pretty compelling numbers. The fact is that social media is gaining power, and all of that power is available to everyone. People want their news, information, and entertainment when they want it, where they want it, and at the click of a button. Anything you want to know is on the internet and in social media in some form or another. That being said, the agricultural community can’t be left behind. If people want to get on their iPhones for 5 minutes while they are walking from the parking lot to their office to get their news for the day, agriculture needs to be right there with them. No one wants to go looking for facts anymore, they want it to come to them, which is what the community of agriculture needs to do. We need to go to the general public with our message, and do it in a way that people will find easily.

Here’s an example: The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is fighting with farmers and producers about what they think “animal cruelty” is. They think that our practiced and proven methods of farming and raising livestock are wrong because the cows don’t frolic in twenty acres of pasture every day. They are getting so much good press for their messages that the uninformed will believe them easily, because it is easy to believe a cause that claims to be helping animals. Any farmer you talk to will know about this fight with the HSUS and will have plenty to say. But that’s just it, not enough people are saying it! We have the power through social media to give our side of the story, and to educate the misinformed. We have a great message to tell, and now it is our job to use social media to our advantage and tell the world about agriculture. If that doesn’t have you convinced, this article might.  In short, this explains how the HSUS is tagging agricultural videos as porn to get less people to hear our message.

That being said, there’s room for lighthearted and fun education on social media too. Not everyone wants to get involved in heated debates about these issues; some don’t think they have any reason to be concerned. But those are still people that we need to reach with our message. As an intern at IL Corn, I understand the issues that farmers face today. I also understand how people my age think, and it is my job to reach them and everyone else with our message. Corn is not something that people get excited about unless we make it exciting. For example, the IL Corn summer interns have been making videos that have overlaying messages about corn and agriculture built into them. People watch videos because they are quick, easy to watch, easily accessible, and they don’t have to put forth any effort to hear the message. So we give them entertaining and educational videos that they can learn from. Occasionally, someone will stumble across a parody movie we have made and watch it because it looks funny. As a result, they learn something they didn’t plan on learning. When that happens, we have accomplished our goal. We just finished our first video that does just that.

Social media will never go away. It is here to stay, and everyone has a future with social media whether we go looking for it or not. I personally did not want to get a Twitter account because it seemed like a crazy fad that would soon die out and it seemed annoying to me. When I started this job I started one up, and I have already learned things I never would have dreamed of because I never would have gone looking for it, but there it was, just being handed to me. That is the power of social media. It is all there for the taking, we just have to be giving the information for people to take.

Kristie Harms
Junior at the University of Missouri
ICGA/ICMB Summer Intern


In response to our Top Ten Enemies of Ethanol post where we reported that Ed Wallace, Robert Rapier, and Mark Perry were among the biggest enemies of ethanol, folks commented against ethanol by the dozens. I can only assume the new readers were driven by the link offered us by Inside Automotive, but all the comments did for me was make me question the American spirit that used to pervade our country and now seems markedly absent.

The news this week is peppered with stories about Thailand’s increasing use of ethanol. In fact, Ford, an American company, wants to become “Thailand’s foremost leader in ethanol technology.” This article mentions that 300,000 E20-compatible vehicles have been sold in Thailand since their introduction in 2006.

In similar fashion, Keith Good made mention in his news summary on Tuesday that “as for performance and durability, Brazilian engineers say local cars that run on E20-E25 gasoline are in no way inferior to their North American counterparts.” This is a direct quote from the Reuter’s article on the US EPA’s delay to approve e15 in the US.

The two articles collectively made me think. If a developed country and an underdeveloped country can pull together and find resources to make domestic, renewable fuels work, why can’t we?

The US used to be a world leader and our entrepreneurship, innovation, and vision were celebrated worldwide. Are we now so dependent on foreign oil that our addiction is clouding the view and inhibiting the exact things that made the US great?

Is the oil addiction so heavy that we are unwilling or unable to change?

I can tell you; it’s not that we’re unable to change. We are changing. US foreign oil imports have gone from 40% to over 60% in the last two decades. Now, the EPA is considering a move from e10 to e15 – a 5% change – and we somehow think that this 5% change towards domestic, renewable fuels is worse than the 20% change in the other direction? I’m not sure I call this progress.

And I’m not sure what we’re fighting. Brazilian engineers are comfortable with the changes to higher ethanol concentrations and notice no difference in performance. Our leaders who have traveled to Brazil and seen and spoken to small engine manufacturers can’t understand why it works so well there and we can’t make it work here. Where’s the battle? Brazilians have been using ethanol for years and if a large problem existed, we’d have heard about it by now.

Corn-based ethanol isn’t the only solution to our problem. But what it represents is a solution we have available now. We have corn, we have the technology to make corn-based ethanol, and we need domestic, renewable fuel.

No argument in the world changes those facts.

Rodney M. Weinzierl
ICMB, ICGA Executive Director


No, I’m not hanging out with the 80’s hair bands at the local watering hole, I’m banging my head against the wall. And it’s not a good look for me.

Yesterday it was an email, today it’s a comment on an article in the St Louis Post Dispatch, tomorrow it will be the tweet that is re-tweeted until it twitters out. And then the next day it will be the link on my news feed in facebook. What am I talking about? The never ending variations of the questions/claims that making ethanol from U.S. corn starves children in the poorest nations and converts land that would otherwise grow “food” to corn acreage.

But that’s okay, because one more question, email, tweet or status update is another opportunity to share accurate information regarding ethanol.

In short:

• Is there enough corn? Yes.

• Does making ethanol mean I won’t have corn to eat? No.

• Does growing corn for ethanol mean we won’t grow food? No.

• That’s not what other people say. I know.

There are all kinds of reasons the people will blog, write, say, tweet, youtube or status update that ethanol is bad. The corn industry is often criticized as an information provider about ethanol because we have something to gain. Um, ya, we don’t grow corn for free. But why would we cut off our nose (feeding livestock, exports to other countries, human food uses, industrial applications) to spite our face (ethanol)?

In case that reference didn’t make sense, let me say it more plainly. Does it make sense that corn farmers would forsake one or many market opportunities just to add another? No. Does it make sense that corn farmers are growing more corn using less land, chemicals, fertilizer, water, time and fuel? Yes. So does it make sense that they would continue to look for ways to use corn? Yes.

Well motivation is a two way street, folks. The naysayers have their own personal motivations and opportunities to gain. (Can you say resume padding, book deals, feature films, and speaking engagements?)

And FYI, being against something, in this case ethanol, doesn’t ordain you with some sort of “hall pass” to make claims that are irrelevant, irreverent, and irresponsible.

Here are some facts about ethanol and facts about corn. And before you go criticizing the source or calling me a liar, consider that these numbers come from the United States Department of Agriculture and their National Agricultural Statistics Service. That’s USDA NASS for short. Other numbers come from the U.S Energy Information Administration or USEIA.

Tricia Braid Terry
ICGA/ICMBA Communications Director


There’s a new movement afoot in the US and it goes something like this: if corn is bad, corn-based ethanol is worse.

We receive a publication here in the office called The Ethanol Monitor and Friday’s edition featured a front page story by Editor and Publisher Tom Waterman that named the top 10 enemies of ethanol. Some of the listed enemies are blogs and authors I wasn’t well acquainted with and I bet you aren’t either.

This further drives home the message that conversations are happening every hour of every day that agriculture isn’t a part of, so I’d encourage you to click through some of these links and educate yourself. It is raining out there after all.

GRIST is an environmental blog that hits number nine on the countdown and according to Waterman, if you enter “ethanol” in the search button, you will find more than 1,100 entries, not including comments, that are 100% negative. He also mentions that this blog carries a lot of weight with the environmental community and that they could easily be ranked higher than number nine.

Robert Rapier and his blog, R Squared Energy Blog, is ranked as the number five worst enemy of ethanol for time spent discrediting every positive development in the ethanol industry. He is a big fan of the indirect land use theory and according to Waterman is very influential. Also, he’s a former Conoco Phillips employee and is definitely a Big Oil fan.

An Honorable Mention went to Mark Perry whose blog, Carpe Diem, highlights other articles against ethanol like that of fellow Honorable Mention, Robert Bryce. Scroll down to June 10 and June 11 dates to get a flavor of the position he’s pushing.

And because I can’t link to the article or republish without author consent, I wanted to offer to you the entire Top Ten enemies of ethanol according to Tom Waterman.

#10: Business Week/Ed Wallace (Bloomberg)
#8: “Big Oil”
#7: Grocery Manufacturers Association
#6: David Pimentel
#5: Robert Rapier
#4: Tim Searchinger
#3: Wall Street Journal (editorial board)
#2: California Air Resources Board
#1: Time Magazine (Michael Grunwald)

Waterman also notes that the number one slot could have easily gone to “mainstream media” who publish uninformed articles and are too lazy to complete adequate research, but he was trying to be more specific.

To obtain a copy of this article, Ethanol’s Top 10 Enemies, email or call 732-222-5578.

Lindsay Mitchell
ICGA/ICMB Marketing Director