Census of 

Agriculture 

AC82-SS-2 

Volume 2 

SUBJECT SERIES 

Part 2 

Coverage Evaluation 

CD 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS 
The publications 

from the 1982 Economic and 

Agriculture Censuses are dedicated 

to the memory of Shirley Kallek, 

Associate Director for Economic Fields. 

During her career at the Bureau of the 

Census 0955 to 1983), she continually 

directed efforts to improve 

the timeliness and accuracy of 

economic statistics. 

J 
Census of 

AgriclMure 

AC82-SS-2 

Volume 2 

SUBJECT SERIES 

Part 2 

Coverage Evaluation 

Issued April 1985 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary 

Clarence J. Brown, Deputy Secretary 

Sidney Jones, Under Secretary for 

Economic Affairs 

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS 

John G. Keane, 

Director 
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS 

John G. Keane, Director 

C.L. Kincannon, Deputy Director 

Charles A. Waite, Associate Director 

for Economic Fields 

John H. Berry. Assistant Director for 

Economic and Agriculture Censuses 

AGRICULTURE DIVISION 

Charles P. Pautler, Jr., Chief 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS-Many persons contributed to the coverage 

evaluation program for the 1982 Census of Agriculture. First and 

foremost are the many farm and ranch operators, members of their 

families, and employees who fu!nished the information. Only through 

their cooperation was it possible to collect and publish the data in this 

report. This program was part of the Census Bureau's overall program 

of evaluation for the 1982 Economic and Agriculture Censuses. It was 

coordinated by the 1982 Censuses Evaluation and Research Task Force 

headed by Kirk Wolter, Chief, Statistical Research Division. 

Important contributions were made by many individuals from the 

following divisions: Administrative Services-forms design; Data 

Preparation-data keying, survey materials distribution, and map preparation; Field-data collection and followup; and Publication Servicespublication planning and design, editorial review, composition, and 

printing procurement. 

Primary direction was by Shirley Ka"ek, Associate Director for 

Economic Fields (to May 1983) and Charles A. Waite, her successor, 

and Michael G. Farre", Assistant Director for Economic and Agriculture 

Censuses (to August 1984), and John H. Berry, his successor. Technical 

direction and guidance were provided by Barbara A. Bailar, Associate 

Director for Statistical Standards and Methodology. 

This program was developed in the Agriculture Division under the direction of John H. Berry, Chief (to August 1984) and Charles P. Pautler, Jr., 

Chief, his successor. 

The overall program was supervised by D. Dean Prochaska, Chief, Program Research and Development Branch. Significant technical and administrative contributions were made by Jane Dea Sandusky, William 

C. Davie, and Emily Burton. Sample design and estimation were provided 

by David D. Chapman and Nicholas S. Alberti, Agriculture Division, and 

David W. Chapman and Carma Hogue, Statistical Research Division. 

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data 

(Revised for volume 2) 

Main entry under title: 

1982 census of agriculture. 

Includes indexes. 

Supt. of Docs. no. C 3.31/4:982/v.2/pt.1 

1. Agricultural-United States-Statistics. 

I. United States. Bureau of the Census. 

HD 1769.A 14 1984 338.1 '0973 83-600308 

For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. 

If you have any questions concerning the statistics in this report, call (301) 763-5230. 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV 

General Explanation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V 

MAP-Regions of the United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. XV 

CHARTS 

1 . Estimate of Census Farm Coverage by Coverage Component and Region. . . . .. XVI 

2. Estimate of Net Census Farm Coverage by Value of Sales and Region. . . . . . .. XVI 

TABLES 

1. Farms by Selected Characteristics and Components of Coverage. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

2. Selected Items for Estimated Undercounted Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

3. Land in Farms by Sales Group and Components of Coverage .............. 6 

4. Value of Agricultural Products Sold by Sales Group and Components 

or Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

APPENDIXES 

A. Report Form and Listing Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A-1 

B. References.................................................... B-1 

Publication Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside back cover 

AGRICULTURE-SUBJECT SERIES CONTENTS III 
INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE OF COVERAGE EVALUATION ......... . . . . . . .. IV 

CENSUS AUTHORITY . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. IV 

FARM DEFINITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. IV 

PURPOSE OF COVERAGE EVALUATION 

The Bureau of the Census seeks to measure the accuracy and completeness of farm counts and selected 

data items for each census of agriculture through a 

coverage evaluation program. This program provides an 

independent check on the census results. Also, the program aids in identifying problem areas associated with 

coverage errors as a basis for improving the census mail 

list, data collection, and data processing. The results from 

this program are an important means of informing the 

users of any known deficiencies which might affect their 

interpretation and use of the data. 

CENSUS AUTHORITY 

The census of agriculture is required by law under title 

13, United States Code, sections 142(a) and 191, which 

IV INTRODUCTION 

directs that the census be taken for 1978, 1982, and 

every fifth year thereafter. 

FARM DEFINITION 

Since 1850, when minimum criteria defining a farm for 

census purposes were first established, the farm definition has been changed nine times. The current definition 

first used for the 1974 final reports, is any place fro~ which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were sold 

or normally would have been sold during the census year. 

The previous definition was any place with less than 10 

acres from which $250 or more of agricultural products 

were sold or normally would have been sold during the 

census year, or any place of 10 acres or more from which 

$ 50 or more of agricultural products were sold or normally 

would have been sold during the census year. A place not 

having sufficient sales to qualify as a farm can qualify on 

potential sales based on the inventory and production of 

crops and/or livestock. 

AGRICULTURE-SUBJECT SERIES 
GENERAL EXPLANATION 

1982 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V 

1982 COVERAGE EVALUATION PROGRAM .............. VI 

RESULTS........................................ X 

1982 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE 

A brief summary is provided below as an introduction 

to the census. A more detailed description of the procedures is in volume 1, appendix A. 

History 

The 1 982 Census of Agriculture was the 22d nationwide agriculture census conducted in the United States. 

The first agriculture census was taken in 1840 as part of 

the sixth decennial census of population. From 1840 to 

1920 an agriculture census was taken every 10 years. 

Beginning in 1925, the census of agriculture was conducted every 5 years. In 1976, Congress authorized the 

census of agriculture to be taken for 1978 and 1982 and 

every 5 years thereafter to coincide with the economic 

censuses. This change in reference years provided for joint 

processing operations and more data comparability among 

the various censuses. 

Data Collection 

Before 1969, the census of agriculture was based on 

a canvass of rural areas by enumerators and personal interviews of farm operators. Beginning with 1969, censuses have been conducted primarily by mail. The 1978 

census was the only census to include a personal interview of all households in a sample of area segments to 

supplement the mailout/mailback enumeration. The 

mailout/mailback enumeration, plus the area sample, was 

used to improve completeness of coverage for U.S., 

regional, and State level statistics. The area sample did 

not provide county estimates. Due to budget reductions, 

an area sample was not part of the 1982 Census of 

Agriculture. 

Mail List 

The mail list was comprised of all individuals, 

businesses, and organizations readily identified in a costeffective manner as being associated with agriculture. The 

preliminary census mail list was assembled from the 

records of the 1978 census; administrative records of 

various government agencies, primarily the Internal 

Revenue Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture; 

AGR!CUL TURE - SUBJECT SER!ES 

and agriculture-related organizations. Lists of large and 

specialized operations were obtained from trade associations and various State and Federal agencies. The total 

number of records from all sources on the preliminary list 

was about 19.0 million. 

Because a name and address could appear on more than 

one source list, a record linkage process was used to 

remove duplicates from the preliminary list. Records on 

the preliminary list not likely to be farms were included 

in the 1982 Farm and Ranch Identification Survey. These 

records appeared on one source list or selected combinations of lists which had yielded a low percentage of farm 

operators in the 1978 census. These addresses were 

mailed a short screening report form to identify their current status. As a result of the Farm and Ranch Survey, 

addresses with no agricultural operations were excluded 

and new tenants and successors were added. The final 

list contained approximately 3.7 million names and 

addresses. 

Report Form 

The report form contained questions about land ownership, land use, crops, livestock and poultry, market value 

of agricultural products sold, expenses, and operator 

characteristics. Regional versions of the report form, 

listing crops and livestock commonly produced in each 

region, were used. This enhanced the reporting of crop 

and livestock data and reduced respondent burden. 

Mailing and Followup 

Report forms were mailed in late December 1982. 

Nonrespondents were sent a reminder card and five 

followup requests at 3- to 4-week intervals. Additional 

mailings and telephone calls were made in low response 

areas. Telephone calls were made to all nonrespondents 

who were expected to have large operations (those with 

expected sales of $100,000 or more). The data collection effort achieved a final response rate of about 86 percent. The final nonrespondent farms were represented in 

the census by a nonresponse adjustment procedure and 

results are subject to sampling variability. A description 

of the nonresponse adjustment procedure is included in 

volume 1, appendix A, Statistical Adjustments. 

Data Processing 

Report forms with attached correspondence, remarks, 

or missing data were reviewed prior to keying the data 

onto magnetic tape. All report forms were then keyed and 

GEME~A!.. EXP!..AMAT!OM \j 
a detailed item-by-item computer consistency edit of the 

data was performed. Telephone calls were made to 

resolve conflicting data, verify large entries, or provide 

missing information. The data items were tabulated and 

reviewed by county to correct any remaining problems. 

1982 COVERAGE EVALUATION PROGRAM 

History 

Coverage evaluation studies have been conducted for 

each census of agriculture since 1 945. Several procedural 

modifications resulting from coverage evaluation findings 

have been introduced into various censuses. 

For the 1945 census and previous censuses, interviewers were given the farm definition and instructed to 

enumerate all places conforming to that definition. The 

1945 coverage evaluation study showed that marginal farming operations were a large proportion of the undercounted (missed) farms. In the 1950 census, to improve 

the coverage of these marginal operations, interviewers 

were instructed to enumerate all places with specified 

agricultural activities and the farm definition was applied 

during processing. 

The 1950 evaluation study found nonresident farm 

operators to be a large share of the undercounted farms. 

In the 1954 census, two new techniques were introduced 

to reduce undercoverage. 

a. Enumerators in selected counties drew the boundaries of each farm and each nonfarm tract on a township sketch. 

b. A listing book was used to record the location and 

identification of every residence and every agriculture 

operation in each enumeration district. 

A feasibility study using the 1964 evaluation sample 

was conducted prior to the 1969 Census of Agriculture. 

The study indicated that at least equal and perhaps better 

coverage could be obtained with a mailout/mailback procedure. A discussion of this study may be found in the 

1964 Coverage Evaluation publication. The mailout/ 

mailback method of data collection was first implemented 

in the 1969 census. 

Coverage evaluations for 1969 and 1974 indicated that 

the source lists acquired for data collection by mail did 

not provide adequate coverage of small farms with sales 

of agricultural products of less than $2,500. In 1969 and 

1974,33 percent (± 1.3)1 and 27 percent (± 1.2), respectively, of all small farms were undercounted at the U.S. 

level. To reduce the sizable undercount of small farms, 

the 1978 census was supplemented by the Census of 

Agriculture Area Sample (CAAS). This supplemental 

survey reduced the undercount of small farms to about 

7 percent (± 1.5) at the U.S. level. 

'Numbers in parenthesises are estimated standard errors. See Accuracy 

of the Estimates. 

VI GENERAL EXPLANATION 

Objectives 

Although the goal of each census is to count all farms, 

it cannot realistically be attained. Complexity of farm 

organizational arrangements, continuing changes in operational status, inadequacies of source lists, difficulty in 

communicating census definitions and concepts, and 

other factors can contribute to census error and incompleteness. 

The 1982 Coverage Evaluation program was designed 

to provide estimates of various aspects of census 

coverage at the U.S. and regional levels. The objectives 

were: 

a. To provide measures of accuracy of census farm 

counts by a limited number of items, such as land 

in farms, value of agricultural products sold, and 

operator characteristics. 

b. To provide selected undercount estimates of land, 

value of sales, and major crop and livestock data on 

undercounted farms. 

Sample Design and Methodology 

The 1982 Coverage Evaluation program consisted of 

two parts-Area Segment Survey and Classification Error 

Study. 

Area Segment Survey-This survey was designed to 

measure the number and characteristics of farms operated 

by persons living in rural areas (areas with a population 

of less than 2,500 inhabitants in the 1970 Census of 

Population and Housing) who were not on the census mail 

list. 

Due to budget restraints, no survey was done to 

measure the urban farms not on the mail list for the 1 982 

Coverage Evaluation program. However, the coverage 

error model presented in Estimation Procedure includes 

an estimate of the portion of urban farms not on the mail 

list. The 1 978 Coverage Evaluation program found that 

less than 1 percent of all farms were urban farms not on 

the mail list. (See appendix B.) Therefore, the lack of a 

direct measurement for this portion of urban farms probably has little effect on the estimates in the coverage 

evaluation. 

This survey was based on a sample of 344 land area 

segments. A segment is an area of land with boundaries 

identifiable on a map and on the ground. Because of the 

time requirements and the high costs of mapping land area 

segments, a subsample of 344 segments was selected 

from the 6.400 segments used in the 1978 Census of 

Agriculture Area Sample (CAAS). 

The CAAS was designed to supplement the 1978 census mail list by providing State-level data for farms that 

were not included on the mail list. The sample frame for 

the CAAS was constructed using maps and data from the 

1970 Census of Population and Housing. The sample 

frame consisted of rural areas with a population of less 

than 2,500 inhabitants. The CAAS was a stratified oneAGRICULTURE-SUBJECT SERIES 
stage cluster sample with stratification by State and by 

farm density ratio (the ratio of farm households to total 

households). Approximately 6,400 segments were 

selected systematically across the United States, excluding Alaska and Hawaii. The sample was allocated to 

the strata in a way that approximated an optimum allocation. The segments were selected with uniform probabilities within each stratum, however, the sampling rates 

varied substantially between strata. The average number 

of farms per segment was 10 and varied by stratum from 

none in low density farm areas to 12 in high density farm 

areas. 

In the 1982 Area Segment Survey, the 6,400 segments 

used in the 1978 CAAS were stratified by geographic 

region: Northeast, Midwest (formerly North Centrall, 

South, and West; and number of farms identified in CAAS 

as not on the mail list: 0, 1, 2 or 3, and 4 or more. Once 

ordered within the 16 strata by farm density ratio and segment number, a measure of size based on the 1978 CAAS 

weights was assigned to each segment in a stratum. A 

sample of specified size was then selected systematically 

from each stratum with probabilities proportional to the 

measures of size. Measures of size were used in the selection procedure to provide a sample for the 1982 Area Segment Survey in which each segment in each of the 16 

strata had approximately the same overall selection probability. The measures of size provided an adjustment for 

the variation of the 1978 segment selection probabilities 

within each of the 16 strata. 

In designing the sample, consideration was given to 

cost, precision, the importance of regional estimates, and 

availability of maps. The sample of 344 area segments 

was chosen to provide an absolute standard error of 

approximately 2.0 percent for the estimated proportion 

of farms not on the mail list at the regional level. Strata 

sample sizes within each region were based on an approximate optimum allocation of the sample, with the constraint that at least two segments be allocated to each 

stratum. The segments used in the 1982 sample were the 

segments adjacent to each selected CAAS segment. Adjacent segments were selected to avoid potential bias from 

the previous census enumeration. The selection probability of a 1982 sample segment was equal to the selection probability of the adjacent CAAS segment. The overall 

selection probability for each segment chosen for the 

1982 Area Segment Survey was the product of two 

factors: (a) the selection probability for the 1978 CAAS, 

and (b) the conditional probability of selection for the 1 982 

Area Segment Survey. The final weight assigned to each 

segment selected was the inverse of the overall selection 

probability. 

The data collection procedures were uniform across all 

segments with extensive emphasis on completeness and 

accuracy. Experienced enumerators were selected and 

trained under the supervision of the Census Field Division 

regional offices. Beginning in February 1983, enumerators 

visited each household in the segment, and listed the 

AGRICULTURE-SUBJECT SERIES 

name and address of the reference person (usually the 

owner or renter) for each household. The enumerators 

asked the reference person screening questions to determine if any person in the household was associated with 

any agricultural operations in 1982. A farm was included 

in a segment if the farm operator lived inside the segment 

boundaries. A responsible person was asked the questions 

if the reference person was not available for interviewing. 

For those households having agriculture activity, an 

evaluation report form (see appendix A) was completed 

for each agriculture operation in the household. This form 

was an abbreviated version of the census report form. It 

contained questions about alternate farm names and addresses used for the operation, farm size, crops, livestock, 

and various operator characteristics. If a household could 

not be contacted by an enumerator, attempts were made 

by telephone and mail to complete the evaluation report 

form. Enumeration was completed by May 1983, and all 

evaluation report forms were returned to the Washington, 

D.C. office for processing. 

Classification Error Study-This study was designed to 

measure the number and characteristics of farms on the 

census mail list, but overcounted or misclassified as nonfarms. Since the census mail list included farms operated 

by persons residing in both urban and rural areas, the 

Classification Error Study measured error for farms in both 

urban and rural areas. 

Classification error contributes to coverage error in the 

census of agriculture. Coverage evaluation results from 

recent censuses have shown that about 3 to 5 percent 

of all farms on the mail list were misclassified as nonfarms. 

Another 1 to 2 percent were nonfarms incorrectly 

classified as farms or farms with more than one report in 

the census and were, therefore, overcounted. Classification error may result from misinterpretation of census 

definitions and instructions, incomplete reporting by 

respondents, and errors in census processing. 

The sample for the Classification Error Study was a 

multistage sample selected from the census mail list of 

3.7 million names and addresses. Addresses in Alaska and 

Hawaii were excluded because of limited evaluation funds. 

Also, farms with expected sales of $500,000 or more, 

institutional farms, and a small number of complex organizational units were excluded because all such farm operations received extensive census mail followup, telephone 

followup, and report form review to ensure the accuracy 

and completeness of their data. The first stage was the 

selection of a systematic sample of about 4,700 names 

and addresses from the census mail list with a sampling 

rate that varied by census geographic region: 1 in 1 87 in 

the Northeast, 1 in 1,250 in the Midwest and South, and 

1 in 375 in the West. These rates resulted in a sample 

with approximately equal numbers of names and addresses from each region. With consideration for cost and 

precision, this sample was of sufficient size for acceptable 

regional estimates of classification error. 

GENERAL EXPLANATION VII 
The census report forms mailed to the 4,700 sample 

addresses were identified with a special identification 

symbol on the report form name and address label. The 

symbol was used only to separate the sample report forms 

for photocopying after they were returned. The 

respondents and processing staff were unaware of the 

special symbol. After photocopying, the forms were 

returned to regular processing. The photocopies of the 

sample report forms were reviewed and classified into four 

groups: 2,700 farms, 1,400 nonfarms, 500 nonrespondents, and 100 postmaster returns (PMR's) undeliverable by the post office. 

The second selection stage consisted of all nonfarm 

cases, all PMR's, and a 1 in 2 subsample of the farm 

cases. The sampled farm cases were matched to the census mail list for selection of all potential duplicates for 

reenumeration since these cases were more likely to be 

overcounted. Nonduplicated farm cases were systematically subsampled with rates varying by census geographic region: 1 in 5 in the Northeast, Midwest, and 

South; and 1 in 7 in the West. These rates provided a level 

of accuracy comparable to the Area Segment Survey. The 

potential duplicates and the subsample of nonduplicates 

resulted in about 300 farm cases chosen for reenumeration. 

Data for the Classification Error Study were collected 

primarily by telephone interviews. For the telephone 

reenumeration, experienced Census Bureau personnel 

conducted intense interviews using the evaluation report 

form. If a household could not be contacted by telephone 

or if a telephone number could not be obtained, attempts 

were made to obtain the information by mail. 

The evaluation report forms were compared to the census report forms to identify errors. The types of census 

errors identified were: (a) farms misclassified as nonfarms; 

(b) farms that were PMR's in the census (not classified 

in the census); (c) nonfarms incorrectly classified as farms; 

and (d) more than one report form for the same farm, 

where: (a) and (b) were misclassified farms and (c) and 

(d) were overcounted farms. 

Because the nonresponse adjustment procedure in the 

census does not uniquely relate values to individual 

nonrespondent addresses, the Classification Error Study 

could not be used to measure error in classification of 

nonrespondents. No further investigation was done for the 

500 census nonrespondents in the study. 

Processing 

The principal processing steps for both the Area Segment Survey and the Classification Error Study were 

similar. For both studies, the evaluation report forms were 

reviewed and classified as farm or nonfarm according to 

the farm definition. Forms that could not be classified as 

farm or nonfarm were considered to be unclassified cases. 

(See Nonsampling Error.) 

VIII GENERAL EXPLANATION 

The classified evaluation report forms were then 

matched to the census mail list using information obtained 

from the interviews, in particular, alternate names and/or 

addresses. Area segment farms identified as farms on the 

census mail list were classified as matched farms; nonmatched area segment farms were classified as farms not 

on the mail list. Misclassified and overcounted farms were 

measured by the Classification Error Study. 

Following the matching, a final review was completed. 

Coverage classification codes were assigned for types of 

census errors. The data were then keyed, edited, reviewed 

for accuracy and consistency, and tabulated providing 

sample estimates and variances for publication. 

Estimation Procedure 

The coverage evaluation provides an estimate of the 

undercount and the overcount. The undercount component is available for farm counts and totals of various farm 

characteristics, and the overcount component is available 

only for farm counts. Any total (T) for some characteristic 

of all farms in the United States can be represented as 

the census published number (C) for that characteristic 

plus the undercount (U) for that characteristic minus the 

overcount (OV) for that characteristic; i.e.: 

Equation 1: 

T = C + U - ov 

The undercount (U) can be split into a component consisting of farms not on the census mail list (NML) and a 

component consisting of farms on the census mail list that 

were misclassified as nonfarms (MCF), substituting into 

equation (1): 

Equation 2: 

T = C + NML + MCF - OV A 

The estimates of the overcount (OV) and of totals of 

characteristics for farms...,2n the census mail list misclassified as nonfarms (MCF) are unbiased sample estimates from the Classification Error Study. An estimation 

procedure for farms not on the mail list was chosen that 

would account for the absence of coverage measures of 

urban farms not on the mail list. This procedure assumes 

that urban farms and rural farms not on the mail list have 

similar characteristics, an assumption supported by information from the 1978 Coverage Evaluation program. 

The estimation pr'.>cedure for farms not on the mail list 

is based on a coverage error model that has the following 

assumptions: a) both the census (List A), which is observable, and the universe of the Area Segment Survey (List 

B), which is not observable, attempt to accurately 

enumerate the complete universe of farms and that farms 

reported on either list are true farms; b) the event of being 

missed by the census is independent of being missed in 

the survey; and c) the probability of being missed by either 

the census or the survey is the same for all farms within 

a given size category. Since both lists may be incomplete, 

each farm in the universe can be placed into one of the 

cells in the following matrix. 

AGRICULTURE-SUBJECT SERIES 
Area Segment Survey farms (List B) 

Census farms (List A) 

In the Out of the 

survey universe survey universe 

On the mail list Nll N12 

Not on the mail list N21 N22 

N 11 = the number of farms on the mail list and in the 

Area Segment Survey universe. 

N 12 = the number of farms on the mail list but not in 

the Area Segment Survey universe. 

N21 = the number of farms not on the mail list but in 

the Area Segment Survey universe. 

N22 = the number of farms not on the mail list and not 

in the Area Segment Survey universe. 

Nc = N11 + N12, (the number of farms on the mail 

list, i.e., the census total farm count). 

The estimate of N12 is: 

Equation 3: 

A A 

N 12= Nc - N 11, 

and the estimate of N22 is: 

Equation 4: A A A 

N22 = N21 N12 

A A 

where N11 and N21 are design based estimates resulting 

from the match of Area Segment Survey sample farms 

to farms in the census. The properties of this estimate and 

its derivation are discussed by Wolter, (1983). (See 

appendix B.) 

The estimate of the total number of farms not on the 

A A 

mail list is N21 + N22. The component of the undercount 

of some characteristic for farms not on the census mail 

list (NML) is estimated by: 

Equation 5: ~ A 1\ A A 

NML = (N21 + N22) (S/N21 ) 

1\ A = S (Nc/Nll) 

/'0.. 

where NML is the estimate of some characteristic of farms A 

not on the mail list and S is the unbiased sample estimate 

of the total of some characteristic for farms not on the 

mail list but in the Area Segment Survey universe. As an 

estimate of the total number of farms not on the census ~ A./\ ~aillist, NML becomes N21 (Nc/N11)' The estimated total 

T for some characteristic is obtained by rewriting T in 

terms of the estimated components: 

Equation 6: A A A/'.../\ 

T = C + S (Nc/N11) + MCF - OV 

AGRICULTURE-SUBJECT SERIES 

1\ /\ 

The estimates Sand N 11 were computed independently 

for farms with sales of less than $2,500 and for farms 

with sales of $2,500 or more within each region and 

summed to produce the region total. The estimates of U.S. 

totals are the sum of the regional level estimates. 

The estimates of the proportions for components of 

coverage error are of the form: 

a. Farms not on the census mail list (percent) = /'0.. 

NML (100). /\ 

T 

b. Misc"lassified farms (percent) = M13"F (100). 

1\ 

T 

1\ 

c. Undercounted farms (percent) = ~ (100). 

A 

T 

/\ 

d. Overcounted farms (percent) = OV (100). 

1\ 

T 

1\ /\ 

e. Net coverage (percent) = ~- OV (100). 

1\ 

T 

Variance Estimation 

Estimates in this evaluation study are based on independent surveys-the Area Segment Survey and the Classification Error Study. Estimates of the totals and their 

variances are the sum of estimates from these two 

separate surveys. The estimation of sampling variances 

are discussed separately for each survey. 

Area Segment Survey - As described previously in Sample 

Design and Methodology, the sample for the Area Segment Survey was a one-stage stratified cluster subsample 

of area segments selected with unequal probabilities from 

1978 CAAS sample. Each farm identified by the survey 

was weighted by the reciprocal of its probability of selection which was equal to the probability of selection of the 

segment in which it was located. Sampling errors for the 

u~biased estimates of totals for farm characteristics (i.e., 

N 11 -the estimated number of farms on the census mail 

list and in the Area Segment Survey universe, and S-the 

estimated characteristic totals of farms not on the mail 

list but in the Area Segment Survey universe) were estimated assuming unequal probability sampling with replacement. 

The sampling errors for the final survey estimate~f 

totals for characteristics of farms not on the mail list (NML) 

were estimated by using a Taylor series expansion to .-. approximate the nonlinear estimator NML by a linear func- A 1\ 

tion of N11 and S, the variances of these component 

estimates, and the covariance between these component 

estimates. Regional variances for estimated totals are the 

sum of variances for strata within each region. The U.S. 

level variances are the sum of regional variances. 

GENERAL EXPLANATION IX 
Classification Error Study - As indicated in the description 

of the sample selection for the Classification Error Study, 

there are two stages of sample selection. All cases 

selected at the first stage were divided into two groups 

based on preliminary census mail return status: a). nonfarms and PMR's, and b) farms. All cases in the first group 

were selected for reenumeration and a subsample of cases 

in the second group was selected for reenumeration. 

Because census returns were edited after these two 

groups were formed, the status of some returns in both 

groups changed. Thus both undercounted and overcounted farms were counted in each of the two groups. 

Each case in both groups was weighted by the reciprocal of their probability of selection. Estimates of 

classification error are the sum of separate estimates for 

each of the two groups. Variances within each group were 

estimated assuming a simple random sample was chosen. 

Sampling errors of estimated undercount due to misclassification and overcount are the sum of the estimated 

variances for estimates within each group plus the estimated covariances between these separate group 

estimates. 

RESULTS 

Estimates of Census Coverage 

Estimates of census coverage were made only at 

regional and national levels since evaluation samples were 

too small to provide reliable estimates at State or county 

levels. Estimates are based on a combination of the Area 

Segment Survey and Classification Error Study samples. 

The estimates produced in the coverage evaluation program should be considered relative to the census 

economic data as well as the farm count. Estimates of 

the total number of undercounted farms or the proportion 

of undercounted farms alone are not a complete indication of the quality of the census data. Consideration of 

economic characteristics along with the farm counts may 

be a better indication of census quality and may have a 

greater impact on the user's needs. For example, while 

the estimated net undercounted farm rate was 9.1 percent for the United States, the undercounted farms accounted for only 1.8 percent (±0.5) of the estimated 

value of agricultural products sold and only 2.1 percent 

( ± 0.3) of the estimated land in farms. 

Regional estimates are presented in tables 1 through 4 

to provide some indication of census coverage below the 

national level. Because of the relatively high sampling 

error, especially in the overcount component, caution 

should be observed when drawing conclusions based 

upon comparisons of regional estimates within and between tables. In addition, coverage for States or counties within a region may be highly variable. 

Table 1 presents the number of farms by sales group, 

standard industrial classification, size in acres, and 

operator characteristics by components of coverage. 

X GENERAL EXPLANATION 

Farms are classified as census farms, undercounted, and 

overcounted farms. Overcounted farms are part of the 

farms in the census. Table A presents selected U.S. values 

from table 1 as a percent of estimated totals. 

Estimates of net census coverage indicate that 90.9 

percent of the estimated total farms were in the 1 982 census for the conterminous United States. Approximately 

13.7 percent of estimated total farms were undercounted 

and approximately 4.6 percent were overcounted resulting 

in a net undercounted rate of about 9.1 percent for data 

at the U.S. level. The gross undercounted rate was 17.6 

percent (±0.5) in 1969, 12.7 percent (±0.4) in 1974, 

and 4.4 percent (± 0.5) in 1978. The considerable 

improvement for the gross undercount rate in 1978 

resulted primarily from the inclusion of the area sample. 

Because no area sample was conducted in 1982, the 

gross undercount rate increased substantially. For comparisons of 1982 data with data from previous censuses, 

see Clark, (1984). (See appendix B.) 

An estimated 71.4 percent of farms with value of 

agricultural products sold of less than $2,500 were in the 

census. About 35.4 percent ( ± 2.7) of these farms were 

undercounted and 6.8 percent (± 2.8) were overcounted. 

The gross undercounted farm rate for this group was 33.3 

percent (±1.3) in 1969, 27.3 percent (±1.2) in 1974, 

and 7.1 percent (±1.5) in 1978. 

For farms with value of agricultural products sold of 

$2,500 or more, 99.5 percent were in the census. This 

group was derived from table 1 by combining the $2,500 

to $9,999 and $10,000 or more sales groups. About 4.2 

percent (± 0.7) of the $2,500 or more sales group were 

undercounted and 3.7 percent ( ± 1 .4) were overcounted. 

The undercounted farm rate for this group was 6.5 percent (±0.4) in 1969,6.8 percent (±0.3) in 1974, and 

3.6 percent ( ± 0.2) in 1978. Larger farms were more likely 

to be included in census source lists, and received more 

intensive followup and processing to ensure that they 

were included. 

Census coverage in the Midwest Region was substantially more complete for all farms than in the Northeast, 

South, and West. This is due primarily to the higher proportion of larger farms in the Midwest which are more 

likely to be included on the sources for the mail list. 

The estimated number of overcounted farms was 

113,623 or 4.6 percent. About four out of five overcounted cases were nonfarms incorrectly classified as 

farms. The remainder were farms with more than one census report (reports duplicated for a single farm or multiple 

reports for parts of a single farm). 

The estimated number of undercounted farms was 

336,498 or 13.7 percent. About 3 of 4 undercounted 

farms were not on the mail list. The remainder were farms 

misclassified as nonfarms. While about 21 percent of the 

undercounted farms had value of agricultural products 

sold of $2,500 or more, only about 5 percent were larger 

farms with sales of $40,000 or more. Of the undercounted farms, about 83 percent had less than 100 acres, 

AGRICULTURE-SUBJECT SERIES 
Table A. Coverage Percents by Selected Characteristics and Components of Coverage 

Characteristics 

Total ..................... . 

Farms by value of sales: 

Less than $2,500 ............................. . 

$2,500 or more ................... . 

$2,500 to $9,999 ............ . 

$10,000 or more .............. . 

Farms by standard industrial classification: 

Crops (01) ....................... . 

Livestock (02) .................... . 

Farms by size: 

1 to 99 acres .................................. . 

100 to 499 acres ...................... . 

500 acres or more ................. . 

Farms by tenure of operator: 

Full owners ..................................... . 

Part owners ................................... . 

Tenants .................................. . 

Farms by age of operator: 

Under 35 years ............................ . 

35 to 54 years ................................... . 

55 years and over ................................ . 

Farms by principal occupation of operator: 

Farming ........................................ . 

Other .......................................... . 

'Referred to as missed farms in previous evaluation reports. 

2Undercounted farms minus overcounted farms. 

3Relative standard error is over 100 percent. 

and about 3 percent had 500 acres or more. Of the undercounted farms, about 72 percent were operated by full 

owners, about 16 percent by part owners, and about 1 2 

percent by tenants. About 3 of 4 undercounted farms 

were livestock farms and 1 of 4 were crop farms. 

The estimated relative standard error for the estimated 

total farms in the United States is 1.8 percent, and ranges 

from 2.7 percent to 3.7 percent in the regions. See Example 1 in Accuracy of the Estimates. The estimated 

relative standard error for the number of undercounted 

farms is 9.4 percent at the U.S. level and ranges from 12.9 

percent to 29.4 percent in the regions. 

Table 2 presents estimates of selected characteristics 

of farms not on the mail list and misclassified farms. Also, 

the estimated total undercount and their relative standard 

errors for these characteristics are given. These estimates 

do not represent total error in the census for these 

characteristics because detailed data for overcounted 

farms could not be derived from the coverage evaluation 

AGRICULTURE-SUBJECT SERIES 

Estimated Estimated Estimated net undercounted overcounted 

farms' farms undercount> 

Relative Relative Relative 

standard standard standard 

error error error 

Percent (percent) Percent (percent) Percent (percent) 

13.7 8.2 4.6 27.1 9.1 17.7 

35.4 7.5 6.8 40.6 28.6 11.6 

4.2 17.1 3.7 37.0 0.5 (3) 

5.9 17.2 5.3 48.4 0.6 (3) 

3.4 28.4 2.9 55.6 0.5 (3) 

7.0 12.4 6.9 38.3 0.1 (3) 

18.5 9.2 3.0 35.9 15.5 12.6 

23.7 8.4 6.3 33.3 17.4 15.3 

5.2 15.0 4.0 52.1 1.2 (3) 

2.4 41.1 0.8 63.4 1.6 68.3 

16.6 10.0 7.7 28.4 8.9 28.9 

7.7 15.2 0.2 80.6 7.5 15.9 

13.6 14.6 0.1 (3) 13.5 14.6 

16.2 20.2 1.6 50.0 14.6 23.4 

15.1 10.0 3.7 48.9 11.4 19.0 

11. 1 14.3 7.0 36.2 4.1 68.1 

7.3 16.8 1.6 26.3 5.7 22.8 

20.9 8.7 8.1 33.8 12.8 22.8 

sample and reporting error on correctly counted farms was 

not measured. 

The estimated number of farms not on the mail list was 

259,944 and the estimated number misclassified was 

76,554 for an estimated total of 336,498 undercounted 

farms. The estimated undercounted acres were approximately 20.4 million with the average size undercounted 

farm having 60 acres compared to 440 acres for the 

average census farm. 

Table B presents estimates of total undercount for 

selected crop and livestock items from table 2 and ratios 

of estimated undercount to estimated total by item. The 

estimated total does not include an estimate of overcounted farms. While the estimates of undercount probably understate the total error, the undercounted farm 

estimates for these items are likely to contribute substantially more to total error than other components such as 

overreporting and underreporting of specific detailed data 

for farms in the census. 

GENERAL EXPLANATION XI 
Table B. Selected Items for Census Farms and Undercounted Farms 

Item 

Corn for grain ................................ farms .. 

acres .. 

Sorghum for grain ............................. farms .. 

acres .. 

Wheat ...................................... farms .. 

acres .. 

Soybeans ................................... farms .. 

acres .. 

Hay ........................................ farms .. 

acres .. 

Tobacco ................................... . farms .. 

acres .. 

Cattle and calves inventory ...................... farms .. 

number. . 

Hogs and pigs inventory ......................... farms .. 

number .. 

Hens and pullets inventory ....................... farms .. 

number. . 

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 

'Census published farms plus estimated undercounted farms. 

2Referred to as missed farms in previous evaluation reports. 

3No coverage error observed. 

Table 3 presents estimates of the land in farms by sales 

group and by components of undercoverage. The 

estimated total land in farms was derived as the sum of 

the census published acres and the coverage estimate of 

undercounted acres. On this basis, it was estimated that 

97.9 percent of the land in farms in the United States was 

in the census, with an estimated relative standard error 

of 0.3 percent. Undercounted farms accounted for 1.0 

percent of the estimated total acres for farms with sales 

of $2,500 or more, and 20.8 percent for farms with sales 

of less than $2,500. The estimates for land in farms were 

based only on sample estimates for undercounted farms 

and do not represent total error, because reporting error 

was not measured for either farms in the census or overcounted farms. 

Table 4 presents the estimates for the value of 

agricultural products sold by sales group and by components of undercoverage. The estimated total value of 

agricultural products sold was derived as the sum of the 

census published value and the coverage estimate of 

undercounted value. On this basis, it was estimated that 

98.2 percent of the value of agricultural products sold in 

the United States was in the census, with an estimated 

relative standard error of 0.5 percent. Undercounted farms 

accounted for 1.7 percent of the estimated value of 

agricultural products sold for farms with sales of $2,500 

or more, and 18.0 percent for farms with sales of less than 

$2,500. The estimates for value of agricultural products 

sold were based only on sample estimates for underXII GENERAL EXPLANATION 

Ratio of 

undercounted 

farms to 

Census Estimated estimated 

Estimated published undercounted farms 

farms' farms farms 2 (percent)· 

736601 714687 21 914 3.0 

70874981 69769530 1 105451 1.6 

(3) 93,587 (3) (3) 

(') 12,665,856 (') (3) 

450,861 445,736 5,125 1.1 

71,481,200 70,864,672 616,528 0.9 

524,147 510,958 13,189 2.5 

65,706,137 64,791,074 915,063 1.4 

1,131,767 1,049,865 81,902 7.2 

58,118,684 56,506,322 1,612,362 2.8 

189,213 179,103 10,110 5.3 

945,274 931,183 14,091 1.5 

1,577,855 1,352,916 224,939 14.3 

107,268,350 103,655,183 3,613,167 3.4 

406,743 329,031 77,712 19.1 

57,616,393 55,169,987 2,446,406 4.2 

295,212 212,149 83,063 28.1 

310,488,880 308,978,702 1,510,178 0.5 

counted farms and do not represent total error, because 

reporting error was not measured for either farms in the 

census or overcounted farms. 

Accuracy of the Estimates 

Two types of errors are possible in estimates based on 

a sample-sampling and nonsampling. Also, there may be 

a statistical bias in an estimator, but generally this bias 

is small and decreases with increasing sample size. Sampling error occurs because observations are made only on 

a sample and not on the entire population. Nonsampling 

error includes all remaining error and can be attributed to 

many sources, such as inability to obtain data for all cases 

in the sample (nonrespondents, refusals, incomplete 

report forms), response error, misinterpretation of definitions and concepts, coding errors, processing problems, 

interviewer interpretation, and analyst effects. The "accuracy" of a survey result is determined by the joint effects 

of sampling and nonsampling errors. Extensive efforts 

were made to minimize coding and processing errors 

through the use of quality control and other verification 

measures. 

Sampling error-The sample used in this survey was one 

of a large number of possible samples of the same size 

that could have been selected using the same sample 

design. Estimates derived from the different samples 

would generally differ. The deviation of a sample estimate 

AGRICULTURE-SUBJECT SERIES 
from the average of all possible samples is called the 

sampling error. The standard error of a survey estimate 

is a measure of the variation among the estimates from 

all possible samples and thus is a measure of the precision with which an estimate from a particular sample 

approximates the average result of all possible samples. 

Estimates of sampling variability are expressed as 

relative standard errors in tables 1 through 4. The 

estimated relative standard error (percent) for a statistic 

is derived by dividing the estimated standard error for the 

statistic by the statistic and multiplying by 100. Estimated 

relative standard errors are high for some regional 

estimates and the data should be used with caution. 

The sample estimates and the estimates of relative 

standard errors permit the construction of interval estimates with prescribed confidence that the interval includes the average result of all possible samples. If all 

possible samples were selected, each of these surveyed 

under essentially the same conditions, and an estimate 

and its estimated relative standard error were calculated 

from each sample, then: 

a. Approximately 67 percent of the intervals from one 

standard error below the estimate to one standard 

error above the estimate would include the average 

value of all possible samples. 

b. Approximately 95 percent of the intervals from two 

standard errors below the estimate to two standard 

errors above the estimate would include the average 

value of all possible samples. 

For example, the estimated total number of farms in the 

United States in table 1 is 2,457,017 with an estimated 

standard error of 43,008 and an estimated relative standard error of approximately 1.8 percent (i.e., 43,008 

divided by 2,457,017 times 100). The chances are about 

2 out of 3 (67 percent) that complete coverage using the 

same methods would yield between 2,414,009 and 

2,500,025 farms. As calculated, the standard error does 

not measure the effect of nonsampling errors. 

The relative standard errors for the components of 

coverage error in tables 1 through 4 may also be used to 

calculate approximate standard errors of the estimated net 

coverage error (i.e., undercount minus overcount), the 

estimated universe totals, and ratios of estimated components of coverage error to the estimated universe totals. 

The standard error of the estimated net coverage error 

for each characteristic in table 1 may be estimated by the 

formula: 

Equation 7: 

~(El = /0:0,2 + ~V2 O~, /\ A /\ A 

where E is the estimated net c~verage error (U - OV), U 

is the estimated undercount, OV is the estimated over- A /\ 

count, anQ V 1 and V 2 are the estimated relative standard 

errors of 0 and OV, respectively. The standard error for A 

each estimated total (T) in table 1 is equal to the standard 

error of the estimated net coverage error. In tables 3 and 

/\ 

4 the standard error of the estimated total (T) is equal to 

the standard error of the estimated undercount since the 

overcount was not measured for the characteristics 

appearing in these two tables. 

Example 1-To compute the standard error of the net 

coverage error for the total number of farms in the 

Northeast Region, apply the formula as follows: 

/\ 

U = 36,256 A 

OV = 5,998 

/\ 

V, = .145 A 

V2 = .457 A A /\ 

E = U - OV = 30,258 

/\ /\ ~--~~~~~--~~~~~ 

a (E) = " (36,256)2 (.145)2 + (5,998)2 (.457)2 

= 5,928.8 

/\ 

The estimated relative percent standard error of E is 

equal to: 

A /\ A A 

VIE) = atE) (100) 

--,. 

E 

= :~~~:~8 (100) 

= .196 (100) 

= 19.6 percent 

The standard errors of the estimated total (as computed 

in Example 1) and the standard errors of each estimated 

coverage error component (i.e., undercount, overcount, 

or net coverage error) for each characteristic may be J\ 

used to approximate the standard error of the ratio R = A A A 

X/T, where X is the estimated coverage error component 

and ~ is the estimated total. The standard error of A can 

be approximated by the formula: 

Equation 8: 

/\/\ I~/\'-AA-A~--~/\~-/\~ 

aIR) = T 2 a2(X) (1 - 2R + R21. 

AA 

where a(X) is the estim'A.ted standard error of the 

estimated coverage error (X). 

Example 2 - To compute the standard error of the ratio 

of the estimated net coverage error for farms to the 

estimated total farms in the Northeast Region, apply the 

formula as follows: 

/\ 

U = 36,256 A 

~V = .R,998 

E = U - ffv = 30,258 A 

T = 162,101 

f! = ~/~ = .187 

~(8 = 5,928.8 (from Example 1) AA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ aIR) = V (162,101r 2 (5,928.8)2 (1-.374 + (.187)2) 

= .030 

Nonsampling error- One source of possible nonsampling 

error in the coverage evaluation was the failure to classify 

about 4 percent of the evaluation report forms. These 

unclassified cases resulted from households that could not 

be contacted after a minimum of three attempts, households that refused to be interviewed, and households that 

a!:!'.!ERA!. EXP!.A!'.!AT!O!'.! X!!! 
did not give the minimum information required for classification. If the correct classification could have been determined, the unclassified group most likely would have been 

spread throughout all coverage classification codes. If 

errors were present in the unclassified group, it is likely 

that they would be concentrated more heavily in the nifsclassified and overcounted farm components since the 

majority of the unclassified cases came from the Classification Error Study. No separate adjustment was made to 

the coverage estimates for the unclassified cases, thus 

resulting in a small downward bias in the estimates for 

XIV GENERAL EXPLANATION 

misclassified and overcounted farms and a slight downward bias for the estimated totals. 

Another source of possible nonsampling error is related 

to the nonresponse adjustment procedure. This adjustment procedure makes the assumption that the respondents and the nonrespondents have similar statistical 

properties. The nonresponse adjustment represented 

about 10 percent of the farms and about 4 percent of the 

value of agricultural products sold in the 1982 census. 

Further explanation of the nonresponse adjustment procedure may be found in volume 1, appendix A. 

AGRICULTURE-SUBJECT SERIES 
* z-l 

o i 3-;:: 

00: '" ~ ., 

~: ~ 

;;~ ",<C 

~. cr o " 

~ ! ~<I> 

=0. 

t~. ,,<C 

(I) " 

~!!i 

(S)'" 

Cl)Q. 

~ .. • <I> 

COLO. 

N. MEX 

N. OAK. 

S. OAK. 

NEBR. 

KANS. 

::0 

m 

C) 

o 

2 

t/) 

o 

." 

-i 

::t: 

m 

c: 

2 

=t 

m 

C 
Chart 1. 

Estimate of Census Farm Coverage by 

Coverage Component and Ragion 

United States Northeast 

1 rotwerly North Central. 

Chart 2. 

Estimate of Net Census Farm Coverage by 

Value 01 SaIM and Ragion 

(Net Equals Under count Minus Overcount) 

Midwest

l 

Ragion 

Lndercount not 0f1 

.. 11 Hst D LnderCQllt ~sclasslried 

OverCOlSlt 

South West 

U.S. Oepart.ent of C~ra: 

All raI'lls 

Less then $2,500 

value of selH 

$2,500 to $9,999 

Bt.REAlJ (F Tt£ CENSUS 

P~~~ ________________________________________________ Jb~S~lO~,~~~~O'~"~'~'~ ____________ ~ 45r 

40 

35 

30 

25 

28.6 

United States 

1 fOrMe rly North Central. 

Northeast 

AGRICULTURE- SUBJECT SERIES 

Midwest 

Region 

Soulh 

J1.9 

Wesl 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

BlREAU Of HE: CENSUS 

COVERAGE EVALUATION XVI 
Table 1. Farms by Selected Characteristics and Components of Coverage 

Estimated undercounted farms l Estimated overcounted 

fams 

Characteristics Relative Relative 

Census standard standard 

Estimated published error Not on error 

farms farms Number (percent) Misclassified mail list Number (percent) 

UNITED STATES 2 

Total ••.•..••.•.••.••••••.••••.•.••••..••. 2 457 017 2 234 142 336 498 9.4 76 554 259 944 113 623 25.9 

Farms by value of sales: 

Less than $2.500 •...•....•.•..•....•......•..•.• 748 964 534 606 264 982 10.9 51 119 213 863 50 624 37.8 

$2.500 to $9.999 •••.••••••••.•••••..•....••...•. 561 772 558 456 33 128 18.1 12 999 20 129 29 812 45.9 

$10.000 or more ................................. 1 146 281 1 141 080 38 388 29.3 12 436 25 952 33 187 54.0 

$10.000 to $39.999 .•..•.•.••.•...••....••.•.•. 511 283 506 688 22 345 46.0 6 687 15 658 17 750 71.7 

$40.000 or more ............................... 634 997 634 392 16042 28.4 5 749 10 293 15 437 81.7 

Fanns by standard industrial classification: 

Crops (01) .••.•.....•••.••...•..•..•......•..... 1 029 546 1 028 417 72 253 13.1 24 123 48 130 71 124 35.8 

Livestock (02) ..•.••.•.•..•..•.•••.•.....•.••.•• 1 427 471 1 205 725 264 245 11.2 52 431 211 814 42 499 34.8 

Farms by size: 

1 to 99 acres ....................................... .. 1 181 786 976 066 280 469 10.7 60 495 219 974 74 749 31.3 

100 to 499 acres .................................... 904 667 893 482 47 184 15.7 12 622 34 562 35 999 50.1 

500 acres or more.r ................................ 370 565 364 594 8 846 42.1 3 437 5 409 2 875 62.9 

Farms by tenure of operator: 

Full owners ................................. .... 1 451 490 1: 321 956 241 345 11.8 55 119 186 226 III 811 26.3 

Part owners ............................ ......... 707 976 654 917 54 684 16.5 13 185 41 499 1 625 80.4 

Tenants ........................................ . 297 551 257 269 40 469 16.9 8 250 32 219 187 100.1 

Farms by age of operator: 

Under 35 years ................................. . 415 493 355 185 67 120 24.1 10 437 56 683 6 812 49.0 

35 to 54 years .................................. 1 068 087 946 018 161 069 11.6 29 746 131 323 39 000 47.2 

55 years and over .............................. . 973 436 932 939 108 308 15.9 36 371 71 937 67 811 33.8 

Fanns by principal occupation of operator: 

Farming ............................. ............ 1 306 080 1 230 911 95 918 18.1 21 809 74 109 20 749 25.8 

Other ••.•..•....•.•....•..••..••.•..•....•.•..•. 1 150 937 1 003 231 240 580 10.5 54 745 185 835 92 874 31.2 

NORTHEAST 

TotaL ....•••.••.•.••....••.•••.•..•.••••• 162 101 131 843 36 256 14.5 3 179 33 077 5 998 45.7 

Farms by value of sales: 

Less than $2.500 •.••.••••••••••••••.••••.•..•.•• 60 287 35 812 26 724 18.4 2 244 24 480 2 249 84.2 

$2.500 to $9.999 ••.•••••••••.•.••.•..•.•••.••••• 33 330 30 626 5 516 24.3 374 5 142 2 812 68.3 

$10.000 or more ................................. 68 484 65 405 4 016 33.1 561 3 455 937 59.9 

$10.000 to $39.999 •••.•..•.••••.•..•.•..•.•..• 24 512 23 650 1 237 56.6 187 1 050 375 99.9 

$40.000 or more •.••.••.••••.••••..•.•.•••••..• 43 972 41 755 2 779 40.6 374 2 405 562 74.5 

Farms by standard industrial classification: 

Crops (01) •••.•••.•.••.•••.••.•••.•.•.•.•..•.•.. 58 461 51 531 10 679 22.1 748 9 931 3 749 53.4 

Livestock (02) ••..•.•••....••.•.....•...•.••.•.• 103 640 80 312 25 577 17.0 2 431 23 146 2 249 84.2 

Farms by size: 

1 to 99 acres •...... 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 80 071 61 666 23 279 16.2 1 870 21 409 4 874 55.5 

100 to 499 acres ................................ 73 152 61 680 12 596 23.6 1 122 11 474 1 124 40.8 

500 acres or more ......... 0 ••••••••••••••••••••• 8 879 8 497 382 70.7 187 195 ( 3) (3) 

Farms by tenure of operator: 

Full owners .......... o ••••••••••••••••••••• 0 •••• 98 186 81 941 22 056 17.2 2 244 19 812 5 811 47.1 

Part owners ............. 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••• 44 719 39 968 4 751 27.4 935 3 816 ( 3) (3) 

Tenants .......................................... . 19 196 9 934 9 449 28.3 ( 3) 9 449 187 100.1 

Farms by age of operator: 

Under 35 years ..... 0 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 28 752 19 589 9 725 21.5 187 9 538 562 74.5 

35 to 54 years .................................. 72 446 59 441 16 755 21.0 1 496 15 259 3 750 70.4 

55 years and over ......... o ••••••••••••••••••••• • 60 902 52 813 9 775 23.2 1 496 8 279 1 686 36.8 

Farms by principal occupation of operator: 

FaI'Jlling .......... 0 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 85 400 75 004 11 520 22.3 1 309 10 211 1 124 52.6 

other .•.•••...•.•.•••••••••..•.••••.••.•.••.•.•• 76 701 56 839 24 736 17.0 1 870 22 866 4 874 55.0 

See footnotes at end of table. 

1982 CENSUS OF AGR!CUL TURE COVERAGE EVAllJAT!ON 
Table 1. Farms by Selected Characteristics and Components of Coverage-Con. 

Estimated undercounted farms l Estimated overcounted 

farms 

Characteristics Relative Relative 

Census standard standard 

Estimated published error Not on error 

farms farms Number (percent) Misclassified mail list Number (percent) 

MIDWEST' 

TotaL •••••••..•.••.•.••.•..•.•.•.•••...•• 962 991 932 437 65 554 29.4 2.5 000 40 554 35 000 51.5 

Farms by value of sales: 

Less than $2.500 .•.•..••...•..•.•.•.•....•.....• 169 350 133 545 40 805 39.4 13 750 27 055 5 000 50.0 

$2.500 to $9.999 .••••.••••...•..•.•..•.••.•.•..• 175 505 186 654 6 351 44.6 5 000 1 351 17 500 73.6 

$10.000 or more .................................. 618 136 612 238 18 398 55.6 6 250 12 148 12 500 100.1 

$10.000 to $39.999 ••.•.••••.•.••.•....••.•.•.. 267 052 253 641 13 411 72.8 3 750 9 661 (3) C') 

$40.000 or more ..............................• 351 084 358 597 4 987 60.6 2 500 2 487 12 500 100.1 

Farms by standard industrial classification: 

Crops (01) •.•.•••••••••••••..••.•••..•..•.•.••.• 472 790 470 846 15 694 29.0 12 500 3 194 13 750 91.4 

Livestock (02) ••••.•.•..•••.•••••..•.•.••.•....• 490 201 461 591 49 860 37.4 12 500 37 360 21 250 61.4 

Farms by size: 

1 to 99 acres .................................. . 340 888 307 278 56 110 33.6 18 750 37 360 22 500 58.3 

100 to 499 acres ............................... . 438 603 441 659 9 444 38.2 6 250 3 194 12 500 100.1 

500 acres or more ................................ C') 183 500 (3) ( 3) C') C') ( 3) (3) 

Farms by tenure of operator: 

Full owners ........................................ 507 546 485 742 56 804 33'.4 16 250 40 554 35 000 51.5 

Part OWllers .•..............•.................... 321 949 315 699 6 250 44.7 6 250 (3) ( 3) ( 3) 

Tenants ........................................• 133 496 130 996 2 500 70.7 2 500 (3) ( 3) (3) 

Farms by age of operator: 

Under 35 years .................................• 202 848 183 426 20 672 66.8 5 000 15 672 1 250 100.0 

35 to 54 years ................................. . 403 276 388 733 29 543 39.1 11 250 18 293 15 000 85.0 

55 years and over .•............................. 356 866 360 278 15 338 34.8 8 750 6 588 18 750 68.4 

Farms by principal occupation of operator: 

Farming ........................................ . 621 057 602 873 23 184 59.6 10 000 13 184 5 000 61.2 

Other •••••.••••.•••..•••••••••.•.••.•.•..•.••.•• 341 933 329 564 42 369 30.4 15 000 27 369 30 000 59.3 

SOUTH 

Total ••••••.•.••••••••••••••••••••.•..•.•• 1 009 096 896 125 175471 12.9 - 37 500 137 971 62 500 35.9 

Farms by value of sales: 

Less than $2.500 .•.•.••••.•••••••.•..•••.••.•..• 400 934 284 645 152 539 14.4 28 750 123 789 36 250 50.0 

$2.500 to $9,999 ••..••.•••••.•.•..••••.•..•.•..• 283 904 280 813 11 841 30.8 5 000 6841 8 750 47.4 

$10.000 or more ...........•..•.................• 324 258 330 667 11 091 38.6 3 750 7 341 17 500 73.0 

$10.000 to $39.999 •.••••.•..••••.•.•..•.•..•.• 163 691 175 795 4 146 70.0 1 250 2 896 16 250 78.2 

$40.000 or more ............................... 160 568 154 872 6 946 45.2 2 500 4 446 1 250 100.2 

Farms by standard industrial classification: 

Crops (01) ••••••••.•••••••••.••••.••..•.••••.••• 355 934 378 301 30 133 22.2 7 500 22 633 52 500 42.0 

Livestock (02) ••••.•••••••••.•..•.•.••••.•..•.•• 653 162 517 824 145 338 14.5 30 000 115 338 10 000 39.5 

Fanns by size: 

1 to 99 acres .•................................ . 561 719 453 949 146 520 14.4 31 250 115 270 38 750 47.4 

100 to 499 acres ........................•.•....• 330 061 330 073 21 238 25.9 3 750 17 488 21 250 60.9 

500 acres or more ...•.•.................•....... 117 317 112 103 7 714 47.7 2 500 5 214 2 500 70.8 

Farms by tenure of operator: 

Full owners ••..........•.......................• 632 724 575 184 118 790 16.2 28 750 90 040 61 250 36.5 

Part owners .•.......•........................... 267 922 232 534 36 638 22.4 3 750 32 888 1 250 100.2 

Tenants ........................................ • 108 450 88 407 20 043 26.5 5 000 15 043 (3) ( 3) 

Farms by age of operator: 

Under 35 years ...........•..•.•....•............ 133 202 116 259 21 943 26.3 3 750 18 193 5 000 61.3 

35 to 54 years .•................................ 443 477 374 226 88 001 15.2 12 500 75 501 18 750 69.1 

55 years and over ............................... 432 416 405 640 65 526 23.8 21 250 44 276 38 750 47.0 

Farms by principal occupation of operator: 

Fanning ........................•...............• 434 736 406 883 39 103 19.8 7 500 31 603 11 250 36.8 

Other •••••.••••.••••••••.•.••.••••.•....•.•..•.• 574 360 489 242 136 368 15.1 30 000 106 368 51 250 43.0 

See footnotes at end of table. 

2 COVERAGE EVALUATION 1982 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE 
Table 1. Farms by Selected Characteristics and Components of Coverage-Con. 

Characteristics 

WEST 2 

Total ...•...•.........•.............•..•.• 

Farms by value of sales: 

Less than $2,500 ..•....•........•.......•......• 

$2,500 to $9,999 ••..•..••.•.•..•.•..•.•..•.•..•. 

$10,000 or more •••......•....•.••.......••....•• 

$10,000 to $39,999 ........................... . 

$40,000 or more .•...•.•..•.•.•..•.•..........• 

Farms by standard industrial classification: 

Crops (01) .•..•.•..•....•....•......•....•.•..•. 

Livestock (02) .••........•..•.•.........•..•.... 

Farms by size: 

1 to 99 acres ••.•....•..•......•......••.••.•••• 

100 to 499 acres ••..•.••••...••...•....•....•..• 

500 acres or more ...................... ........ . 

Farms by tenure of operator: 

Full OWIlers •.••••••.••••••••••••.•.•..•••••••••. 

Part owners .................................... . 

Tenants .•......•.........•.....................• 

Farms by age of operator: 

Under 35 years ...•.........•......•............. 

35 to 54 years ................................. . 

55 years and over .•............................. 

Farms by principal occupation of operator: 

Farming ..........•.............................• 

Other ..••.•.•........•........•............•..•• 

Estimated 

farms 

322 829 

118 394 

69 033 

135 402 

56 029 

79 373 

142 361 

180 468 

199 108 

62 852 

60 869 

213 034 

73 387 

36408 

50 691 

148 887 

123 251 

164 886 

157 943 

Census 

published 

farms 

273 737 

80 604 

60 363 

132 770 

53 602 

79 168 

127 739 

145 998 

153 173 

60 070 

60 494 

179 089 

66 716 

27 932 

35 911 

123 618 

114 208 

146 151 

127 586 

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding, 

lReferred to as missed farms in previous evaluation reports. 

2Alaska and Hawaii excluded. 

3No coverage error observed. 

4Formerly North Central. 

198' CENSUS OF AGR!CUL TURE 

Estimated undercoWlted fams! Estimated overcountect 

1'arms 

Re~ative Relative 

standard standard 

error Not on error 

Number (percent) Misclassified mai 1 list Number (percent) 

59 217 15.5 10 875 48 342 10 125 54.3 

44 915 18.5 6 375 38 540 7 125 75.1 

9 420 38.2 2 625 6795 750 100.1 

'4 882 27.5 1 875 3 007 2 250 47.1 

3 552 33.1 500 2 052 1 125 57.7 

1 330 49.7 375 955 1 125 74.6 

15 747 ZJ .6 375 12 372 1 125 74.6 

43 470 18.0 500 35 970 9 000 60.4 

• 54 560 16.3 8 625 45 935 8 625 62.9 

3 907 42.2 1 500 2 407 1 125 74.6 

750 70.7 750 ( 3) 375 100.0 

43 695 18.5 875 35 820 9 750 56.3 

7 046 29.9 250 4 796 375 100.0 

8 476 33.3 750 7 726 ( 3) ( 3) 

14 780 39.0 1 500 13 280 (') (') 

26 769 17.8 4 500 22 269 1 500 61. 3 

17 668 24.7 4 875 12 793 B 625 62.9 

22 110 30.3 000 19 110 3 375 40.0 

37 107 15.5 875 29 232 6 750 79.1 

COVERAGE EVA!.!JA T!O!'~ :3 
Table 2. Selected Items for Estimated Undercounted Farms 

(For further detail, see table B) 

Item 

UNITED STATES' 

Farms •................... ·····•··········•······•··············· . 

:Land in farms ......•.................. ·•· .... · .. ·.·.····· . acres •• 

Average size of farm ....•... 0 ••••••••••••••• 0 0 •••••••• 0 0 acres .. 

Corn for grain ....•....... 0 ••••••••••••••••• 0 ••••••••• 0.0. farms .. 

acres .. 

Sorghum for grain •............•.. ··.····················.· farms .. acres .. 

Wheat .... ................................................ .. farms .. 

acres .. 

Soybeans ..... 0 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• farms .. 

acres .. 

Hay ••••••.•••.•••• o ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 •••• • farms •• 

acres .. 

Tobacco ................................................... farms .. 

acres .. 

Cattle and calves inventory .......•....•........•.•....• o. farms .. 

number .. 

Hogs and pigs inventory ................... 0 ••••••• 0 ••••••• farms .. 

number .. 

Hens and pullets inventory .. 0 ••••••••••••••••••••• 0 ••••••• farms .. 

number .. 

Value of agricultural products sold •.•••..••.•....•..•.•. $1,000 •. 

NORTHEAST 

Farms ..... o ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 

Land in farms .............................................. acres .. 

Average size of farm •................................... acres .. 

Corn for grain ......................... 0 ...................... farms .. 

acres .. 

Sorghum for grain ............................................ . farms •• 

acres ... 

Whea t ............... 0 • 0 ...................................... farms .. 

acres .. 

Soybeans ...................................................... farms .. 

acres .. 

Hay ......................................................... • farms • • 

acres .. 

Tobacco ...................................................... farms .. . 

acres .. 

Cattle and calves inventory ................................. farms .. 

number ... 

Hogs and pigs inventory ..................................... farms .. 

number .. 

Hens and pullets inventory ..................... 0 ............. farms .. 

number .. 

Value of agricultural products sold ...................... $l,OOO .. 

MIDWEST" 

Farms ........................................ o .............. 0 •••••••• 

Land in farms ....... o ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• acres .. 

Average size of farm ................... 0 ••••••••••••••••• acres .. 

Corn for grain .............................................. farms .. 

acre_s .. 

Sorghum for grain .............................................. farms .. 

acres .. 

Wheat ......... '" ............................................ farms .. 

acres .. 

Soybeans. 0 ........................................ 0 ............ farms .. 

acres .. 

Hay ..................................................... 0 ...... farms .. 

acres .... 

Tobacco ....................................................... farms .. 

acres .. 

See footnotes at end of table. 

4 COVERAGE EVALUATION 

Under counted 1 

Relative 

Number 

336 498 

20 356 617 

60 

21 914 

105 451 

(' ) 

(' ) 

5 125 

616 528 

13 189 

915 063 

81 902 

612 362 

10 110 

14 091 

224 939 

3 613 167 

77 712 

2 446 406 

83 063 

1 510 178 

2 381 664 

36 256 

3 157 255 

87 

6 502 

132 077 

(3 ) 

(3 ) 

586 

036 

(3 ) 

(3 ) 

17 315 

424 578 

914 

1 780 

26 258 

427 325 

8 802 

47 978 

11 247 

244 720 

·265 543 

65 554 

2 843 689 

43 

6 250 

2411 250 

(3 ) 

(3 ) 

250 

100 000 

5 000 

428 750 

15 831 

197 450 

(3 ) 

(3 ) 

standard 

error Not on 

(percent) Hisclassified mail list 

9.4 76 554 259 944 

14.7 6 414 897 13 941 720 

17~4 84 54 

21.3 6811 15 103 

61.6 290 943 814 508 (' ) (' ) (' ) 

(') (3 ) (3 ) 

48.2 2 500 2 625 

73.7 537 500 79 028 

36.0 6 250 6 939 

43.3 441 250 473 813 

19.2 28 059 53 843 

19.4 477 120 135 242 

33.1 5 000 5 110 

36.3 5 125 8 966 

12.5 38 870 186 069 

19.4 596 314 3 016 853 

24.3 8 436 69 276 

58.4 164 059 2 282 347 

20.0 19 561 63 502 17.8 311 109 199 069 

27.4 065 884 315 780 

........ -

14.5 3 179 33 077 

19.1 412 522 2 744 733 

24.0 130 83 

32.0 561 5 941 

33.9 44 693 87 384 (3 ) (3) (3) 

(3 ) (3) (3 ) 

3.9 (') 586 

3.9 (3 ) 036 (3) (3 ) (3 ) 

(' ) (3) (') 

20.6 1 309 16 006 

23.1 71 995 352 583 

35.4 (3 ) 914 

72.4 (3 ) 1 780 

17 .2 1 870 24 388 

19.2 69 564 357 761 

30.2 561 8 241 

31.9 309 46 669 

22.9 561 10 686 

27.4 5 984 238 736 

33.1 75 927 189 616 

29.4 25 000 40 554 

28.7 688 750 1 154 939 

41.0 68 28 

44.7 6 250 (3 ) 

65.5 246 250 (3 ) 

(3) (3 ) (3) 

(3 ) (l) (l) 

100.0 250 (. ) 

100.0 100 000 (3 ) 

50.0 5 000 ~,. ) 

58.0 428 750 (3 ) 

35.1 8 750 7 081 

42.4 137 500 59 950 

(3 ) (3 ) (3 ) 

(3) (' ) (3 ) 

1982 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE 
Table 2. Selected Items for Estimated Undercounted Farms-Con. 

(For further detail. see table B) 

Item 

MIDWEST" --Con. 

Cattle and calves inventory .............................. . farms •• 

number .• 

Hogs and pigs inventory .................................•. farms .• 

number •• 

Hens and pullets inventory .•....•......................•. . farms • • 

number .. 

Value of agricultural products sold ••.••.•.••.••••••••••• $1.000 •• 

SOUTB 

Farms ........................................................... .. 

Land in farms .............................................. acres .• 

Average size of farm ..................................... acres .• 

Corn for grain .............................................. farms ... 

acres •. 

Sorghum for grain .................................................... farms .. 

acres .• 

Wheat ............................................................................. farms .. . 

acres .. 

Soybeans ............................................................................... farms .. . 

acres ... 

Hay ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• farms •• 

acres .... 

Tobacco .................................................................... farms .. 

acres .. 

Cattle and calves inventory .............................................. farms .• 

number ... 

Hogs and pigs inventory ......................................................... farms .. . 

number ... 

Hens and pullets inventory .................................................. farms .. 

number .• 

Value of agricultural products sold ••.•.• '" •••••.••••••• $1.000 •• 

WEST' 

Farms ................................................................................... .. 

Land in farms ......................................................................... acres .. .. 

Average size of farm ................................................... acres .. .. 

Corn for grain ............................................................ farms .. 

aCres •. 

Sorghum for grain ............................................................... farms .. .. 

acres .. 

Wheat ............................................................................... farms .. .. 

acres .. .. 

Soybeans ............................................................................... farms .. .. 

acres .. . 

Hay ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• farms •• 

acres .. 

Tobacco ............................................................................... farms •. 

acres .. 

Cattle and calves inventory ........................................... farms •• 

number ... 

Hogs and pigs inventory ................................................... farms .. 

number ... 

Hens and pullets inventory ................................................... farms ... 

number .. 

Value of agricultural products sold •••••••••••.•••••••.•• $1.000 •• 

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 

lReferred to as missed farms in previous evaluation reports. 

2Alaska and Hawaii excluded. 

3No coverage error observed. 

4Formerly North Central. 

1982 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE 

Under counted 1 

Relative 

Number 

43 623 

132 344 

27 845 

944 065 

4 343 

116 863 

688 861 

175 471 

12 326 630 

70 

8 925 

726 887 

(3) 

(3) 

2 970 

506 307 

8 189 

486 313 

41 290 

680 017 

9 195 

12 311 

122 498 

685 602 

35 406 

413 332 

49 869 

801 607 

1 208 616 

59 217 

2 029 043 

34 

237 

237 

(3) 

(3) 

318 

185 

(3 ) 

(3 ) 

7 466 

310 318 

(3 ) 

(3 ) 

32 560 

367 895 

5 660 

41 031 

17 605 

346 988 

218 643 

standard 

error Not on 

(percent) Misclassifled mail list 

42.0 8 750 34 873 

52.5 267 500 864 844 

59.6 5 000 22 845 

73.3 103 750 840 315 

59.2 2 500 1 843 

59.2 80 000 36 863 

47.5 293 027 395 834 

12.9 37 500 137 971 

22.5 127 500 199 130 

25.9 83 67 

34.8 (3 ) 8 925 

90.8 (3 ) 726 887 (3 ) (3) (3 ) 

(3 ) (3 ) (' ) 

70.9 1 250 720 

87.6 437 500 68 807 

49.3 1 250 6 939 

63.4 12 500 473 813 

34.2 15 000 26 290 

37.0 62 500 617 517 

36.2 5 000 4 195 

41.5 5 125 7 186 

16.0 23 750 98 748 

20.8 162 500 523 102 

23.5 2 500 32 906 

29.3 57 500 355 832 

30.3 15 000 34 869 

28.0 155 000 646 607 

45.9 628 III 580 505 

15.5 10 875 48 342 

25.5 186 125 842 918 

29.8 109 17 

99.6 (') 237 

99.6 (3 ) 237 (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) 

(3) (3) (3 ) 

98.5 (3) 318 

98.3 (3 ) 185 (3 ) (3) (3 ) 

(3 ) (3) (3 ) 

27.3 3 000 4 466 

43.3 205 125 105 193 

(3 ) (3 ) (3 ) 

(3 ) (3) (3) 

21. 6 4 500 28 060 

25.2 96 750 271 145 

38.3 375 5 285 

43.0 500 39 531 

33.5 500 16 105 

33.0 70 125 276 863 

24.1 68 819 149 824 

COVERAGE EVALUATION 5 
Table 3. Land in Farms by Sales Group and Components of Coverage 

Item Census 

Estimated published 

acres acres 

UNITED STATES 2 

Land in farms ................ .... 949 182 909 928 826 292 

Sales group: 

Less than $2,500 .•..•...•••....•.••.... 55 533 926 44 005 295 

$2,500 to $9,999 ..•...••••...•••••....• 77 486 316 75 792 999 

$10,000 or more ...................•.•.. 816 162 666 809 027 998 

NORTHEAST 

Land in farms .................... 26 091 388 22 934 133 

Sales group: 

Less than $2,500 .••.•.••••••••••.•••••. 5172 447 2 764 650 

$2,500 to $9,999 •••.•••••••••••.•••.••• 3 299 133 :3 139 641 

$10,000 or more ........................ 17 619 808 17 029 842 

MIDWEST 3 

Land in farms .................... 349 876 185 347 032 496 

Sales group: 

Less than $2,500 ••••••••••••••••••••••• 10 110 740 9 127 318 

$2,500 to $9,999 •••••••.••••••••••••••. 20 961 770 20 323 830 

$10,000 or more ...........•............ 318 803 675 317 581 348 

SOUTH 

Land in farms •••••.•••.••••••.••• 305 031 962 292 705 332 

Sales group: 

Less than $2, 500 .••••••.••••••••••••••• 30 647 214 23 645 374 

$2,500 to $9,999 •••••.••••••••••••••••• 40 164 352 39 720 999 

$10,000 or more •••••••••••••••••••••••• 234 220 396 229 338 959 

WEST2 

Land in farms .........•.•...•.... 268 183 374 266 154 331 

Sales group: 

Less than $2, 500 ••••••••••••••••••••••• 9 603 526 8 467 953 

$2,500 to $9,999 ••••••••••••••••••••••• 13 061 062 12 608 529 

$10,000 or more ........................ 245 518 787 245 077 849 

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 

lReferred to as missed farms in previous evaluation reports. 

2Alaska and Hawaii excluded. 

3Formerly North Central. 

6 COVERAGE EVALUATION 

Acres 

20 356 617 

11 528 631 

1 693 317 

7 134 668 

3 157 255 

2 407 797 

159 492 

589 966 

2 843 689 

983 422 

637 940 

1 222 327 

12 326 630 

7 001 840 

443 353 

4 881 437 

2 029 043 

1 135 573 

452 533 

440 938 

Estimated undercounted farms! 

Relative Not on 

standard error Misclassified mail list 

(percent) acres acres 

14.7 6 414 897 13 941 720 

13.9 2 079 057 9 449 574 

32.3 877 529 815 788 

34.6 3 458 311 3 676 357 

19.1 412 522 2 744 733 

23.2 212 432 2 195 365 

48.4 59 279 100 213 

35.7 140 811 449 155 

28.7 1 688 750 1 154 939 

46.8 323 750 659 672 

55.3 413 750 224 190 

46.9 951 250 271 077 

22.5 3 127 500 9 199 130 

19.9 1 032 500 5 969 340 

52.1 25 000 418 353 

48.7 2 070 000 2 811 437 

25.5 1 186 125 842 918 

26.4 510 375 625 198 

74.9 379 500 73 033 

57.0 296 250 144 688 

1982 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE 
Table 4. Value of Agricultural Products Sold by Sales Group and Components of Coverage 

Item Census 

Estimated published 

value value 

($1,000) ($1,000) 

UNITED STATES 2 

Value of sales ................... 133 401 614 131 019 950 

Sales group: 

Less than $2,500 •••••••••••••.••••••••. 678 749 556 286 

$2,500 to $9,999 ••••••.•••••••••••••••• 3 160 251 2 999 633 

$10,000 or more •••••••••••.•••••••••••• 129 562 613 127 464 031 

NORTHEAST 

Value of sales ................... 7 423 392 7 157 849 

Sales group: 

Less than $2,500 ••••••••••••••••••••••• 44 852 34 233 

$2,500 to $9,999 ••••••••••••••••••••••• 183 366 161 274 

$10,000 or more •••••••.••..•.•••••••••• 7 195 173 6 962 342 

MIDWEST' 

Value of sales ................... 59 972 728 59 283 867 

Sales group: 

Less than $2,500 ••••••••••.••••.••••••• 153 569 145 508 

$2,500 to $9,999 ....................... 1 083 820 1 047 406 

$10,000 or more •••••••.•.•.•••••••••••• 58 735 340 58 090 953 

SOUTH 

Value of sales ................... 38 478 567 37 269 951 

Sales group: 

Less than $2,500 ••••••••••.•••••.•••••• 380 660 302 877 

$2,500 to $9,999 ....................... 1 534 158 1 471 761 

$10,000 or more ••••••••••..•.•••••••••• 36 563 750 35 495 313 

WEST' 

Value of sales ................... 27 526 926 27 308 283 

Sales group: 

Less than $2,500 .••••.•••..•.•••••••••• 99 669 73 668 

$2,500 to $9,999 ....................... 358 906 319 192 

$10,000 or more •.••••••••..•••••••••••• 27 068 351 26 915 423 

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 

lReferred to as missed farms in previous evaluation reports. 

2Alaska and Hawaii excluded. 

3Formerly North Central. 

4No coverage error observed. 

1982 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE 

Estimated undercounted farms! 

Relative 

standard Misclassified Not on mail 

Value error value list value 

($1,000) (percent) ($1,000) ($1,000) 

2 381 664 27.4 1 065 884 1 315 780 

122 463 12.7 27 096 95 367 

160 618 20.1 74 816 85 802 

2 098 582 31. 0 963 972 1 134 610 

265 543 33.1 75 927 189 616 

10 619 24.1 395 10 224 

22 092 26.5 2 296 19 796 

232 831 37.7 73 236 159 595 

688 861 47.5 293 027 395 834 

8 061 41. 1 8 061 ( 4) 

36 414 49.0 33 038 3 376 

644 387 50.8 251 929 392 458 

1 208 616 45.9 628 111 580 505 

77 783 17.8 14 778 63 005 

62 397 33.2 28 006 34 391 

1 068 437 51. 9 585 327 483 110 

218 643 24.1 68 819 149 824 

26 001 22.5 3 863 22 138 

39 714 41.0 11 476 28 238 

152 928 32.5 53 480 99 448 

COVERAGE EVALUATION 7 

APPENDIX A. 

Report Form and Listing Sheet 

FORM COI.tIciiemllall, It may sean only aworn 

~ 

Census employees and may used only for statistical purposes. Your report cannot be 

used for purposes of taxation, investigation. or regulation. The law also provides that 

copies retained in your files are ImlftUlle front .... process. 

~ ~ EVALUATION OF THE 

1982 CENSUS 

OF AGRICULTURE 

019 lOVes - Enternumber---_ 

2 DNa 

CENSUS 

USE 

ONLY 

EI Number 

1 .In the pasttwo years have you received mall at any other address? (Include different ways mail cen be addressed to you at your present location.) 

~=---~----------------------------------~ 

020 lOVes - Enter ather address -----_ ~--------------------=---------~=-~----~ 

2 DNa 

2. For business purposes do you use any name, 

021 lOVes - What is the name and eddress? 

2 DNa 

3. Which type of organization best describes your 

022 1 0 Individual or family operation (sole proprietorship), excluding partnership and corporation 

2 0 Partnership operation, including family partnership 

3 0 Corporation, including family corporation 

4 0 Other - Such as estate, trust, etc. -

4. At any time during were any other 

(Include partners, children, relatives, managers, and other associated persons. 

landlords or tenants.) 

023 

Name Mailing address. city. State. ZIP code 

is the name of the person primarily in charge of the 

agriculture operation (person making the majority of the 

management decisions)? (If a partnership or corporation and 

several individuals share equally in the management decisions, 

enter the name of the senior person or partner,) 

AGRIC,;UL TURE-::;UtsJI:C,;1 SERIES 

person's family 

relationship to the operator of 

this place? (For 

example: parent, 

son, uncle, or not related.) 

of the person in charge 

person's business 

relationship to the 

operator? (For 

example: hired 

manager, partner, 

business asso- ciate, other) -

APPENDiX A A-'j 
. ACREAGE and OWNERSHIP as of December 31,1982 

On December 31, 1982, how many acres did you - None Acres 

043 

1. Own? ............................................................................................................... 0 

044 

2. Rent or lease FROM others? (Include land worked on shares or share-cropped for 

others; leased Federal, State, and railroad land, and land used rent free. Do not 

include land used on a per-head basis under a grazing permit.' ••..•••••..•..•.•..•••••.••• 0 

045 

3. Rent or lease TO others? (Include land subleased and land worked on shares or 

share-cropped by others.' ..•••.•....•....•....•••.•.•••••.•.....•.•..•••.•••••••••..•.....••••••....••.•.• 0 

046 

4. ACRES IN THIS PLACE - ADD acres owned (item 1) to acres rented (item 2), then 

SUBTRACT acres rented to others (item 3), and enter your answer in this space. .. 

4a. Is acres (number of acres from item 4) the correct number of acres that you 

operated on December 31, 1982? ~ 

047 10 Yes 

2 0 No - Verify and correct items 1 through 4 as necessary 

5. (If acres in item 2) What is the name and mailing address of each landlord and the number of acres 

rented, used rent free, or worked on shares? 

Name Mailing address, city, State, ZIP code Number of acres 

048 

049 

050 

6. (If acres in item 3) What is the name and mailing address of each renter and the number of acres rented? 

Name Mailing address, city, State, ZIP code Number of acres 

051 

052 

053 

Non. 054 

6a. Of the land you rented or leased to others (item 3 above), 

how many acres did you own? .....•••••.•..•..•.••••••••.•.•..•••••••.....••.•••••••••.....•..•••••. 0 Acres 

• LOCATION 

7. In what county and State was the largest dollar value of your agricultural products raised or produced? 

County Istate 

7a. Did you have agricultural operations in any other county or counties? 

055 1 0 Yes - Enter the county and State name(s} and acreage 

2 DNa - Go to section 4 

County State Number of acres 

056 

057 

058 

FORM 82 A90 Page 2 

A-2 APPENDIX A AGRICULTURE-SUBJECT SERIES 
CROPS HARVESTED FROM THIS PLACE IN 1982 

W.re any of the following crops harv.sted from this plac. in 19821 (Be sure to include 

th.landlord's share and crops grown under contract. Do not include crops on land 

rented to oth.rs., 

NOTE: If you do not have exact flgures 

from your recorda, please give 

your bast .stlmate. 

:a. How many 'b. How much acr.s were. was harvested harvested 

in 19827 in 19821 

Ic. What was the 

total dollar 

value of sales 

in 19821 

(Include landlordahare' 

1. FI.1d com for grain or seed (Report 

qwmtlty on a sh.11ed baais in BUSHELS, 

Dollars : Cents Non.r------~-------r-~~-~,~~ 

70 lba •• r com or 561bs. sh.lled corn = 1 bush.I .... 11ed com.) .......................... ....... 0 

2. Field com for sllag., cut for green chop or 

dIy focklar. ~ or grazed (Do not include 

acres already reported In h.m 1.' ................. 0 

3. Wheat for grain ........................................... 0 

4. Other small grains for 

graIn - oats, barl.y, 

ry., rice, ate. 

Specify crop namals} o 

5. Sorghum or milo for grain or seed (Report 

quantity MWasted In aIth.r BUSHELS OR 

HUNDREDWEIGHT' .................................. 0 

'0' 

'04 

106 

10 

102 103 

Bu. $ 

: 11 

.1 $ 

'5 

OR __ ~u.:. 

Cwt. $ 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

8. Sorghum for sIlage, cut for green chop, dry :.: :.: : 

forage IncIucIa or acres MY, already or hogged reported or grazed In h.m (Do 5.' not ....... 0 [~':6 ----Jlm[lmrullimw'~' :. $ 7~ ___ ~'~J I 

7. ~forbeans ..................................... 0 

8. Cotton ....................................................... 0 

9. Tobacco - all types ... ... ............... ............ ..•. 0 

110. IrI ... potatoaa C.xclud. homa us.) ................ 0 

111. 8waetpotatoaa and yams C.xclude home us., 0 

112. Hay - all klnda .xc.pt aorghum hay (lnclud. 

grain MY. gra .. allag., wild hay, atc. If two or mora cuttings were made from the sam. "nd, REPORT ACRES ONLY ONCE but 

report total tona of all cuttings.) ................... 0 

113. Vegetables, aweat com, or m.lona for .. I. 

C.xclude horne uae' ...................................... 0 

14. Berrlasfor .... 

C.xclude hom. uaa) 

IJpacIfy crop namel.. 0 

15. Peanuts for nuts ................................... ........ 0 

118. Land In bearing and nonbaarlng 

frult.orcharda, citrus or other 

grov .. , vlneyarda, and nut .... of all ... (Include 

land on which the fruit crop 

faUed. Do not Includ. 

abandoned acreeg ... , Specify crop namela} 

117. All other crops (Include 

fIaIcI SMda; sugar crops; 

nursery products; 

flowan, atc., grown In 

the open ; sod; ate., Specify crop namela} _______ _ 

o 

o 

,. 1

'20 

12 

'24 

1'27 

1'30 

'33 

I"" 

140 

'45 

1 125 

I flO 

I"· I /10 

I 110 

I 

I flO 

I 

I 

I 

I 110 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I /10 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I /10 

131 

134 

141 

la. How many square 

feat under glass 

or other protection 

In 19827 

Bu·l$ 

1'23 

Bales! $ 

1 126 

Lbs·1 $ 

I"S 

Cwt·l$ 132 

Bu.l$ 

135 

J~ns, I $ 

". 

$ 

142 

Lbs. $ 

44 

146 

$ 

I 

-' 

I 

I 

: 

I 

: 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

: 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

lb. What was the total 

dollar valu. of 

grl .. ..,'-h~'-"s ... Ies 

In 19827 118. Gl'MRhouaa products - Specify,;. 00118-," ~. 

Non·r,117>47------------------t,"'."-------------;,~--; 

I 

o I 

FORM 82-A90 Page 3 

AGRICULTURE-SUBJECT SERIES APPE:NDIX A A-3 
LI'vt:~1 u\;" AND POULTRY 

Did you or anyone else have any of the following livestock or poultry on this place on 

December 31, 1982? (Be sure to report all livestock and poultry on this place on 

December 31,1982, no matter who owned them. Include as sold all livestock and 

poultry fed on a contract or custom basis and taken from this place in 1982.' 

NOTE: If you do not have exact figures 

from your records, please give 

your best estimate. 

a. lb. How many ! c. What was the. 

were sold in gross value of 

• CATTLE None 

On December 31, 1982, how many -

1 . Cattle and calves of all ages were on this 

place? ................................................... D 

Of these cattle and calves, how 

many were -

a.Beef cows? (Include beef heifers that 

had calved.' ......................................... D 

b. Milk cows? (Include dry milk cows and 

milk heifers that had calved.' ................ D 

c. Other cattle and calves? (Include 

heifers, steers, bulls, and calves.' .......... D 

SUM OF a, b, AND c MUST EQUAL ITEM 1. 

IF NOT, VERIFY AND CORRECT AS 

NECESSARY 

2. What was the gross value of dairy 

products sold from this place in 1982? .... 

• HOGS 

On December 31,1982, how many3. Hogs and pigs of all ages were on this 

place? ................................................... 

• POULTRY 

Were any of the following on this place on 

December 31, 1982?-

4. Hens and pullets of laying age? (Exclude 

started pullets being raised for sale.' ........ 

5. Pullets 3 months old or older not yet of 

laying age 7 ............................................. 

6. Broilers, fryers, and other meat-type 

chickens? (Include capons and 

roasters., ........................................ 

7 . Other poultry raised in captivity? (Include 

turkeys, ducks, geese, etc., ..................... 

Specify kind of poultr~ 

8. What was the gross value of eggs sold 

from this place in 19827 .......................... 

• OTHER LIVESTOCK AND ANIMAL 

SPECIALTIES 

Were any of the following on this place on 

December 31, 1982? -

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

9.Sheep and lambs of all ages? ................... D 

10. Horses and ponies of all ages? ................. D 

11. Other livestock? (Include goats, mules, 

fur-bearing animals, colonies of 

bees, fish in captivity except at fish 

hatcheries, etc., ....................................... D 

Specify what kin1J 

FORM 82-A90 

A-4 APPENDIX A 

INVENTORY 

Number on this place 

December 31 , 1982 

10 

: 

: : : : 

: : 

214 

217 

1

220 

FL3 

122 • 

1

230 

~:::::::::::::::::: 

~:::::::::::::::::: 

234 

1

240 

1

243 

124• 

Page 4 

1982? sales? 

~ : Cents 

I 

I 202 203 I 

$ I 

I 

I 

I 

205 20. I 

I 

$ I 

LUO ILO" I 

I 

$ I 

11 212 I 

I 

I $ 

: I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I : : 213 

I 

: : : $ I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 21. I 

I 

$ I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

219 I 

I 

I 

~ $ 

LLL I 

I 

$ I 

1 LL4 I LLt, I 

I 

I $ I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 228 

$ I 

1

231 I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

235 23. I 

I 

$ I 

: 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

241 242 I 

[$ 

I 

I 

1244 1

245 I 

$ I 

L4; IL4

" I 

$ I 

AGRICULTURE-SUBJECT SERIES 
(Complete questions 1 through B for the person listed in section 2, item 5.) 

1. Do you (operator) live on this place? ..................................... . 

2. At what occupation did you (operator) spend the majority (50 

percent or more) of your work time in 1982? For partnerships consider all members of the partnership together . ....... . 

3. How many days did you (operator) work at least 4 hours 

per day off this place in 1982? Include work at a 

nonfarm job, business, or on someone else's farm. 

(Exclude exchange farm work.) .......•...........................•....... 

4. In what year did you (operator) begin to operate any part of 

this place? ..•...•.......................................................•.......... 

5. What is your (operator's) age? •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••. 

6. What is your (operator's) race? ........................................... .. 

7. Sex of operator ...................•...••...........................•............. 

8. Are you (operator) of Spenlah origin or deacent, such as 

Mexican, Cuban, or other Spanish? .................................... . 

251 1 0 Yes 20 No 

252 1 0 Farming 20 Other 

253 

254 

255 

256 

10 None 

201-49 days 

3050-99 days 

40100-149 days 

5 0 150-199 days 

• 0 200 days or more 

______ Year 

______ years old 

1 o White 

2 0 Negro or Black 

3 0 American Indian 

4 0 Asian or Pacific Islander 

9 0 Other - Spee'lp 

257 10 Male 20 Female 

258 1 0 Yes 20 No 

In January 1983, U.S. Cenaus of Agriculture report forms were sent to farm operators 

throughout the United States. 

1 . Did you receive an agriculture census form around the first part of 1983? 

259 1 0 Yes - What was the name and address 

which appeared on that form and 

the Cenaus File Number (CFN), if 

available? • 

20 No 

Census File Number 

Name 

Mailing address 

CENSUS 

listed in 

column 9 of listing sheet afte. "omp/eting the interview for the last person 

FOAM 82-.A.90 Page 5 'tr us. GOVERNMENT PRtNT1NG OFFICE: 1982-660-111 

A ~DII"I II T. IOC':' C'I 10 Ir"'''''''' t"'~r"ur-I"" 

,.."' ..... U'"-'VL- I VI1L-""VU,",L\'" I • .:n::.nll:.,:) APPENDiX A A-5 
:pO) 

» 

" " m 

Z 

C 

x 

» 

» 

G> 

::0 

n 

c 

!:i 

c 

::0 

m 

I 

CJ) 

c 

~ m 

(') 

--I 

CJ) 

m 

::0 

m 

CJ) 

r.~~~.=:;A3 

j 

~ e: j " '2 E 

,. :: c: 

" " c £ ::; 

(1) (2) 

What Is till lull n.1III 01 till per.on who own. or rents this plact! 

List the first, middle, and last name 

of the reference person of 

this household. 

and other per80n(s) in the household 

with separate Ag. operations 

(3) 

LISTING SHEET 

1982 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE - COVERAGE EVALUATION SURVEY 

Ask the following questions for AgrIculture What I. tho mallin, add .... 01 this porson! questionnaire the person in column (3) required? 

In 1912 did In 1982 did In 1982 did If "YES" In 

you p.oduce y.u .alse o. you havt columns (5), 

o ••• 11 any: •• 11 any: any: (6), or (7), 

-c.ops such -callll, -nu .. try o. mark "YES" 

below. Go to as corn, -hOIS, ,,,tnhoust column (9). hay, or products, 

wheat, -sheep, -other If "NO" In 

-.o,llables, -poultry? a"lcullurll columns (5), 

Enter the complete mailing address ber.les, products! (6), and (7), 

of the person in column (3) o.Irull! If "YES," mark "NO" 

(Excludt skip to Go to below. Go to 

home column (8). column (8j. column (Q). 

,ard.ns.) 

If "YES," 

skip to 

column (8). 

(5) (6) (7) (8) 

(4) YES NO YES NO YES NO YES I NO I I I 

I I I 

-----------------_._------------- I : I I I , I I I I I 

, I I 

----------------_._------------- I I 

I I I I : I 

I I I 

I 

------------------------------- I I I I 

I I 

I 

------------------------------- I I I I I 

I I 

------------------------------- I I I I 

I I 

I I I ! .------------------------------- I I 

I I 

I I I I I I 

-------------------------------- I I I , I I I I 

I I I I 

I I I I 

I I --_._-----.----------------------- I I I I I I I I I I 

I I I I 

I I I I 

--------------------------------- I ~ I I 

~ I I 

I ! I I 

I I , -------------------------------- I I I I I I I , I I I I 

O.M.B. NO. 0607.0420: EXPIRES 12/84 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS 

Art you o. .nyont elst In thl. houst· hold associ· Ittd with. separatt 

a"lcullu.al 

operallon! 

-List 811 

additional REMARKS operations. (Name 0' eligible ,e."""dent If not Date i Complete reference person, when to call back, compleled, columns (2), 

(3), (4), and telephone number, explanetion, etc,) 

(B), 

-Complete Ag, 

questionnaire 

for each 

operatIon. 

-End 

Interview. 

(9) 

YES I NO (10) (11) 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I -

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 
APPENDIX B. 

References 

1982 Census Of Agriculture 

• Volume 1, Summary and State Data, Part 51, United States. 

• Procedural History, Reference Series (AC82-R1). 

1978 Census Of Agriculture 

• Volume 1, Summary and State Data, Part 51, United States. 

• Volume 5, Special Reports, Part 3, Coverage Evaluation. 

1974 Census Of Agriculture 

• Volume IV, Special Reports, Part 3, Coverage Evaluation. 

1969 Census Of Agriculture 

• Volume V, Special Reports, Part 16, Evaluation Of Coverage. 

1964 Census Of Agriculture 

• Volume III, Part 7, Evaluation Surveys, Chapter 1, Coverage Check. 

Clark, Cynthia Z.F., Comparability Of Data From The Censuses Of Agriculture, 1984 Proceedings Of The Section On 

Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association. 

Dea, Jane Y., Tommy W. Gaulden, and D. Dean Prochaska, Record Linkage For The 1982 Census Of Agriculture Mail 

List Development Using Multiple Sources, 1984 Proceedings Of The Section On Survey Research Methods, American 

Statistical Association. 

Gonzalez, Maria E., Jack L. Ogus, Gary Shapiro and Benjamin J. Tepping, Standards For Discussion And Presentation 

Of Errors In Survey And Census Data, Journal Of The American Statistical Association, September 1975, Volume 

70, Number 351, Part II. 

Ruggles, Donna R., Jane Y. Dea, Flora Kwok, and Cindy A. Carman, Evaluation Of The Effectiveness Of Data Collection 

Procedures For The 1982 Census Of Agriculture, 1984 Proceedings Of The Section On Survey Research Methods, 

American Statistical Association. 

Wolter, Kirk M., Coverage Error Models For Census And Survey Data, 1983 Proceedings Of The International Statistical 

Institute, Madrid, Spain. 

AGRICULTURE-SUBJECT SERIES APPENDIX B B-1 

PUBLICATION PROGRAM 

Preliminary and final results of the 1982 Census of Agriculture are 

being published in a series of reports which provide data for each county 

and State and for the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin 

Islands of the United States. The publications include statistics on number 

of farms; land in farms; farm and farm operator characteristics; livestock, 

poultry, and their products; crop production and value; selected expendi· 

tures; irrigation; and standard industrial classification of farms. 

Publication order forms may be obtained from Customer Services 

Branch (Publications), Data User Services Division, Bureau of the Census, 

Washington, D.C. 20233, or from any U.S. Department of Commerce 

district office. 

PRELIMINARY REPORTS (AC82-01(P) to -56(P) 

Preliminary reports are published separately for each county in the 

United States with 10 farms or more, for each State, and for the United 

States. These reports contain data for all agricultural operations with 

$1,000 or more in actual or potential sales of agricultural products in 

the census year. The reports include data on nu mber of farms, land in 

farms, size of farms, land use practices, farm operator characteristics, 

sales, expenditures, machinery and equipment, livestock, poultry, dairy 

products, and major crops harvested in the State. 

FINAL REPORTS 

Volume 1. Geographic Area Series (AC82-A-1 to -54) 

State and County Data (A·l to -50)-A separate report is presented 

showing detailed data for each State and the counties within. These 

reports include data on nu mber and size of farms, tenu re, age, and occupation of operators; types of organization; value of products sold; and 

standard industrial classification of farms. 

Summary and State Data (A-51)-This report contains detailed data at 

the national and State levels. 

Outlying Areas (A-52 to -54)-These reports present detailed data for 

each area and subdivision in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of 

the United States. 

Volume 2. Subject Series (AC82-SS-1 to -3) 

Graphic Summary (SS·l)-This report presents the Nation's agriculture 

graphically illustrated by dot and multicolor pattern maps. The maps 

provide displays on size and type of farm, land use, farm tenure, value of 

products sold, crops harvested, livestock inventories, and other characteristics of farms. 

Coverage Evaluation (SS-2) -This report presents estimates of the com· 

pleteness of the 1982 Census of Agriculture for the United States and 

geographic regions. It provides coverage estimates of farms, land, value of 

products, selected characteristics of missed farms, and sample reliability. 

Ranking of States and Counties (SS-3)-This report presents the ranking 

of States and counties in order of importance for selected items for the 

1982 Census of Agriculture. Items ranked include: number of fa"rms, 

value of products sold, inventory of livestock and poultry, and production and acreage of major crops. Comparative data from the 1978 Census 

of Agriculture are included for most tables. 

MICROFICHE 

Microfiche are available from Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. 

Final County Reports-A final report for each county and State, with the 

same format and items as the published preliminary reports, is available 

on microfiche only. 

Volume 1 Reports-Published Geographic Area Series data are also 

available on microfiche. 

COMPUTER TAPES 

Public-use computer tapes contain the same summary statistics that 

are found in the published preliminary reports and the county data from 

the volume 1 reports. Order forms may be obtained from the Customer 

Services Branch, Data User Services Division, Bureau of the Census, 

Wash ington, D.C. 20233 (telephone 301/7 63-4100). Upon request, special 

sets of tapes of the State data in volu me 1 may be obtained from the 

Agriculture Division, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. 20233. 
Superintendent o. Documents 

U.S. GovernmentJprinting Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use, $300 

.UIII 

U.S.MAIL® 

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

COM·202 

Special Fourth-Class 

Rate-Book