As the year comes to a close, news organizations large and small start posting The Most Important Stories of 2010. Being a student of history, I prefer to take a bit of a long view. Often what seems to be the biggest issue now may have very little importance a decade from now. So I would like to look back over 2010 and pick out a few events that are likely to have a significant impact down the road.

This year will be remembered as the year the government finally started getting serious about increasing ethanol use. After talking about alternative fuels for decades the EPA, rather reluctantly it seemed, approved an increase in the amount of ethanol in gasoline to 15 percent. While this move was more PR and practical because of the exceptions and limitations, nevertheless it was the beginning of real progress in moving our fuel tanks away from fossil fuels. While it will take many more years, at least the first steps have been taken down the road that will lead to the breaking of the monopoly that oil companies have on our fuel supply. In a decade from now, our vehicles will be able to run on a variety of energy sources; and, when we pull up to the pump, we as consumers will be able to chose what type and blend of fuel we want to put in our tanks.
This year will also be remembered as the year U.S. farm organizations finally started working together. Unity and mutual cooperation have never been hallmarks of agriculture, but this year several factors came together to finally force down some fences that had divided our industry. As attacks on agriculture from regulators, the media, and special interest groups increased, a call to Circle the Wagons went out from several farm leaders. The shot that was heard around the ag world came, not surprisingly, from the EPA. First they launched an unnecessary and uncalled for re-registration of Atrazine, one of the most effective and popular crop protection chemicals. Then they announced they wanted to regulate the amount of dust produced on a farming operation. This was too much for even the most independently-minded farm group. What resulted was a level of cooperation among diverse farm groups that has never been seen before. While this is only the beginning, the fact there is a beginning is encouraging for agriculture.

While farm groups were exploring their newfound friendship, farmers on the grassroots level were discovering a new found power in the social media arena. Talk about the social media has been ubiquitous for several years, yet 2010 was the year that ag folks discovered just how effective they could be in the social media. When the Austrian wine maker Yellow Tail made a contribution to HSUS, the company’s Facebook page and blog were swamped by animal agriculture supporters expressing outrage and calling for a boycott of Yellow Tail wine. This was soon all over the internet with a Facebook group, Yellow Fail, even springing into existence and amassing thousands of fans. Caught off guard, Yellow Tail soon turned tail and renounced their contribution to HSUS and promised it would not happen again.

A similar scenario occurred when the National 4-H Council allowed HSUS to conduct a seminar at a 4-H conference. The 4-H social media sites were overwhelmed with criticism and negative comments. At first defensive, top 4-H officials finally recanted. Farmers found they have a voice in the social media world that is unfiltered by the regular mass media.

Agriculture was not so successful at the ballot box. A HSUS backed puppy breeding ballot initiative was put before voters in Missouri.

An aggressive, well-organized, and well-funded campaign by agriculture convinced the majority of rural Missouri voters to vote no. But HSUS won the day by sweeping the urban vote in St. Louis and Kansas City. This will serve as a case study for how emotion always trumps facts. It will also serve as a reminder in the future that the best way to beat HSUS at the ballot box is to not have agriculture on voter referendums.

Two thousand ten will also be remembered as the year the USDA National Ag Statistics Service lost its credibility. After reporting week after week how great the crops looked and how yields and production would set records, they shocked everyone when in August they reported a drop in yields. In subsequent reports they continued to reduce the size of the crop. Farmers and traders asked how could this happen. USDA officials even went to Chicago to explain to the traders what happened. I have had several traders tell me that market will pay less attention to USDA reports in the future. Several private companies started using satellite imaging technology, which in 2010 proved to be more accurate than the government estimates. A decade from now this may be the way we estimate all our crop production.

Finally, this was the first time in more than 70 years that food safety regulations were updated. This was primarily as a result of several big food recalls. While the legislation does add more government oversight and micro-management, agriculture supported the measure as a way of reassuring consumers that our food supply is safe. In theory, the new regulations will lessen the number of recalls. If this is true, it will be milestone in efforts to improve the safety of our food supply.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Villsack has hailed the economic stimulus package as a major event that will impact the future of agriculture. He cited the billions of dollars that have been spent to bring high-speed Internet service to rural communities. While improved broadband service is a good thing for rural America, I think the real long-term impact of the stimulus package will be to increase the government debt. At some point in the future, this debt will cause a reduction in government spending which will likely cut into farm programs. Ten years from now some new technology may supplant high-speed broadband, but US taxpayers may still be in hock for paying for the out of date technology.
Next week, I will dust off the crystal ball and look ahead in to 2011.

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of Farm World. Readers with questions or comments for Gary Truitt may write to him in care of this publication.