<b>By LINDA McGURK<br>
Indiana Correspondent</b> </p><p>

COVINGTON, Ind. — Last year, the movement to introduce a new corn checkoff program in Indiana split the state’s farmers into two camps: those in favor and those against.</p><p>
Last week, supporters and skeptics of the new checkoff, which took effect July 1, 2007, gathered in Covington to discuss how to best spend the money collected. The meeting was the final of six from across the state in an effort by the Indiana Corn Growers Assoc. (ICGA) and the Indiana Corn Marketing Council (ICMC) to seek input from producers on the future of the program.</p><p>
Chris Novak, executive director of the ICGA and the Indiana Soybean Alliance, said the meetings have attracted the whole spectrum of attitudes toward the checkoff.</p><p>
“We’ve been pleased to see farmers show up who are strong supporters of the checkoff … and we’ve had some folks who’ve said they’re skeptics and want to know what we’re going to do with the money,” he said. “We may not have changed everybody’s opinion, but we’ve had a good discussion.”</p><p>
Based on a statewide corn production of 1 billion bushels per year and assuming that 20 percent of the production would be exempt from the checkoff, ICMC projects that the half-cent-per-bushel checkoff would generate $4 million per year.</p><p>
After deducting an estimated 12 percent for refunds and a mandatory 25 percent of the remainder for an E85 tax incentive that’s written into the checkoff law, ICMC projects it will have $2.55 million to spend annually.</p><p>
So far, three focus areas have topped the list of priorities: promoting ethanol use, supporting livestock production and finding new uses for corn. For example, ICMC is currently funding a major consumer awareness campaign on ethanol, featuring billboard messages, radio advertisements and a mobile marketing unit with an interactive display about renewable fuels.</p><p>
Most of the approximately 35 farmers at the Covington meeting seemed to agree that education – of the general public and policymakers, as well as mechanics and auto dealers – should remain on the front burner.</p><p>
“I think maybe we’ve been pushing E85 too hard,” said Ron Sutherland, a grain and livestock producer from Greencastle. “We’ve got to sell the public on E10, E20 and E30 first. The public is scared and the mechanics don’t know how (E85) works. I think we need to start pushing for something that’s safe for all cars.”</p><p>
Hank Bilsland, a landowner and retired farmer of Covington, proposed using checkoff dollars to support energy crops that can be converted to ethanol more efficiently than corn, such as switchgrass. “I know it’s called a corn checkoff … but I’d like to see a good bit of money go to other crops,” he said.</p><p>
“I think we need some more help with price support. It’s too low now, when everything else is going up,” said Vigo County farmer Larry Gormong.</p><p>
A longtime critic of the soybean and hog checkoffs, Gormong said he didn’t support the corn checkoff when it was introduced, but so far hasn’t filed for any refunds. “I want to give them a chance to do something positive. That’s why I’m here today, to see what they have in mind.”</p><p>
Some producers wanted to invest more checkoff dollars in research. “We need to go to the industry and get the research done. With seed money, you get things started. That’s how we got soy diesel,” said Bill Silver, a retired Warren County farmer who favors the checkoff.</p><p>
Others thought that area should mainly be handled by the big seed developers and biotech companies.</p><p>
“Research is so expensive and takes so much time,” said Ronnie Mohr, an ICMC and ICGA board member from Greenfield. “My concern is that we can spend the whole budget on research and not see results for several years.”</p><p>
In the meantime, Mohr feared some farmers may start questioning the effectiveness of the checkoff. Several producers said the ICMC needs to show them how the checkoff dollars are returned.</p><p>
“I want not only a paper that shows me where the money went, but where the return on my investment is,” said Sutherland.</p><p>
Novak responded that sometimes the return on investment is easy to quantify, but in other cases, the success of the program can be difficult to measure in dollars and cents; for example, when it comes to educational efforts.</p><p>
“All I’m saying is, if you’re having a hard time seeing how the money is being returned, don’t expect me to see it,” said Sutherland.</p><p>
Novak said ICMC will summarize the concerns and priorities that producers voiced during the meetings and develop a strategic plan based on the feedback.</p><p>
“We will develop a program that will make a difference to corn farmers today and in the future,” he said.