Volume 5 

Special Reports 

Part 3 

Coverage 

Evaluation 

AC78-SR-3 

1978 

CENSUS OF 

AGRICULTURE 

u.s. Department of Commerce 

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS 

1978 

CENSUS OF 

AGRICULTURE 

Issued May 1982 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary 

Robert G. Dederick, 

Assistant Secretary for Economic Affairs 

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS 

Bruce Chapman, 

Director 

Volume 5 

Special Reports 

Part 3 

Coverage 

Evaluation 

AC78-SR-3 
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS 

Bruce Chapman, Director 

Shirley Kallek, Associate Director for 

Economic Fields 

Michael G. Farrell, Assistant Director for 

Economic and Agriculture Censuses 

AGRICULTURE DIVISION 

George Pierce, Acting Chief 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS-Many persons contributed to the coverage 

evaluation program for the 1978 Census of Agriculture. First and foremost are the many farm and ranch operators, members of their families, 

and employees who furnished the information. 

Primary direction was by Shirley Kallek, Associate Director for Eco· 

nomic Fields, and Richard B. Quanrud. Assistant Director for Eco· 

nomic and Agriculture Censuses Ito June 1981), and Michael G. Farrell, 

his successor. Technical direction and guidance were provided by 

Barbara A. Bailar. Associate Director for Statistical Standards and 

Methodology. 

The coverage evaluation program was prepared In the Agriculture 

Division under the direction of Orvin L. Wilhite, Chief Ito January 1980), 

Arnold L. Bollenbacher, his successor (to April 1982), and Charles E. 

Rogers, Assistant Chief for Research and Methodology (to June 1981). 

The planning, processing, analyses, and tabulation of the statistics 

were performed under the supervision of D. Dean Prochaska, Chief for 

the Program Research and Development Branch. Jane V. Dea was responsible for the overall planning and coordination of the various phases. 

Persons providing major assistance in the processing, analyses, tabulation, 

and publication phases were Dorothy M. Blackistone, William C. Davie, 

and Emily Lorenzen. Persons providing technical and clerical assistance 

were James A. Aldamen, Melody M. Atkinson. Margaret I. Bruce, James 

Joerger. Diane Kenney, Mary F. Marbury, Diana Marz, Donna M. Rafferty, 

Marjorie R. Turner. and Antoinette P. Wooten. 

Sampling error data were provided by David D. Chapman, Agriculture 

Division, and George F. Train, Statistical Methods Division. 

Computer programming was performed by Jeffrey L. Brubaker and 

William M. SanduskY, under the direction of Lowell T. Wrucke. 

Cecelia H. Peets, Regina E. Lindsey, and Karin G. Beach were responsible for the various phases of the publication process. 

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; 

Demographic Surveys-coordination and development for the Annual 

Housing Survey Agriculture Supplement; Field-data collection and 

followup; and Publications Services-publication planning and design, 

editorial review, composition, and printing procurement. 

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data 

United States. Bureau of the Census. 

1978 census of agriculture. 

Supt. of Docs. no.: l3.31/ 

CONTENTS: v. 1. State and county data.-v. 2. Statistics by subject.-

v. 3. Agriculture services. [etc.] 

1. Agriculture-United States-Statistics. I. Title. II. Title: Census of 

agriculture. 

HD1753 1978.B877 1980 338.1'0973 79·600215 

- - -

For sale by Data User Services Division, Customer Services (Publications), 

Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. 20233, or any U.S. Department 

of Commerce district office. Postage stamps not acceptable; currency 

submitted at sender's risk. Remittances from foreign countries must 

be by international money order or by a draft on a U.S. bank. $2.25 

per copy. 
III 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. IV 

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

MAP-Regions ofthe United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. XIII 

TABLES 

1. Farms by Sales Group, Standard Industrial Classification, Size, and Operator Characteristics, by 

Components of Coverage: 1978. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

2. Characteristics of Missed Farms by Sales Group: 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . 3 

3. Land in Farms by Sales Group and Components of Coverage: 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . 4 

4. Value of Agricultural Products Sold by Sales Group and Components of Coverage: 1978 . . . . . . . 4 

5. -Reliability of Farm Estimates by Sales Group, Size of Farm, and Components of Coverage: 1978. . 5 

APPENDIXES 

A. Farms Adjusted for Undercount: 1978and 1974. . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . .• A-1 

B. Report Forms. . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • •. 8-1 
IV 

INTRODUCTION 

Page 

PURPOSE OF CENSUS COVERAGE EVALUATION. . • • . . . IV 

HISTORY AND AUTHORITY. • • . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . IV 

SYMBOLS. • • . • • . . • • • • • • • • . . • . . . • • • • . • • • • . . IV 

PURPOSE OF CENSUS COVERAGE EVALUATION 

The Bureau of the Census seeks to measure the accuracy and 

completeness of its statistics for each census of agriculture, 

through a coverage evaluation program. This program provides 

an independent check on the results and provides information 

to identify problem areas associated with coverage errors as a 

basis for developing improvements for future censuses. The 

results from this program serve as an important means of informing the users of the data of any known deficiencies which 

might affect their interpretation and uses of the data: 

HISTORY AND AUTHORITY 

The 1978 Census of Agriculture was the 21st 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. The census of agricultu re is taken in accordance with 

the provisions of title 13, United States Code. 

SYMBOLS 

The following symbol is used throughout the tables. 

- Zero. 
v 

GENERAL EXPLANATION 

Page 

1978 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE. . • . . • • • • • . • • • . • . • V 

1978 CENSUS COVERAGE EVALUATION •••• • • • • • •• VI 

1978 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE 

Farm Definition 

It has been necessary to establish minimum criteria for 

defining a farm for census purposes. The farm definition has 

been changed nine times since 1840, as the Nation's agricultural 

economy has grown and changed. The current farm definition, 

first used for the 1974 census, is any place from which $1,000 

or more of agricultural products were sold or potentially could 

have been sold during the census year. The previous definition 

was any place with less than 10 acr-es from which $250 or more 

of agricultural products were sold or potentially could 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 potentially could have been sold during the census 

year. In all censuses, places not having sufficient sales to qualify 

as a farm could qualify on potential sales, based on the production of crops and/or livestock which were not sold. 

Data Collection 

Before 1969, the census of agriculture was based on a canvass 

of rural areas by enumerators and personal interviews of farm 

operators. The 1969 and 1974 censuses used a mailout, selfenumeration, mailback procedure to collect the data. In 1978, 

the mailout/mailback procedure was supplemented by the 

Census of Agriculture Area Sample (CAAS), a direct enumeration sample. 

Mail List 

The 1978 mail list was assembled from the 1974 census farm 

list and from records obtained from the Internal Revenue 

Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, other government 

agencies, and agriculture-related organizations. Lists of large and 

specialized operations were obtained from various trade associations and other sources. The total number of records from all 

sources was about 17.5 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 

that were not likely to be farms (based on the source list or lists 

they appeared on) were included in the 1978 Farm and Ranch 

Identification Survey. These addressees were mailed a short 

screening questionnaire to identify their current status. As a 

result of the Farm and Ranch Survey, addressees with no agricultural operations were excluoed and new tenants and successors were added. The final census mail list contained approximately 4.4 million names and addresses. 

Census of Agriculture Area Sample (CAAS) 

Because previous coverage evaluation studies had shown that 

many smaller farms were not included on the census mail list, 

CAAS was used to improve the completeness of farm coverage. 

CAAS contained approximately 6,400 segments in rural areas 

(areas with less than 2,500 population). Enumerators canvassed 

all households in the segments in October and November 1978 

and completed a census report form for each agricultural operation. These forms were matched to the census mail list. The 

forms for addresses that were not matched were processed as 

CAAS additions. Data from the final nonmatched report forms 

were used to estimate the number and characteristics of farms 

not on the mail list at the State, regional, and national levels. 

No county level estimates from CAAS were developed because 

the sample size was insufficient to provide reliable estimates at 

that level. 

Report Forms 

Two report forms were used in the mail portion of the census. 

A five-page form containing all the census items was sent to all 

large farms (based on expected sales and/or acres), farms with 

special characteristics, and farms from samples of other 

addresses. A four-page form omitting sample items was sent to 

the remaining addresses. The form used in the CAAS was similar 

to the five-page form but included additional items used for 

matching names and addresses to the mail list. 

Mailing and Followup 

Report forms were mailed in late December 1978. Nonrespondents were sent a series of seven followup letters-three 

with report forms-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. The final response rate for the 1978 

Census of Agriculture was about 88 percent. A nonresponse 

adjustment procedure was used to represent the final nonrespondent farms in the census results. This component of the 

census farm count is subject to sampling variability. A description of the nonresponse adjustment procedure is included in 

volume 1, appendix A. 

Processing Procedure 

Completed report forms were clerically reviewed prior to 

data' keying. After keying, a detailed item-by-item computer 

consistency edit of the data was performed. Problem forms were 

subjected to a special review. In some cases, telephone calls were 
VI GENERAL EXPLANATION-Continued 

made to respondents to resolve confl icting data or provide 

missing information. 

After each form was screened, computer edited, and all 

identified problems corrected, the data items were tabulated 

by computer. The tabulated totals were reviewed county by 

county to identify and correct any remaining problems before 

publication. 

1978 CENSUS COVERAGE EVALUATION 

History 

Coverage evaluation studies have been conducted for each 

census of agriculture since 1945. The basic procedures for each 

study have been: 

a. Select an area probability sample, or use an existing 

sample and identify the farms in the sample to establish 

a measurement base which represents the universe of 

farms. 

b. Match the sample farms to the census farms to determine 

the relationship of the census to the base sample units. 

c. Followup to check and clarify differences. 

d. Process, tabulate, analyze, and publish the results. 

The results of previous coverage evaluation studies have 

influenced census procedures. Before 1950, interviewers were 

given the farm definition and instructed to enumerate all places 

conforming to that definition. The 1945 study showed that 

marginal farming operations were a large proportion of the 

missed farms. To improve the coverage of these marginal operations, the enumeration procedures were changed. Starting in 

1950, interviewers were instructed to enumerate all places with 

specified agricultural activities and the farm definition was 

applied during processing. 

In 1954, two new techniques were introduced to reduce the 

undercoverage of farms. A township sketch was used in selected 

counties to improve the coverage of nonresident operators, that 

were shown by the 1950 evaluation study to be a large share of 

the missed farms. Enumerators in these counties were required 

to draw the boundaries of each farm and each nonfarm tract on 

the township sketch. In addition, a listing book was used to 

record the location and identification of every dwelling and 

every place with no dwelling, but with agriculture operations, 

in each enumeration district. 

The 1964 coverage evaluation study found that undercoverage of small farms was a continuing problem. Other studies 

indicated that at least equal and perhaps better coverage could 

be obtained with a mailout/mailback procedure. The mailout/ 

mailback method of data collection was first used in the 1969 

census and has been used in all subsequent censuses. 

Coverage evaluation for 1969 and 1974 indicated that the 

source lists acquired for data collection by mail did not provide 

adequate coverage of smaller farms. In 1969 and 1974, 33 

percent and 27 percent respectively, of all census farms less than 

$2,500 were missed. Because of this, the 1978 census was 

supplemented by CAAS, a coverage improvement survey 

designed to increase coverage of small farms at the State level. 

The area sample provides State, regional, and national levels. 

Objectives 

The 1978 coverage evaluation program was planned and 

developed with a specific set of objectives. These objectives 

were developed from a review of previous census coverage 

evaluation objectives along with the addition of several new 

objectives aimed at determining the effectiveness of new procedures developed for the 1978 Census of Agriculture. The 

specific planned objectives were: 

a. Provide measures of the accuracy of census farm counts 

and a limited number of other items, such as land in farms 

and value of agricultural products sold, to aid users in the 

interpretation and utilization of the data. 

b. Provide estimates indicating the characteristics of missed 

farms. 

c. Provide information relating to the accuracy of the census 

area sample estimates and potential problem areas associated with the enumeration procedures. 

d. Provide information on factors associated with census 

error and identify problem areas to improve coverage in 

future censuses. 

Sample Survey Design and Methodology 

The coverage evaluation program for the 1978 Census of 

Agriculture was based on two surveys-the Annual Housing 

Survey (AHS) and the Post Enumeration Survey (PES). 

Annual Housing Survey 

The AHS is an ongoing survey conducted by the Bureau of 

the Census used primarily to measure household characteristics. 

The sample represents all households in the United States. 

The 1978 sample consisted of delineated sample areas spread 

geographically across the 50 States. About 72,000 housing units, 

both occupied and vacant, were included. The overall sampling 

rate in urban areas with population 2,500 or more was 1 in 

1,366. For rural areas, with less than 2,500 population, the 

sampling rate was 1 in 683. 

The AHS agriculture supplement (see appendix B) consisted 

of a short series of agriculture screening questions added to the 

report form of the 1978 AHS to identify potential census 

farms. Alaska and Hawaii were excluded from the coverage 

evaluation sample. 

The farm universe identified in AHS was used primarily to 

estimate the number and the characteristics of farms not on 

the mail list, and operated by individuals living in urban areas 

with population 2,500 or more. These areas were not covered 

by CAAS. Also, the AHS provided measures of error for misclassified farms on the mail list. The AHS was completely independent from the 1978 Census of Agriculture, from the standpoint of data collection and source lists. 

The principal processing steps for the AHS agricultural 

supplement were: 

a. Receive AHS supplements from the census regional 

offices following field enumeration. 

b. Identify supplements with potential agricultural 

activities. 
GEN ERAL EXPLANATION-Continued VII 

c. Match supplements with potential agricultural activities 

to the census microfilm mail file. Identify match or 

doubtful match cases. 

d. Mail evaluation report form (78-A90; see appendix B) 

to nonmatch and doubtful match cases to obtain basic 

farm data and additional information for matching. 

e. Mail three followups to nonrespondents at 2-week 

intervals. 

f. Telephone followup of remaining nonrespondents by 

regional offices. 

g. Perform second match to mail list using information 

from form 78-A90. 

h. Review form 78-A90 to classify as farm/nonfarm according to farm definition and match/nonmatch to census 

mail list. 

i. Telephone followup to resolve problem cases and obtain 

form 78-A90 for noncontact cases. 

j. Assign AHS weights and population size codes to all 

cases. 

k. Obtain census data records from data file for all match 

cases for use in assigning farm and coverage classification 

codes. 

I. Review and assign coverage classification codes to all 

cases. 

m. Key data to produce coverage data file. 

n. Edit and review data for accuracy and consistency. 

o. Produce estimates for AHS sample error. 

p. Tabulate data and publish results. 

Post Enumeration Survey 

The PES was a personal interview survey conducted in 

December 1978 following the completion of the CAAS enumeration. Its purpose was to collect data for evaluating the area 

sample portion of the 1978 Census of Agriculture. The PES 

sample consisted of a 1 in 30 subsample of the original 6,391 

area sample segments selected systematically across the conterminous States. The 212 segments enumerated had an average 

of 75 households per segment. 

The PES was conducted by field enumerators under the 

supervision of the Census Field Division regional offices. Only 

highly qualified enumerators were selected based on past performance evaluations. Intensified canvassing methods, probing 

interview techniques, and special forms were utilized to achieve 

the best coverage and quality possible. Interviews were conducted with the most knowledgeable person 'in each household. 

All members of the household were listed in the PES listing 

book (see appendix B), whereas, only the head of the household 

was listed in CAAS. A series of screening questions was used to 

determine which household members had agricultural operations. 

As a last resort, respondents who could not be personally interviewed were interviewed by telephone. 

The principal processing steps were: 

a. Receive PES listing books from census regional offices 

following PES field enumeration. Procure CAAS materials 

for PES subsampled segments. 

b. Match PES households to CAAS households and identify 

PES cases with potential agricultu ral activities that are 

nonmatch to CAAS. 

c. Match PES cases with potential agricultural activities that 

are nonmatch to CAAS to the census microfilm mail file. 

d. Mail evaluation report form (78-A90; see appendix B) 

to nonmatch and doubtful match cases to obtain basic 

farm data and additional information for matching. 

e. Mail three followups to nonrespondents at 2-week 

intervals. 

f. Telephone followup of remaining nonrespondents by 

regional offices. 

g. Perform second match to mail list using information from 

form 78-A90. 

h. Review form 78-A90 to classify as farm/nonfarm according to farm definition and match/non match to CAAS and 

census mail list. 

i. Telephone followup to resolve problem cases and obtain 

a form 78-A90 for noncontact cases. 

j. Assign area sample segment weights to all cases. 

k. Obtain census data records from data file for all match 

PES cases for use in assigning coverage classification codes. 

I. Review and assign coverage classification codes to all 

cases. 

m. Key data to produce coverage data file. 

n. Edit and review data for accuracy and consistency. 

o. Produce estimates for PES sample error. 

p. Tabulate data and publish results. 

Results from the PES were used to provide a statistical 

basis for evaluating the completeness of the area sample results. 

Estimation Procedure 

The coverage evaluation provides estimates of three coverage 

components in relation to the census: 

a. Included farms. 

b. Overcounted farms. 

c. Missed farms. 

The estimates are based on the AHS and PES samples and 

take the general form, V t = Vi - V 0 + V m where: 

Vt = Estimate of total farms as determined in the coverage 

evaluation. 

Vi = Estimate of all farms included in the census. 

V 0 = Estimate of farms overcounted in the census. 

V m = Estimate of farms missed in the census. 

The estimates of proportion of farms included in the census 

are in the form, 

included (percent) = (V/Vt

) x 100. 

The estimates of the proportion of net missed farms are in 

the form, 

net missed (percent) = (V m- V 0) x 100. 

Y' 

t 
VIII GENERAL EXPLANATION-Continued 

Results 

Estimates of Census Coverage 

Estimates of census coverage of farms were made only at 

regional and national levels since evaluation samples were too 

small to provide reliable estimates at State or county levels. 

Estimates of the number of farms are based on a combination of 

the AHS and PES samples. Estimates for the value of agricultural products sold and land in farms are based on the AHS 

and PES sample estimates for the included, overcounted, and 

missed farms. The estimates for land in farms and value of 

agricultural products sold do not represent a measurement of 

total error for these items since reporting error was not measured 

for included and overcounted farms. 

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 missed 

farms or the proportion of missed farms alone, are not a complete indication of the quality of the census. Consideration of 

economic characteristics such as estimates of the value of 

agricultural products sold along with the farm counts may be 

a better indication of census quality and, in turn, may have a 

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

net missed farm rate was 3.4 percent, the missed farms accounted 

for only 1.6 percent of the estimated value of agricultural 

products sold in the United States. 

Regional estimates are presented in Tables 1,3, and 4 to provide some indication of census coverage below the national 

level. Because of the relatively high sampling error these estimates may not be reliable. Caution should be observed when 

drawing conclusions based upon comparisons of regional estimates within and between tables. 

Table 1-This table presents the number of farms by sales group, 

standard industrial classification (SIC), size, and operator 

characteristics by components of coverage. Farms were classified as included, overcounted, and missed. Overcounted farms 

were part of the farms included in the census. Estimates indicate that 96.6 percent of all farms were included in the 1978 

census for the conterminous United States. Approximately 

4.4 percent of all farms were missed and approximately 1.1 

percent of all farms were overcounted resulting in an average net 

missed rate of approximately 3.4 percent for data at the State 

level and above. The average net missed rate was 15.0 percent 

in 1969 and 10.7 percent in 1974 for data at all levels. Comparison of these rates indicates the considerable improvement 

for data at the State level and above provided primarily by the 

inclusion of the area sample with the 1978 net missed rate 

being reduced to 3.4 percent from 10.7 percent in 1974. In 

1978, the area sample estimates were not included in census 

county data. 

For farms with value of agricultural products sold of $2,500 

or more, 97.6 percent were included in the census. The net 

missed farm rate for this group was 2.4 percent. 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. 

An estimated 93.5 percent of farms with value of agricultural 

products sold of less than $2,500 were included in the census. 

The net missed farm rate was 6.5 percent. The net missed rate 

for this group was 31.6 percent in 1969 and 25.9 percent in 

1974. Coverage of small farms was improved primarily by use 

of CAAS and by changes in the development of the mail list. 

The estimated number of overcounted farms was approximately 24,000. Overcounting occurred primarily when census 

reports were duplicated for a single farm or when multiple 

census reports were included for parts of a single farm. In 

addition, overcounting occurred when a nonfarm was counted 

as a census farm or when a farm was incorrectly classified in 

the area sample. 

Farms missed in the census are classified into three groups: 

Group 1. Farms on the mail list which were misclassified as 

nonfarms because of incorrect reporting, incomplete reporting, and processing errors. 

Group 2. Farms in urban areas excluded from the area 

sample and not located on the census mail list. 

Group 3. Farms missed in CAAS and not located on the 

census mail list. 

About 57 percent of the missed farms were misclassified, 

about 21 percent were missed in urban areas, and about 22 

percent were missed in CAAS. 

While about 62 percent of the missed farms had value of 

agricultural products sold of $2,500 or more, only 10 percent 

were "large" farms with sales of $40,000 or more. About 64 

percent of the missed farms had less than 100 acres, and only 

7 percent had 500 acres or more. Of the missed farms, 66.6 

percent were operated by full owners, 12.2 percent by part 

owners, and 21.2 percent by tenants. Missed farms were 

divided equally between livestock farms and crop farms. 

The net missed rate for nonresident operators in 1978 was 

7.7 percent. Coverage of operators not living on their farms has 

been a problem in past censuses because of the difficulty in 

enumerating operators living in urban areas or in small towns 

away from their farms. Various procedures have been introduced in previous censuses to attempt to improve enumeration 

of nonresident operators. Although some improvement in the 

coverage of nonresidents has been made over the years, a 

relatively high undercoverage rate remains. 

Table 2-This table presents the characteristics of missed farms 

by sales group. The missed farm data do not represent total 

error in the census because detailed data for the overcounted 

farms could not be derived in the coverage evaluation and 

reporting error on correctly counted farms was not measured. 

The estimated total number of missed farms was approximately 101,000 or 4.4 percent of the estimated total number 

of farms. The average size of missed farms was 202 acres. 

Table A presents selected characteristics of missed farms 

compared to census totals. Sample estimates of missed farm 

characteristics were not developed for the coverage samples 

and comparisons for these items can be made only by using 

census totals. While these estimates probably understate the 

total error, the missed farm estimates for these items are likely 
GENERAL EXPLANATION-Continued IX 

to contribute substantially more than other components to total 

error. Therefore, estimated minimum levels are indicated by 

adding the missed farm estimates to corresponding census 

figures for comparison. The data in table A provide some indication of census coverage for specified items. 

Table 3-This table presents estimates of the land in farms by 

sales group and components of coverage. For the United States, 

an estimated 98.0 percent of the land in farms was included in 

the census. Missed farms accounted for only 2.0 percent of the 

land in farms. Missed farms accounted for 1.9 percent of the 

estimated total acres for farms with sales of $2,500 or more, 

and 5.1 percent for farms with sales of less than $2,500. The 

estimates for land in farms do not represent total error because 

reporting error was not measured on included and overcounted 

farms. No sampling errors were calculated for land in farms. 

However, estimates should be used with caution because relatively high sampling errors are likely. 

Table 4-This table presents the estimates for the value of agricultural products sold by sales group and components of 

coverage. Estimates indicate that 98.4 percent of the value of 

agricultural products sold was included in the 1978 census for 

the conterminous United States. Missed farms accounted for 

1.6 percent of the estimated value of agricultural products 

sold for farms with sales of $2,500 or more, and 6.5 percent 

for farms with sales of less than $2,500. The estimates for value 

of agricultural products sold do not represent total error because 

reporting error was not measured on included and overcounted 

farms. No sampling errors were calculated for value of agriculture products sold. However, estimates should be used with 

caution because relatively high sampling errors are likely. 

Table 5-This table presents the reliability of farm estimates by 

sales group, size of farm, and components of coverage. Standard 

Table A. Census Farms and Estimates of Missed Farm Characteristics 

for Selected Items 

Corn for grain .•... farms .. 

acres .. 

Sorghum for grain .. fanns .. 

acres .. 

'Wlleat •..•.•..•..... farms •. 

acres .. 

Soybea.ns ..•........ farms .. 

acres .. 

Hay .•.••.•.••.••.•. farms .. 

acres .. 

Tobacco. . . . •. . ••.. farms .. 

acres .. 

Inventory : 

Catt1e and calves. forms .. 

number .• 

Hogs and pigs .••• farms .• 

number .. 

Hens and pUllets. farms .• 

number •• 

(Data for Alaska and Hawaii are not included) 

Ratio 

Combined of 

census missed 

Est imate farms farms 

Census for published to comfarms missed and missed bined 

published farms fanns fanns 

842,894 20,232 863.126 2.3 

70,733,245 1.042,520 71,775,765 1.5 

115,139 1,472 116,611 1.3 

12,961,799 139,840 13,101,639 1.1 

383,357 8,832 392,189 2.3 

54,457,748 473,984 54,931,732 .9 

550,640 12,436 562,976 2.2 

61,832,897 533,196 62,366,093 '.9 

1,200,314 19,236 1,219,550 1.6 

61,740,582 816,222 62,556,804 1.3 

203,015 5,888 208,903 2.8 

1,004,697 39,229 1,043,926 3.8 

1,460,964 49,320 1,510,284 3.3 

105,487,755 2,060,076 107,547,831 1.9 

511,838 11,922 523,760 2.3 

58,759,075 193,340 58,952,415 .3 

315,057 13,228 328,285 4.0 

357,787,310 '264,054 358,051,364 .1 

errors were computed directly for the estimated total farms, 

included farms, and missed farms. The estimates of sampling 

error for the overcounted farms would have been based on a 

small number of observations and were not produced. Standard 

errors for regional estimates by value of sales and size of farm 

are high for some estimates and should be used with caution. 

The relative standard error for the estimated total farms in 

the United States was 4.5 percent. The standard error for the 

estimate of included farms, as percent of estimated total, was 

4.6 percent at the U.S. level, and ranges from 7.3 to 11.6 

percent at the regional level. The relative standard error for 

missed farms was 11.2 percent at the U.S. level. Additional 

detail regarding sampling error may be found in the Accuracy of 

the Estimates section. 

Other Results 

One of the objectives of the 1978 coverage evaluation was to 

attempt to identify potential problem areas associated with the 

CAAS. The CAAS was used to supplement the mail list and provided approximately 8.9 percent of the total census farms at 

the U.S. level. Since CAAS was designed to cover rural areas 

only (areas with less than 2,500 population) the coverage evaluation studies were developed to provide estimates of farms 

operated by individuals living in urban areas (places with 2,500 

inhabitants or more), as well as farms in rural areas. The AHS 

sample represented all population size areas; therefore, it provided the capability for the measurement of farms operated by 

individuals living in urban and rural areas. Estimates of missed 

farms in the census in urban areas are shown in table 1. 

Table B shows estimates of the total number of farms by 

population of the area in which the residence of the operator is 

located. These estimates reflect the location of the farm operator 

household and not necessarily the location of the actual farm 

operation. The population areas are based on the 1970 population census information. The estimates for farms by population of area from the coverage evaluation samples are not 

comparable with census published data because of sampling and 

nonsampling errors. See, Accuracy of the Estimates. 

To provide information on factors associated with census 

error and to identify problem areas to improve coverage in the 

future, three investigative studies were undertaken. These studies 

used information from the AHS and PES samples. The areas of 

study were: 

a. Farms on the mail list which were misclassified as nonfarms in the census. 

b. Farms missed in CAAS. 

c. Farms overcounted in CAAS. 

Table B. Farms by Population of Area 

Un! ted States ................. . 

1970 population of area: 

Less than 2.500 inhabitants ......... . 

2,.500 to 9,999 inhabitants .......... . 

10.000 to 24,999 inhabitants ........ . 

25,000 to 99.999 inhabitants ........ . 

100,000 inhabitants or more ......... . 

Estimated farms 

2,279,470 

2.107,445 

91,065 

23,552 

35,328 

22,0.80 

Percent 

100.0 

92.4 

4.0 

1.0 

1.6 

1.0 
x GENERAL EXPLANATION-Continued 

Exact causes of census error could not always be determined. 

However, in each study, all available information was used to 

reach reasonable conclusions. 

A special study was initiated to determine reasons for misclassification of farms. Misclassification accounted for 57 

percent of the missed farms because of incorrect or incomplete 

reporting or processing errors. The available information on 

each misclassified case (form 78-A90, telephone followup 

materials, materials from the match to the mail list, etc.) was 

carefully reviewed and additional matching to the mail list 

was conducted if any information had been overlooked in the 

initial matching process. A final review determined the possible 

reason why each case had been misclassified. 

The results of the study showed that there were varied reasons 

for misclassification in the census. It appears that the major 

reason was that some census respondents felt that their operations were "too small" or "only for home use" and should not 

be classified as a farm. Therefore, these respondents did not 

report any agricultural activities or failed to report the full 

extent of their activities. Some changes in the design of the 

report form and additional review of nonfarm report forms 

were suggested to reduce the problem of misclassification in 

future censuses. 

A second special study attempted to determine why farms 

had been missed in CAAS. The PES missed farm cases, the 

CAAS and PES listing books, maps, and all other information 

were carefully reviewed. 

The conclusions reached by the study were: (1) differences 

in reporting data often arose when the respondent was someone 

other than the farm operator; (2) enumerators need to check 

more thoroughly for households in isolated locations so that all 

households in the segment are covered; and (3) smaller farm 

operations are most often missed because the operators. feel 

their operations are too small to be classified as a farm and 

sometimes fail to give the enumerator, even after probing, complete information. It was recommended that the CAAS enumerator's instructions be modified so that the enumerators rely 

less on neighbors or other persons outside the household for 

agricultural information on the household. 

The objective of the third special study was to try to determine why farms were overcounted in CAAS. Overcount 

occurred when a CAAS farm should have been matched to the 

census mail list but was incorrectly classified as a nonmatch; 

therefore, data from the same farm was included in both CAAS 

and the census. A thorough review of the CAAS and PES 

listing books and all information available on the PES overcount cases was completed. Farm data from CAAS and the 

census were compared to determine if there was duplication. 

Analysis indicated that the three recurrent problems during 

the CAAS matching operation which led to overcount in CAAS 

were: (1) misspelled names in CAAS and/or the census mail list; 

(2) alternate addresses for the same operation; and (3) alternate 

names for the same operation. Additional review of the report 

forms for alternate names and addresses and changes in the 

matching procedures were recommended. Also, it was recommended that the name of the spouse be included on the CAAS 

report form for use in the matching procedure. 

Accuracy of the Estimates 

The statistics in this report are estimates derived from AHS 

and PES coverage evaluation sample data. Two types of errors 

are possible in estimates based on a sample-sampling error and 

nonsampling error. Sampling error occurs because observations 

are made only on a sample and not 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, response error, definitional differences, 

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. 

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 differ. The deviation 

of a sample estimate 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 the 

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. The relative standard 

error is defined as the standard error divided by the value being 

estimated. 

The sample estimates and the estimates of absolute and relative standard errors presented in table 5 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 is 2,279,470 with a relative standard error of 

4.5 percent. The standard error is 102,576 (4.5 percent of 

2,279,470) and the chances are 2 out of 3 (67 percent) that 

complete coverage using the same survey methods would yield 

between 2,176,894 and 2,382,046 farms. 

As calculated, the standard error also partially measures the 

effect of nonsampling errors but does not measure the effect 

of any systematic biases in the data arising from incorrect 

reporting by respondents, adjustments for nonresponse, duplication, or incomplete coverage of farms. 

The following examples describe how the published standard 

errors in table 5 may be used to calculate approximate standard 

errors for selected types of derived statistics, such as relative 
GENERAL EXPLANATION-Continued XI 

standard errors of ratios (example 1) and standard errors of differences between ratios (example 2). 

The relative standard errors, supplemented by the correlation 

coefficient, may be used to develop approximate standard 

errors for various estimated ratios, R' = Y'/X', where Y' is a 

subset of X'. 

Example 1-Approximate relative standard errors of ratios 

of different items for a given classification may be computed 

by the formula, 

VIR') = Vv2 (Y') - 2 P (Y',X') V (Y') V (X') + V2 (X'), 

where V(Y') and V(X') are the relative standard errors of 

each of the two item totals, V2 (Y') and V2 (X') are the 

squares of those relative standard errors, and p (Y' ,X') is 

the correlation coefficient between the estimates. 

The correlation coefficient may be computed by the 

formula, 

PlY' X') = a 2 (Y') , a 2 (X') 

where a 2 (Y') is the square of the absolute standard error 

of Y' and a 2 (X') is the square of the absolute standard 

error of X'. 

To compute the standard error of the percent of missed 

farms in the North Central Region, which is the ratio of 

missed farms to total farms, from table 5, apply the formula 

shown above for relative standard errors of ratios. 

Y' 37,132 

X' 938,248 

R' Y'/X' = .040 

V (Y') .215 

V (X') .076 

p(Y',X') = .013 

Substituting these values into the formula gives, 

V (R') - V .0462 - 2(.013) (.215) (.076) + .0058 

-V-ffi6 

.227 

Therefore, the estimated ratio of 4.0 percent missed farms 

in the North Central Region is subject to a relative standard 

error of 22.7 percent. 

Example 2-Approximate relative standard. error for the 

difference between ratios, 

Y , Y , 1 2 0'= R1'- R2'where R1'=--and R '=--

X ' 2 X'' 1 . 2 

may be computed by the formula, V (0') = V (R,) +V (R2'), 

where V (R 1 ') and V (R2') are the relative standard errors 

of each of the ratios, assuming the two ratios to be statistically 

independent. 

To compute the standard error of the difference of the 

ratio of missed farms in the North Central Region from the 

ratio of missed farms in the Northeast Region, apply the 

formula shown above for the relative standard error of the 

difference between ratios. 

ratio of missed farms in Northeast = .064 

ratio of missed farms in North Central = .040 

0' .064 - .040 = .024 

VIR,) - .322 

V(R2') ~ .227 

Substituting these values into the formula gives, 

V(O') = .322 + .227 = .549 

Therefore, the estimated difference of 2.4 percent is subject to a relative standard error of about 54.9 percent. 

Nonsampling error-Approximately 72,000 sample housing units 

(both occupied and vacant) were eligible for interview in the 

1978 AHS. Of this number, 6.1 percent or 4,400 units were 

classified as noninterviews. A unit was classified as non interview if the occupants refused to be interviewed or could not be 

contacted after repeated visits. In addition, about 4.0 percent 

or 2,900 units were partially completed interviews with the 

agriculture supplements being classified as noninterview. The 

majority of the noninterview agriculture supplements were due 

to refusals. The total noninterview rate for the agriculture 

supplement was about 10 percent. 

An additional factor contributing to possible nonsampling 

error in the coverage estimates is that about 5 percent of the 

total AHS supplements with agriculture were unclassified. 

Unclassified cases are those which could not be identified as 

either a farm or a nonfarm in the coverage evaluation processing. 

If the correct classification could have been determined, the 

unclassified group most likely would have been spread throughout all coverage components. However, it is likely that the 

unclassified group would be concentrated more heavily in the 

missed farms component since the majority of these cases were 

not matched to the mail list. 

The assumption that all non respondent farms are correctly 

represented in the ·census as a result of the non respondent 

adjustment procedure may produce some bias in the coverage 

estimates. The nonrespondent adjustment represented about 

8.5 percent of the farms and about 4 percent of the value of 

agricultural products sold in the 1978 census. The coverage 

sample had a 7.5 percent adjustment rate compared with the 

8.5 percent adjustment rate in the census. 

Variance estimation-Estimates in this evaluation study are the 

sum of two separate and statistically independent surveys-the 

AHS and the PES. Estimates of totals and their variances are 

the sum of the two separate survey estimates. The evaluation of 

totals and their sampling variances are discussed separately for 

each survey. 
XII GENERAL EXPLANATION-Continued 

AHS-The 1918 AHS estimates are based on data collected in 

October 1978 through January 1979. The sample for this 

survey was spread over 461 sample areas (called primary 

sampling units), comprising 923 counties and independent 

cities with coverage in each of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia. 

To select the sample areas, the United States was divided 

into areas made up of counties and independent cities 

referred to as primary sampling units (PSU's). These PSU's 

were then grouped into 376 strata, 156 of which consisted 

of only 1 PSU in sample with certainty. These 156 strata, 

mostly the larger standard metropolitan statistical areas 

(SMSA's), were called self-representing (SR) because the 

sample from the sample area represented just that PSU. Each 

of the other 220 strata consisted of a group of PSU's and 

were referred to as nonself-representing (NSR), since the' 

sample of housing units from the sample PSU in a stratum 

represented the other PSU's in the stratum as well. 

One PSU was selected from each NSR stratum with probability proportionate to the 1970 census population to the 

PSU. (This resulted in 220 NSR sample PSU's.) In addition, 

the NSR strata were grouped into 110 pairs and 1 stratum 

was picked at random from each pair. From this stratum, an 

additional PSU was selected independently of the other PSU 

selected from this stratum. Since the two PSU's were independently selected, it was possible for the same PSU to be 

selected twice. This occurred in 25 instances, producing an 

additional 85 NSR sample PSU's, thus giving a grand total 

of 461 PSU's. 

In 1974, it was decided to increase the reliability of the 

AHS estimates of rural housing characteristics by doubling 

the number of sample housing units from rural areas. This 

was accomplished by activating the reserve sample, selected 

in the original sampling operations in 1973, from rural 

areas only. For the reserve sample selected in census address 

and new construction frames, the other half of each rural 

cluster (an expected two housing units) was activated in 

1974, if the cluster was rural. This supplementation increased 

the overall probability of selection for sample housing 

units in rural areas to about 1 in 683; whereas, the overall 

probability of selection for sample housing units in urban 

areas remained at about 1 in 1,366. 

For the 1978 AHS, approximately 77 ,900 sample housing 

units were identified in the sample areas. Of this number, 

about 5,900 sample units were visited, but were found to 

be ineligible for interview for AHS in terms of collecting 

information relevant to the 1978 housing inventory. Another 

4,400 units were eligible for interview, but were classified as 

"noninterview" for various reasons. 

At each interviewed household, a supplemental set of 

agricultural screening questions was asked of all individuals 

enumerated in the 1978 AHS. These screening questions 

were comparable to screening questions asked of households 

in the CAAS. All identified potential farm operations were 

matched to the 1978 Census of Agriculture mail list. Nonmatch and doubtful match cases were mailed an evaluation 

report form to obtain the basic agricultural characteristics 

of the, operation and additional information for matching 

purposes. 

Totals at the regional level were estimated for farm 

counts by major characteristics. Individual farm characteristics are expanded by the reciprocal of the probability 

of selection. Generally, the expansion factor was 683 in rural 

areas and 1,366 in urban areas. Estimates were made for total 

farms included farms, missed farms, and overcounted farms. 

Sampling variance for major data items was estimated 

at the regional and national levels. Estimates of sampling 

reliability were made separately for the NSR and SR strata. 

In NSR strata, the 220 strata were collapsed into 110 strata. 

A third sample PSU was randomly selected from the two 

PSU's in each strata. The three PSU's were used to estimate 

variances in NSR strata. In SR strata, variances were estimated using a balanced half-sample replication estimator 

using all possible samples to produce estimate variances. 

PES-The PES was a subsample of the 1978 CAAS. PES 

estimates are based on data collected in December 1978 

through January 1979 follo~ing the completion of the 

CAAS enumeration. 

The sample for the 1978 CAAS was selected from rural 

areas (areas in the 1970 Census of Population and Housing 

classified as having less than 2,500 inhabitants), A sample was 

selected independently from each State in the conterminous 

United States. A total of 6,391 sample areas were selected. 

Areas were selected separately from one of six strata defined 

by expected farm density. Data collection resulted in approximately 560,000 housing units screened and 92,000 potential 

farm operations identified. 

The PES used a 1 in 30 subsample of the CAAS segments. 

The subsample was selected independently from each strata 

without consideration for State. Some States and groups of 

States had no subsample areas selected in a given strata. 

The PES sample was a stratified sample with an unequal 

probability sample within a strata. A total of 212 subsample 

areas were selected with approximately 16,000 households 

screened and approximately 3,500 potential farm operations 

identified. 

All identified potential farm operations were matched to 

CAAS and to the 1978 Census of Agriculture mail list. 

Nonmatch and doubtful match cases were mailed an evaluation report form to obtain the basic agricultural characteristics of the operation and additional information for matching purposes. 

Identified farms were weighted by the reciprocal of the 

probability of selection, 

weight = 1978 CAAS weight x 30. 

Sampling error is estimated by strata within regions. To 

estimate sampling error, all subsample areas in a given strata 

of a region were collapsed into one strata. Within a collapsed 

stratum of a region, sampling errors were estimated assuming 

unequal probability random sampling with replacement. The 

sampling variance of strata totals were summed to estimate 

the sampling variance of a regional total. Regional variances 

were added to calculate estimates for the national total. 
C~I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------, 

~ 

o 

~ 

~ 

~ 

3 

~ 

~ 

~ 

o 

g -

3 

3 

~ 

rl 

~ 

til 

C 

::D 

m 

» 

c 

o 

"Tl 

-i 

:r 

m 

o 

MILES 

a 200 400 

! I~ . -I 

COLO. 

,,0 

HAWAII 

~= <:l~ 

~©~ 1r[}{] ~~~1r~~[L 

N. OAK. 

S. OAK. 

NEBR. 

KANS. MO. 

OKLA 

ARK. 

TEXAS 

~©QJJli[}{] 

D MILES 

a 100 200 

tt!1©~ 1i\1{\~~~1i 

::D 

m 

G) 

C5 

iii! 

en 

Q 

." 

..... 

:z: 

m 

C 

iii! 

=t 

m 

o 

en 

..... 

,. 

..... 

m 

en 

x 

= 

Table 1. Farms by Sales Group, Standard Industrial Classification, Size, and Operator Characteristics, by Components of Coverage: 1978 

UNITED STATES 

Farm...~ ......................... .. 

Farms by value of sales: 

Less than $2,500 •••••••••.•• 

$2,500 to $9,999 ••••••••.••• 

$10,000 to $39,999 •••••.•.•• 

$40,000 or more •••••.••.•.•• 

$2,500 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 OW11ers ................................ .. 

Part OW11ers ................................ .. 

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

Farms by age of operator: 

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

35 to 54 years •.•.•••••••••• 

55 years and over •••••.••••• 

.Farms by residence of operator: 

On farm operated ..................... .. 

Not on farm operated •.•••••. 

Farms by principal occupation 

of operator: 

Farming ••••.••••••.••.••.••• 

Other ••••.••.••••.•..••••••• 

NORTHEAST 

FarTIlS ................................... .. 

Farms by value of sales: 

Less than $2,500 .•.•....•••• 

$2,500 to $9,999 ••.••.•.•••• 

$10,000 to $39,999 .•...•.••• 

$40,000 or more ••••.•••••••• 

$2,500 or more •.••.•••.•.••. 

Farms by standard industrial 

class ification: 

Crops (01) ••••.••.•.••...••. 

Livestock (02) •.••.•••••..•• 

Farms by size: 

1 to 99 acres ..............• 

100 to 499 acres •.•.•.•••.•• 

500 acres or more •.......... 

Farms by tenure of operator: 

fullolmers .... : ........... . 

Part owners ................• 

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

Farms by age of operator: 

Under 35 years ..........•... 

35 to 54 years ••.••..••.•••• 

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

Farms by residence of operator: 

On farm operated ..... " •..... 

Not on farm operated •.•..... 

Farms by principal occupation 

of operator! 

Farming .•.... " ....•......... 

Other ••••••••••••••••.•••••• 

Estimated 

farms 1 

2,279,470 

540,848 

574,074 

567,301 

597,247 

1,738,622 

1,070,546 

1,208,924 

910,948 

988,802 

379,720 

1,297,341 

711,768 

270,361 

388,648 

1,038,397 

852,425 

1,723,637 

360,683 

1,267,434 

1,012,036 

154,216 

46,362 

35,264 

22,816 

49,774 

107,854 

56,616 

97,600 

63,768 

78,672 

11,776 

87,222 

52,248 

14,746 

26,110 

72,805 

55,30 1 

133,986 

11,776 

95,528 

58,688 

See footnotes at end of table. 

1978 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE 

Farms in 

Included 

Number Percent 

2,202,360 96.6 

505,670 93.5 

555,166 96.7 

547,957 96.6 

593,567 99.4 

1,696,690 97.6 

1,035,388 96.7 

1,166,972 96.5 

855,928 94.0 

969,864 98.1 

376,568 99.2 

1,246,671 96.1 

705,328 99.1 

250,361 92.6 

364,213 93.7 

1,002,486 96.5 

835,661 98.0 

1,679,507 97.4 

332,789 92.3 

1,242,936 98.1 

959,424 94.8 

144,876 93.9 

40,988 88.4 

34,242 97.1 

21,344 93.5 

48,302 97.0 

103,888 96.3 

50,294 88.8 

94,582 96.9 

54,714 85.8 

78,386 99.6 

11,776 100.0 

80,524 92.3 

50,342 96.4 

14,010 95.0 

25,374 97.2 

68,167 93.6 

51,335 92.8 

125,908 94.0 

10,754 91.3 

90,376 94.6 

54,500 92.9 

census 

Overcounted Total 

Number Percent Number Percent 

23,962 1.1 101,072 4.4 

3,048 .6 38,226 7.1 

10,610 1.8 29,518 5.1 

3,680 .6 23,024 4.0 

6,624 1.1 10,304 1.7 

20,914 1.2 62,846 3.6 

15,706 1.5 50,864 4.7 

8,256 .7 50,208 4.2 

9,186 1.0 64,206 7.0 

11,096 1.1 30,034 3.0 

3,680 1.0 6,832 1.8 

16,602 1.3 67,272 5.2 

5,888 .8 12,328 1.7 

1,472 .5 21,472 7.9 

2,944 .8 27,379 7.1 

7,162 .7 43,073 4.2 

13,856 1.6 30,620 3.6 

17,822 1.0 61,952 3.6 

4,668 1.3 32,562 9.0 

16,638 1.3 41,136 3.2 

7,324 .7 59,936 5.9 

450 .3 9,790 6.4 

- - 5,374 11.6 

450 1.3 1,472 4.2 

- - 1,472 6.5 

- - 1,472 3.0 

450 .4 4,416 4.1 

- - 6,322 11.2 

450 .5 3,468 3.6 

- - 9,054 14.2 

450 .6 736 1.0 

- - - -

450 .5 7,148 8.2 

- - 1,906 3.6 

- - 736 5.0 

- - 736 2.8 

- - 4,638 6.4 

450 .8 4,416 8.0 

- - 8,078 6.0 

450 3.8 1,472 12.5 

- - 5,152 5.4 

450 .8 4,638 7.9 

Farms missed 

Misclassified In urban In rural areas areas (CAAS) 2 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

57,408 2.5 21,344 0.9 22,320 1.0 

17,664 3.3 8,832 1.6 11,730 2.2 

16,192 2.8 4,416 .8 8,910 1.5 

15,456 2.7 5,888 1.0 1,680 .3 

8,096 1.3 2,208 .4 - -

39,744 2.3 12,512 .7 10,590 .6 

32,384 3.0 11,040 1.0 7,440 .7 

25,024 2.1 10,304 .9 14,880 1.2 

31,648 3.5 16,928 1.8 15,630 1.7 

20,608 2.1 4,416 .4 5,010 .5 

5,152 1.4 - - 1,680 .4 

35,328 2.7 17,664 1.4 14,280 1.1 

8,832 1.2 736 .1 2,760 .4 

13,248 4.9 2,944 1.0 5,280 2.0 

9,965 2.6 8,538 2.2 8,876 2.3 

20,403 2.0 11,334 1.1 11,336 1.1 

27,040 3.2 1,472 .2 2,108 .2 

35,328 2.0 10,304 .6 16,320 1.0 

21,344 5.9 9,568 2.7 1,650 .4 

30,912 2.4 6,624 .5 3,600 .3 

26,496 2.6 14,720 1.5 18,720 1.8 

5,888 3.8 1,472 1.0 2,430 1.6 

2,944 6.4 - - 2,430 5.2 

1,472 4.2 - - - - - - 1,472 6.5 - - 1,472 3.0 - - - - 2,944 2.7 1,472 1.4 - -

3,680 6.5 1,472 2.6 1,170 2.1 

2,208 2.3 - - 1,260 1.3 

5,152 8.1 1,472 2.3 2,430 3.8 

736 1.0 - - - - - - - - - -

4,416 5.1 1,472 1.7 1,260 1.4 

736 1.4 - - 1,170 2.2 

736 5.0 - - - -

736 2.8 - - - -

736 1.0 1,472 2.0 2,430 3.4 

4,416 8.0 - - - -

4,416 3.3 1,472 1.1 2,190 1.6 

1,472 12.5 - - - -

3,680 3.9 1,472 1.5 - - 2,208 3.8 - - 2,430 4.1 

COVERAGE EVALUATION 1 
Table 1. Farms by Sales Group, Standard Industrial Classification, Size, and Operator Characteristics, by Components of Coverage: 1978-Con. 

NORTH CENTRAL 

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

Farms by value of sales: 

Less than $2,500 •.•.••.•.••• 

.$2,500 to $9,999 ••.. ..•.•••• 

$10,000 to $39,999 •.....•••• 

$40) 000 or more ................ .. 

$2 J 500 or more ............. . 

Farms by standard indus trial 

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 owner ..••....••........ 

Part ovmer .................. .. 

Tenant ....................... . 

Farms by age of operator: 

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

35 to 54 years •••.•••••••••• 

55 years and over ........••• 

Farms by residence of operator: 

On farm operated ............. . 

Not on farm operated .......• 

Farm5 by principal occupation 

of operator: 

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

Other .............•....•.... 

SOUTH 

Farms •. ..•....•••.••.•.• 

Farms by value of sales: 

Less than 4:2,500 ............ . 

';;2,500 to ·t9,999 ••...•..•.•• 

.$10,000 to $39,999 .••....••• 

?-40,000 or more ........... " 

<;;2,500 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. .......... . 

Fanns by tenure of operator: 

Full o'Ymer •................. 

Part oYmcr ...•.............. 

'fenant ..................... . 

Farms by age of operator: 

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

35 to 54 years •••.••••.••••• 

55 years and over .........•. 

Farm.';; by res idencc of operator: 

On farm operate.d ........... . 

Not on farm operated ....... . 

Farms by principal occupatIon 

of opc.:rator: 

Fanning .................... . 

Other ..................... , . 

Estimated 

farms 1 

938,248 

156,090 

Z02,002 

271,865 

308,291 

782,158 

478,845 

459,403 

305,858 

451,427 

180,963 

499,170 

329,842 

109,236 

170,015 

430,281 

337,952 

743,288 

118,930 

568,123 

370,125 

903,984 

250,780 

281,856 

203,346 

168,002 

653,204 

399,513 

504,471 

406,740 

377 ,055 

120,189 

522,339 

263,216 

118,429 

146,718 

397,134 

360,132 

635,317 

176, 40 1 

451,175 

452,809 

See footnotes at end of table. 

2 COVERAGE EVALUATION 

Farms in census 

Included Overcounted 

Number Percent Number Percent 

907,346 96.7 6,230 0.7 

143,584 92.0 736 .5 

193,174 95.6 3,286 1.6 

261,561 96.2 - - 309,027 100.2 2,208 .7 

763,762 97.6 5,494 .7 

458,407 95.7 2,944 .6 

448,939 97.7 3,286 .7 

285,198 93.3 1,472 .5 

439,713 97.4 2,550 .6 

182,435 100.8 2,208 1.2 

475,850 95.3 4,022 .8 

328,370 99.5 1,472 .4 

103,126 94.4 736 .7 

158,143 93.0 1,472 .9 

416,797 96.9 736 .2 

332,406 98.4 4,022 1.2 

728,064 97.9 5,494 .7 

106,418 89.5 - -

556,467 97.9 5,494 .9 

350,879 94.8 736 .2 

882,028 97.6 15,074 1.7 

240,570 95.9 2,312 .9 

273,998 97.2 6,874 2.4 

200,194 98.4 3,680 1.8 

167,266 99.6 2,208 1.3 

641,458 98.2 12,762 2.0 

399,645 100.0 12,026 3.0 

482,383 95.6 3,048 .6 

392,666 96.5 6,978 1.7 

372,325 98.7 7,360 1.9 

117,037 97.4 736 .6 

512,91·9 98.2 9,922 1.9 

260,154 98.8 4,416 1.7 

108,955 92.0 736 .6 

138,653 94.5 1,472 1.0 

384,162 96.7 4,954 1.2 

359,213 99.7 8,648 2.4 

622,313 98.0 10,856 1.7 

169,129 95.9 3,482 2.0 

448,411 99.4 8,936 2.0 

433,617 95.8 6,138 1.4 

Fanns missed 

Total Misc1assif1ed In urban In rural areas areas (eMS)' i 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

37,132 4.0 21.,344 2.3 5, "888 0.6 9,900 1.1 

13,242 8.5 5,888 3.8 2,944 1.9 4,410 2.8 

12,114 6.0 5,152 2.6 1,472 .7 5,490 2.7 

10,304 3.8 8,832 3.2 1,472 .6 - I _ 

1,472 .5 1,472 .5 - - - - 23,890 3.1 15,456 2.0 2,944 .4 5,490 .7 

23,382 4.9 15,456 3.2 4,416 .9 3,510 .8 

13,750 3.0 5,888 1.3 1,472 .3 6,390 1.4 

22,132 7.2 11,776 3.9 4,416 1.4 5,940 1.9 

14,264 3.2 8,832 2.0 1,472 .3 3,960 .9 

736 .4 736 .4 - - - -

27,342 5.5 13,984 2.8 5,888 1.2 7,470 1.5 

2,944 .9 2,944 .9 - - - - 6,846 6.3 4,416 4.1 - - 2,430 2.2 

13,344 7.9 5,152 3.1 2,944 1.7 5,248 3.1 

14,220 3.3 6,624 1.5 2,944 .7 4,652 1.1 

9,568 2.8 9,568 2.8 - - - -

20,718 2.8 11,776 1.6 1,472 .2 7,470 1.0 

12,512 10.5 9,568 8.0 2,944 2.5 - -

17,150 3.0 14,720 2.6 - - 2,430 .4 

19,982 5.4 6,624 1.8 5,888 1.6 7,470 2.0 

, 

37,030 4.1 22,816 2.5 6,624 .7 7,590 .9 

12,522 5.0 7,360 2.9 1,472 .6 3,690 1.5 

14,732 5.2 9,568 3.4 2,944 1.0 2,220 .8 

6,832 3.4 3,680 1.8 1,472 .7 1,680 .9 

2,944 1.7 2,208 1.3 736 .I, - - 24,508 3.8 15,456 2.~ 5,152 .8 3,900 .6 

11,894 3.0 9,568 2.4 736 .2 1,590 .4 

25,136 5.0 13,248 2.6 5,888 1.2 6,000 1.2 

21,052 5.2 12,512 3.1 3,680 .9 4,860 1.2 

12,090 3.2 8,096 2.1 2,944 .8 1,050 .3 

3,888 3.2 2,208 1.8 - - 1,680 1.4 

19,342 3.7 11,776 2.3 4,416 .8 3,150 .6 

7,478 2.9 5,152 2.0 736 .3 1,590 .6 

10,210 8.6 5,888 5.0 1,472 1.2 2,850 2.4 

9,537 6.5 3,259 2.2 2,650 1.8 3,628 2.5 

17,926 4.5 11,408 2.9 3,974 1.0 2,544 .6 

9,567 2.7 8,149 2.3 - - 1,418 .4 

23,860 3.7 15,456 2.4 2,944 .5 5,460. .8 

10,754 6.1 6,624 3.8 3,680 2.1 450 .2 

11,700 2.6 8,832 1.9 2,208 .5 660 .2 

25,330 5.6 13,984 3.1 4,416 1.0 6,930 1.5 

1978 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE 
Table 1. Farms by Sales Group. Standard Industrial Classification. Size. and Operator Characteristics. by Components of Coverage: 1978 - Con. 

WEST 

Farms •••••••••..••••.••• 

Farms by value of sales: 

Less than $2,500 •••••••••••• 

$2,500 to $9,999 •••••••••••• 

$10,000 to $39,999 •••••••••• 

$40,000 or more ••••.•••••••• 

$2,500 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 owner ••••••••.••••••••• 

Part owner ..•••.•........... 

Tenant •..•••.••...•......... 

Farms by age of operator: 

Under 35 years •••••••••••••• 

35 to 54 years •••••••••••••• 

55 years and over ........•.. 

Farms by residence of operator: 

On farm operated ......•••... 

Not on farm operated •.••••.• 

Farms by principal occupation 

of operator: 

Farming ••••••••••.•••••••••• 

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

Estimated 

farms) 

283,022 

87,616 

54,952 

69,274 

71,180 

195,406 

135,572 

147,450 

134,582 

81,648 

66,792 

188,610 

66,462 

27,950 

45,805 

138,177 

99,040 

211,046 

53,576 

152,608 

130,414 

Farms in 

Included 

Number Percent 

268,110 94.7 

80,528 91.9 

53,752 97.8 

64,858 93.6 

68,972 96.9 

187,582 96.0 

127,042 93.7 

141,068 95.7 

123,350 91.6 

79,440 97.3 

65,320 97.8 

177,378 94.0 

66,462 100.0 

24,270 86.8 

42,043 91.8 

133,360 96.5 

92,707 93.6 

203,222 96.3 

46,488 86.8 

147,682 96.8 

120,428 92.3 

census 

Overcounted Total 

Number Percent Number Percent 

2,208 0.8 17, 120 6.0 

- - 7,088 8.1 

- - 1,200 2.2 

- - 4,416 6.4 

2,208 3.1 4,416 6.2 

2,208 1.1 10,032 5.1 

736 .5 9,266 6.8 

1,472 1.0 7,854 5.3 

736 .5 11,968 8.9 

736 .9 2,944 3.6 

736 1.1 2,208 3.3 

2,208 1.2 13,440 7.1 

- - - -

- - 3,680 13.2 

- - 3,762 8.2 

1,472 1.1 6,289 4.6 

736 .7 7,069 7.1 

1,472 .7 9,296 4.4 

736 1.4 7,824 14.6 

2,208 1.4 7,134 4.6 

- - 9,986 7.7 

Farms missed 

Misc1assified In urban areas In rural areas 

(CMS)' 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

7,360 2.6 7,360 2.6 2,400 0.8 

1,472 1.7 4,416 5.0 1,200 1.4 

- - - - 1,200 2.2 

2,944 4.3 1,472 2.1 - - 2,944 4.1 1,472 2.1 - -

5,888 3.0 2,944 1.5 1,200 .6 

3,680 2.7 4,416 3.2 1,170 .9 

3,680 2.5 2,944 2.0 1,230 .8 

2,208 1.6 7,360 5.5 2,400 1.8 

2,944 3.6 - - - - 2,208 3.3 - - - -

5,152 2.7 5,888 3.1 2,400 1.3 

- - - - - - 2,208 7.9 1,472 5.3 - -

818 1.8 2,944 6.4 - - 1,635 1.2 2,944 2.1 1,710 1.3 

4,907 4.9 1,472 1.5 690 .7 

3,680 1.7 4,416 2.1 1,200 .6 

3,680 6.9 2,944 5.5 1,200 2.2 

3,680 2.4 2,944 1.9 510 .3 

3,680 2.8 4,416 3.4 1,890 1.5 

lEstimates from coverage evaluation samples; not comparable with published data because of sampling and nonsampling errors. See text, Accuracy of the Estimates. 

2Census of Agriculture Area Sample. 

Table 2. Characteristics of Missed Farms by Sales Group: 1978 

Farms with Farms with Farms with Farms with sales of sales of sales of sales of 

$2,500 or less than :p2,500 or less than All farms more $2,500 All farms more $2,500 

Farms. missed ••••.••••••.•.•.•• number •• 101,072 62,846 38,226 Hay ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• farms •• 19,236 11,776 7,460 

!,and in farms •••••••.•••.•••••• acres •• 20,437,370 18,358,384 2,078,986 acres· . 816,222 610,144 206,078 Average s~ze of farm ••••••••• acres •• 202 292 54 Tobacco •.•..••••••••.•.•..•.•• farms •• 5,888 5,152 736 

acres .. 39,229 38,125 1,104 Corn for grain ••••..•••..•••.•• farms •• 20,232 16,928 3,304 Cattle and calves inventory ..• farms •• 49,320 24,882 24,438 acres •• 1,042,520 986,976 55,544 number •• 2,060,076 1,791,146 268,930 Sorghum for grain ••••.••••.•••. farms .• 1,472 1,472 Hogs and pigs inventory •.•••.• farms •• 11,922 2,132 9,790 acres •• 139,840 139,840 number •. 193,340 66,952 126,388 Wheat •••.•••••••••••••••••••••• farms •• 8,832 7,360 1,472 Hens and pullets inventory •••• farms •• 13,228 4,748 8,480 acres •• 473,984 444,544 29,440 number •. 264,054 136,160 127,894 Soybeans •••••••••••••••••• " •••• fartnS •• 12,436 10,964 1,472 Value of agricultural acres 533,196 518,476 14,720 products sold ••••••••••••••• $1,000 •• 1,653,448 1,613,802 39,646 

1978 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE COVERAGE EVALUATION 3 
Tab:e 3. Land in Farms by Sales Group and Components of Coverage: 1978 

UNITED STATES 

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

Land in farms by value of sales: 

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

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

NORTHEAST 

Land in fanns ............................. . 

Land in farms by value of sales: 

Less than $2.500 .............................. . 

$2.500 or more ......•..••••.••....••••..•.••••• 

NORTH CENTRAL 

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

Land in farms by value of sales: 

Less than $2.500 ............................. .. 

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

SOUTH 

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

Land in farms by value of sales: 

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

$2.500 or more ••....•••.•• , ••..•.•••••••••••••• 

WEST 

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

Land in farms by value of sales: 

Less than $2,500 ......... 0 ••••••••••••• 0 •••••• ". 

$2, 500 or rnore ...........•••..••..•.....•...•.. 

Land in 

Estimated 

acres 1 

1.013,608,255 

40..574,964 

973.033,291 

29.727,536 

3.208,444 

26.519,092 

316,174.151 

9,208,020 

306.966,131 

294,425,852 

18,868,752 

275,557,100 

373,280,716 

9,289,748 

363,990,968 

farms included and overcounted 

in census Farms missed 

Acres Percent Acres 

993,170,885 98.0 20,437.370 

38,495,978 94.9 2,078,986 

954,674,907 98.1 18,358,384 

29,106.628 97.9 620,908 

2,994.544 93.3 213,900 

26,112,084 98.5 407,008 

312,307,141 98.8 3.867,010 

8.356,984 90.8 851,036 

303,950,157 99.0 3,015,974 

287.140,938 97.5 7.284,914 

18,013,790 95.5 854,962 

269,127,148 97.7 6,429,952 

364,616,178 97.7 8,664,538 

9,130,660 98.3 159,088 

355,485,518 97.7 8,505,450 

lEstimated from coverage evaluation samples; not comparable with published data because of sampling and nonsampling errors. See text, 

Accuracy of the Estimates. 

Table 4. Value of Agricultural Products Sold by Sales Group and Components of Coverage: 1978 

Estimated value of Farms included and overcounted in Fanns missed agricultural census 

products sold l 

($1.000) Value ($1,000) Percent Value ($1,000) 

UNITED STATES 

Farms .................................... . 103,484,040 101,830,592 98.4 1,653,448 

Farms by value of sales: 

Less than $2.500 .............................. . 614.529 574,883 93.5 39,646 

.$2,500 or more ............................... .. 102,869,511 101,255,709 98.4 1,613,802 

NORTHEAST 

Farms ..•.........••.•.•.•••.•..•.••••..••.• 5,240,463 5,097,704 97.3 142,759 

Farms by value of sales: 

Less than .$2.500 .............................. . 44.,388 40,495 91.2 3,893 

$2,500 or more .•••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••• 5,196,075 5,057,209 97.3 138,866 

NORTH CENTRAL 

Farms ...•.•.....•.•.•.•.•••••.• , ........... . 42,591,604 42.209,985 99.1 381,619 

Farms by value of sales: 

Less than $2,500 .............................. . 189,787 175,235 92.3 14,552 

$2,500 or more ...•..........•...•..•....•.....• 42,401,817 42,034,750 99.1 367,067 

SOUTH 

Fanna .......••.....• " •••••••.••.••••...••• 28,959,258 28,457,438 98.3 501,820 

Farms by value of sales: 

Less than :t27 500 ....... " ...................... . 282,057 268,955 95.4 13,102 

*2,500 or more ................................ . 28,677,201 28,188,483 98.3 488,718 

WEST 

Fa rrns ....................................... . 26,692,715 26,065,465 97.7 627,250 

Farms by value of sales: 

LesR than ·t2, 500 •...•.......•......•...••.•••.• 

:~2, .')00 or more ................................... . 

98,297 90,198 91.8 8,099 

26,594,418 25,975,267 97.7 619,151 

lEstimatpd from coverage evaluation samples; not comparable with published data because of sampling and nonsampling errors, See teKt, 

Accuracy of the Estimates. 

Percent 

'2.0 

5.1 

1.9 

2.1 

6.7 

1.5 

1.2 

9.2 

1.0 

2.5 

4.5 

2.3 

2.3 

1.7 

2.3 

Percent 

1.6 

6.5 

1.6 

2.7 

8.8 

2.7 

.9 

7.7 

.9 

1.7 

4.6 

1.7 

2.3 

8.2 

2.3 

4 COVERAGE EVALUATION 1978 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE 
Table 5. Reliability of Farm Estimates by Sales Group, Size of Farm, and Components of Coverage: 1978 

UNITED STATES 

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

Farms by value of sales: 

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

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

$10,000 to $39,999 ••••••••••••••••••••• 

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

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

Farms by size: 

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

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

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

NORTHEAST 

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

Farms by value of sales: 

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

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

$10,000 to $39,999 ••••••••••••••••••••• 

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

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

Farms by size: 

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

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

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

NOR TH CENTRAL 

Farms .......... ................ ~ .............................. .. 

Farms by value of sales: 

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

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

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

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

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

Farms by size: 

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

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

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

SOUTH 

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

Farms by value of sales: 

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

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

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

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

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

Farms by size: 

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

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

500 acres or more ......... 0 C ••••••••••••• 

WEST 

Farms ................... c ............. . 

Farms by value of sales: 

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

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

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

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

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

Farms by size: 

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

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

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

1978 CENSUS OFAGRICUL TURE 

Estimated total farm. 

Standard error 

Relative 

Number Absolute (percent) 

2,279,470 102,576 4.5 

540,848 32,992 6.1 

574,074 42,481 7.4 

567,301 49,922 8.8 

597,247 43,599 7.3 

1,738,622 88,670 5.1 

9l0,948 65,588 7.2 

988,802 66,250 6.7 

379,720 50,123 13.2 

154,216 16,810 10.9 

46,362 9,829 21.2 

35,264 8,428 23.9 

22,816 6,525 28.6 

49,774 9,706 19.5 

107,854 12,188 11.3 

63,768 12,881 20.2 

78,672 14,318 18.2 

11,776 4,440 37.7 

938,248 71,307 7.6 

156,090 17,170 11.0 

202,002 24,644 12.2 

271,865 36,430 13.4 

308,291 34,529 11.2 

782,158 62,573 8.0 

305,858 36,397 11.9 

451,427 45,594 10.1 

180,963 38,907 21.5 

903,984 64,183 7.1 

250,780 23,573 9.4 

281,856 30,159 10.7 

203,346 29,485 14.5 

168,002 20,496 12.2 

653,204 52,256 8.0 

406,740 45,962 11.3 

377,055 41,853 11.1 

120,189 18,028 15.0 

283,022 32,265 11.4 

87,616 11,478 13.1 

54,952 13 ,518 24.6 

69,274 14,755 21.3 

71,180 12,029 16.9 

195,406 28,920 14.8 

134,582 23,417 17.4 

81,648 14,860 18.2 

66,792 22,910 34.3 

Farms included in cen8US 

Standard error 

Relative 

Number Absolute (percent) 

2,202,360 101,309 4.6 

505,670 31,857 6.3 

555,166 42,748 7.7 

547,957 49,864 9.1 

593,567 43,924 7.4 

1,696,690 86,531 5.1 

855,928 63,339 7.4 

969,864 65,951 6.8 

376,568 50,084 13.3 

144,876 16,516 11.4 

40,988 9,099 22.2 

34,242 8,184 23.9 

21,344 6,147 28.8 

48,302 9,660 20.0 

103,888 11,843 11.4 

54,714 11,326 20.7 

78,386 14,501 18.5 

11,776 4,440 37.7 

907,346 68,958 7.6 

143,584 16,512 11.5 

193,174 24,147 12.5 

261,561 35,834 13.7 

309,027 34,611 11.2 

763,762 61,865 8.1 

285,198 34,794 12.2 

439,713 45,290 10.3 

182,435 39,041 21.4 

I 

882,028 64 ,388 7.3 

240,570 23 ,335 9.7 

273,998 30,688 11.2 

200,194 29,829 14.9 

167,266 20,574 12.3 

641,458 51,958 8.1 

392,666 45,157 11.5 

372,325 42,445 11.4 

117,037 18,141 15.5 

268,110 31,101 11.6 

80,528 10,388 12.9 

53,752 13 ,546 25.2 

64,858 14,658 22.6 

68,972 11,587 16.8 

187,582 28,325 15.1 

123,350 22,326 18.1 79,440 15,173 19.1 

65,320 22,731 34.8 

Farms missed 

Standard error 

Relative 

Number Absolute (percent) 

101,072 11,320 11.2 

38,226 7,913 20.7 

29,518 8,501 28.8 

23,024 7,114 30.9 

10 ,304 4,462 43.3 

62,846 9,930 15.8 

64,206 15,345 23.9 

30,034 8,079 26.9 

6,832 3,614 52.9 

9,790 3,006 30.7 

5,374 2,789 51.9 

1,472 1,472 100.0 

1,472 1,472 100.0 

1,472 1,135 77.1 

4,416 2,221 50.3 

9,054 5,333 58.9 

736 569 77 .3 

- - -

37,132 7,983 21.5 

13,242 5,310 40.1 

12,114 6,517 53.8 

10,304 4,740 46.0 

1,472 1,220 82.9 

23 ,890 7,239 30.3 

22,132 9,074 41.0 

14,264 6,048 42.t. 

736 736 100.0 

37,030 5,962 16.1 

12,522 3,844 30.7 

14,732 4,685 31.8 

6,832 3,635 53.2 

2,944 2,087 70.9 

24,508 5,784 23.6 

21,052 7,579 36.0 

12,090 4,788 39.6 

3,888 2,675 68.8 

17,120 4,503 26.3 

7,088 3,012 42.5 

1,200 1,200 100.0 

4,416 3,281 74.3 

4,416 3,338 75.6 

10,032 3,461 34.5 

11,968 5,517 46.1 

2,944 2,379 80.8 

2,208 1,473 66.7 

COVERAGE EVALUATION 5 

A-' 

APPENDIX A. Farms Adjusted for Undercount: 1978 and 1974 

The table in this appendix presents estimates at the national 

and regional levels of the number of farms adjusted for the 

undercount for 1978 and 1974 by sales group, size of farm, 

and tenure of operator. The farm counts are adjusted so that 

direct comparisons may be made. Unadjusted 1978 farm counts 

and adjusted 1974 farm counts are compared and discussed in 

detail in volume 1, appendix C. 

The 1974 adjusted farm counts were derived using the 1974 

published farm counts and the net percent missed at the State 

level. The State counts were summed to obtain regional and 

national counts. The 1978 adjusted farm counts were derived 

using the 1978 published farm cou nts and the net percent 

missed at the regional level and summed to obtain the national 

level count. As a result, adjusted counts derived by summation 

in this table may not be consistent with the corresponding 

percent missed. 

The adjusted number of farms in the United States in 1978 

was 2,560,842. This is a decrease of 2.3 percent from the 

adjusted 1974 total of 2,622,416 farms. In 1978, there were 

about 1.1 million farms in the North Central Region,about 1.0 

million in the South Region, about 300,000 in the West Region, 

and about 160,000 in the Northeast Region. 

In 1978, the number of farms in the United States with sales 

of agricultural products of less than $2,500 was about 651 ,000 

compared to 842.000 in 1974, a 22.8-percent decrease. No substantial difference was noted between 1974 and 1978 for farms 

by size. In 1978, about 380,000 farms or 15 percent of the total 

farms had 500 acres or more and 1,100, 000 farms or 45 percent had 1 to 99 acres. The remaining 40 percent had 10 to 499 

acres. In 1978, about 59 percent of the farms were operated by 

full owners, 28 percent by part owners, and 13 percent by 

tenants. In 1974, about 63 percent of the farms were operated 

by full owners, 25 percent by part owners, and 12 percent by 

tenants. 

Both the 1978 and 1974 adjusted farm counts are based on 

coverage sample estimates and are subject to sampling variability. Sampling errors for regional estimates in 1978 are 

relatively high and these estimates should be used with caution. 

Farms Adjusted for Undercount by Sales Group, Size of Farm, and Tenure of 0 perator: 1978 and 1974 

Farms, 1978 Farms, 1974 Percent change 

adjusted 1974 

Net percent Net percent to adjusted 

Published missed Adjusted Published missed Adjusted 1978 

UNITED STATES 1 

FarIns •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2,473,949 3.4 2,560,842 2,310,702 10.7 2,622,416 -2.3 

Farms by value of sales: 

610,103 6.5 650,567 616,272 25.9 842,387 -22.8 

663,712 3.3 685,682 585,554 9.8 648,434 5.7 614,700 3.4 636,270 631,609 3.9 654,290 -2.7 

585,434 .6 588,323 477,267 .2 477,305 23.3 

1,863,846 2.4 1,910,275 1,694,430 4.7 1,780,029 7.3 

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

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

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

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

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

1,073,289 6.0 1,138,987 } 1,948,654 12.4 2,252,551 1,023,603 1.9 1,042,248 -3.2 

Farms by size: 

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

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

500 acres or more •..•••.•••••••••••••••.••••••••• 377,057 .8 379,607 362,048 1.5 369,865 2.6 

Farms by tenure of operator: 

1,449,130 3.9 1,505,697 1,422,367 13.0 1,650,942 -8.8 712,714 .9 718,772 627,648 5.2 .667,402 7.7 

Full owners •.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 

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

Tenants. 0 ................................................ . 312,105 7.4 336,373 260,687 12.6 304,072 10.6 

NORTHEAST 

Farms ................................................... . 149,146 6.1 159,006 127,531 16.5 152,730 4.1 

Farms by value of sales: 

44,496 1l.6 50,335 35,406 35.5 55,121 -8.7 36,542 2.9 37,521 26,321 9.9 29,816 25.8 29,779 6.5 31,754 35,443 4.1 35,699 -11.1 38,329 3.0 39,396 30,361 4.1 32,094 22.8 104,650 3.7 108,671 92,125 5.6 97,609 1l.3 

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

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

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

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

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

Farms by size: 

69,829 14.2 80,329 } 119,870 17.3 144,901 70,887 .4 70,247 3.9 

8,430 - 8,430 7,661 1.5 7,829 . 7.7 

I to 99 acres .................. ., ........... ., .......... . 

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

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

Farms by tenure of operator: 

93,704 7.7 101,389 83,389 19.5 103,110 -1.7 43,654 3.6 45,225 36,112 4.9 37,797 19.7 11,788 5.0 12,392 8,030 32.4 11,823 4.8 

Full owners •••• ., .................................... . 

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

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

See footnote at end of table. 
A-2 APPENDIX A-Continued 

Farms Adjusted for Undercount by Sales Group, Size of Farm, and Tenure of Operator: 1978 and 1974- Con. 

NORTH CENTRAL 

Fanns •.•••.........•••••••••..•..••..••••••• G 

FaTIns by value of sales: 

Les s than $2,500 ••••••••.••..•...•••••••.•....•.• 

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

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

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

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

Fanns by size: 

1 to 9(; acres ....................................................... .. 

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

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

Farms by tenure of operator: 

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

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

Tenant s ............................................................. . 

SOUTH 

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

Farms by value of sale: 

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

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

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

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

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

Farms by size: 

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

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

500 acres or TIlOre ............................... . 

Farms by tenure of operator: 

Full owner s .....................................• 

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

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

WEST 

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

Farms by value of sales: 

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

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

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

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

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

Farms by size: 

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

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

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

Farms by tenure of operator: 

Full owners .......................... ············ 

Part owners .......................... ········ ~ .. . 

TeIlB.nts .............................•. " ........ . 

IData for Alaska and Hawaii not included. 

Farms, 1978 

Net percent 

Published missed 

1,027,723 3.3 

153,175 8.0 

231,085 4.4 

321,349 3.8 

322,114 -.2 

874,548 2.4 

334,945 6.7 

507,675 2.6 

185,103 -.8 

542,553 4.7 

334,372 .5 

150,798 5.6 

1,015,304 2.4 

331,520 4.1 

330,295 2.8 

201,991 1.6 

151,498 .4 

683,784 1.8 

517,751 3.5 

378,166 1.3 

119,387 2.6 

632,736 1.8 

263,968 1.2 

118,600 8.0 

281,776 5.3 

80,912 8.1 

65,790 2.2 

61,581 6.4 

73,493 3.1 

200,864 4.0 

150,764 8.4 

66,875 2.7 

64,137 2.2 

180,137 6.0 

70,720 - 30,919 13.2 

Farms, 1974 

Net percent 

Adjusted Published missed 

1,062,548 1,017,367 6.3 

166,495 159,022 23.0 

241,402 235,591 8.2 

333,603 360,352 3.1 

321,048 262,402 -.7 

896,053 858,345 3.1 

358,556 } 840,774 7.5 520,585 

183,407 176,593 .9 

567,943 568,866 7.5 

335,245 313,364 4.0 

159,360 135,137 7.3 

1,042,011 930,099 15.2 

345,693 365,584 25.5 

339,384 269,349 11.1 

205,018 175,420 5.8 

151,916 119,746 1.1 

696,318 564,515 7.4 

536,406 } 815,752 16.7 383,059 

122,546 114,347 3.8 

645,319 623,219 17.4 

267,582 214,061 7.5 

129,110 92,819 20.9 

297,277 235,705 9.5 

88,044 56,260 27.8 

67,375 54,293 10.5 

65,895 60,394 3.9 

75,963 64,758 .1 

209,233 179,445 4.1 

163,696 ~ 172,258 13.5 68,357 

65,224 63,447 -1.8 

191,046 146,893 12.1 

70,720 64,111 4.1 

35,511 24,701 8.3 

Percent change 

adjusted 1974 

to adjusted 

Adjusted 1978 

1,096,353 -3.1 

210,362 -20.9 

255,596 - 5. 6 

370,580 -10.0 

259,815 23.6 

885,991 1.1 

917,793 -4.2 

178,560 2.7 

620,166 -8.4 

329,173 1.8 

147,014 8.4 

1,107,200 -5.9 

497,648 -30.5 

302,911 12.0 

185,618 10.5 

121,023 25.5 

609,552 14.2 

987,389 -6.9 

119,811 2.3 

757,206 -14.8 

232,239 15.2 

117,755 9.6 

266,133 11.7 

79,256 11.1 

60,111 12.1 

62,393 5.6 

64,373 18.0 

186,877 12.0 

202,468 14.6 

63,665 2.5 

170,460 12.1 

68,193 3.7 

27,480 29.2 
8-1 

APPENDIX B. Report Forms 

Fo , m App,oved' 0 M B No 41 S79019 

In correspondence pertain ing to th is report refer to the Census F de Number (the number in FORM 78-A.90 U.S. DEPT. 

(4"24"7~) OF COMMERCE 

the upper left corner of the address label). BUREAU OF 

THE CENSUS 

EVALUA 

~ TlON OF THE 

1978 CENSUS 

OF AGRICULTURE 

: NOTICE - Response to this inquiry is required by law (title 13, U,S, Code). By the same law your report to the 

Census Bureau is confidential. It may be seen on Iy by 

sworn Census employees and 

may be used only for statisti-

(Please correct any err{)( In name and address including ZIP cOde) cal purposes. Your report 

cannot be used for purposes 

'!U 011 012 of taxation, investigation. or 

:3>~'."" ~ ~" ... CENSUS regulation. The law also proPlease complete ATTN: Agriculturo Division vides that copies retained in USE 013 014 015 

re~U;1 ~;~~:s:~e immune from and RETURN to Washington, D.C. 20233 ONLY 

Section 1 > ACREAGE and OWNERSHIP as of December 31, 1978 None Acres 

040 

1. Land owned on December 31, 1978 . . . . . . . . . . .................... .. , . 0 050 

2. Land rented or leased from others on December 31, 1978 (Include land worked on 

shares or shore-cropped for others; leased Federal, State, and rai/road land; and land 

used rent free, Do not include land used on a per-head basis under a grazing permit.). D 

3. Land rented or leased to others on December 31, 1978 (Include land 060 

subleased and land worked on shores or shore-cropped by others.) .............. 0 

4. ACRES IN THIS PLACE - Please ADD acres owned (/tem 1) to acces rented (item 2),+ 070 

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

5, If you rented land FROM OTHERS (item 2 above), please enter the following information for each landlord. 

, Name Address (No. and street, city, State. ZIP code) Number of acres 

071 

072 

073 

6. I f you rented land TO OTHERS (item 3 above), please enter the following information for each tenant or renter. 

Name Address (No. and street, city. State. ZIP code) Number of acres 

07. 

075 

076 

a. Of the land you rented or leased to others (item 3 above), None 077 

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

Section 2 > LOCATION of agricultural activity in 1978 

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

County State 

2, Did you have agricultural operations i.n any other county or counties? 

DYes - Complete the following, Give names of counties, States, and acres located in each. 

County State Acres o t-lo - Go to OB3 

section 3 

OB' 

OBS 

Page I 
8-2 APPENDIX B-Continued: 

Section 3 > OPERATIONAL STATUS - Your farm or ranch may have been included in the agriculture census 

under a different name or address. The information requested in this section will be used to 

examine all possible names and addresses on the census file. 

1. In the past two years have you received mail at any address other than the one listed in the address label 

on page I of this form? (Inc/ude different ways mail can be addressed to you at your present location.) 

Number and street 

DYes - Enter other address • 

o No City I State IZIPcOde 

2. For business purpose, do you use any name, other than shown on the address label, 

for this agricultural operation? 

Name 

DYes - What is the name and address?_ 

o N.o Number and street 

City I Stat. I ZIP code 

3. Do you have an Employer Identification (EI) Number? 

EI Number 

08. OJ-I I I I I I I I DYes - Enter number • 

ONo 

4. Mark (X) the box which best describes the type of organization for this place in 1978. 

087 

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

20 Partnership operation, including family partnership 

, 0 Corporation, including family corporation 

4 0 Other - Specify type of organization, such as cooperative, estate, trust, etc. 

5. At any time during 1978, were there any other individuals associated with the operation of this place? (Include 

partners. children. relatives. managers. and other associated persons. Do not include landlords or tenants 

listed on page I.) 

DYes - Who are they? - Fill table below 

ONo 

What is this person's Enter description family relationship to of person, e.g., 

Name Address the operator of th is partner I bus iness (No. and street, city. State. ZIP code) farm? (For example, associates; other - parent, son, uncle. or Specify not related.) 

6. What is the name of the person primari Iy 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.) 

Name of the person in charge 

Pale 2 
APPENDIX B-Continued B-3 

IS.ction 4 ) CROPS HARVESTED FROM THIS PLACE IN 1978 

Report a II crops harvested duri ng 1978. Be sUre to include the landlord's share and crops grown 

under contract. Do not include crops on land rented to others. 

(NOTE: If you do not have exact figures 

from your records, please give us your 

best estimate.) Value of sales 

Acres Qu antit)' (Include landlord's 

harvested in harv ested In share) 

1978 1978 Dollars : Cents 

102 

101 104 

\. Field corn for grain or seed (Report quantity on a Bu. 

shelled basis in either bushels or hundredweight. ~' 70 Ibs. ear corn or 56 Ibs. shelled $ corn = I bushel shelled corn.) ............ . . 0 ewt . 

1'05 ;,:,:::: ,:::;:,:::::. . lOS , 

2. Field corn for silage, cut for green chop or dry , 

, fodder, hogged or grazed (Do not include acres , a Iready reported in item I.) ............. .. . 0 $ , 

112 , 

111 114 , 

, 

Bu. , 

I--- OR 

, 

, 13 , 3. Sorghums or milo for grain or seed (Report quantity $ 

, 

, harvested in either bushels or hundredweight.) ... 0 ewt. , 

115 .: 116 

4. Sorghums for si lage, cut for green chop, dry forage : : ::;::: 

or hay, or hogged or grazed (Do not include ~~:; ::\ acres already reported in item 3.) ....... .... . 0 :; $ 

121 112. : 

5. Soybeans for beans ..................... 0 Bu. $ , 124 125 126 I 

6. Peanuts for nuts ....................... 0 Lbs. $ 

, 

, 

131 132 133 , 

, 

7. Wheat for grain .... ................... . 0 Bu. S , 

I 

8. Other small grains for 

1'34 :::::: ': i:, ; 135 , ;;;::: : : : I grain - oats, barley, :j: , 

rye, rice, etc. ~ SPecify crop name 0 :;:,:, $ I 

::::;:::::::::::::: : : , ,., ,.2 143 

9. Cotton .............................. 0 Bales I $ 

151 , 152 153 , 

, O. Tobacco - all types .......... 0 , 110 , ........... , Lbs. $ I 

'5' , 155 115• , 

1. Irish potatoes (exclude home use) 

, , ............ 0 , /10 ewt. s , 

2. Sweetpotatoes and yams '" , 158 1'59 , 

, (exclude home use) 0 , 110 t ... . ................ , Bu. s 

113. Hay - all kinds except sorghum hay (Include grain 

hay, grass silage, wild hay, etc. If two or more 152 cuttings were made from the same land, REPORT ,., 163 

ACRES ONLY ONCE but report total Tons. 

I tons of 0/1 cuttings.) ............... ..... 0 dry $ 

114. Vegetables, sweet corn, or melons for .01. 171 '. '. : , : 172 ; : , (exclude home use) ....... . ...... . ...... 0 , 110 :::; .: $ , 

15. Land in bearing and nonbearing ml .' : fruit orchards, citrus or other @ I : : 

groves, vineyards, and nut trees 

of all ages (Include land on : 

which the fruit crop failed. 173 174 

Do not include abandoned : 

acreages.) - Specify crop name 0 , 110 : : $ i 175 , : 17. I 16. Berries for sale (exclude I : I 

home use)-Specify crop name 0 , : , , lia_ s I 

17. All other crops (Include ! : ! 

field seeds; sugar crops; 

nursery products; flowers, ,., : 182 

etc .. grown in the open; 

sad; etc.) -Specify crop name [J /10 $ i 

Value of 

Squar8 feet &reenhouse sales 

None Dollars I Cents 

18. If any greenhouse products were sold, how many 191 102 I 

square feet were under glass or other protection? .......... , 0 $ 

FORM' . • ~ QO (04-204'7Q) Page 3 
8-4 APPENDIX B-Continued 

Section 5 > LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY 

Be sure to report all livestock and poultry on this place on December 31, 1978, 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 1978. 

(NOTE: If you do not have exact figures from your records, please give us your best estimate.) 

INVENTORY Number sold Number on th Is place In 1978 

December 31, 1978 

Gross value 

of sales 

• POULTRY None Dollars 1 Cents 

,r,Ln.-u----------;,~LuL--------+Lmou3----~,---; 

1. Hens and pullets of laying age (Exclude started 

pullets being raised for sale.) ............. 0 

o. Value of eggs sold ................... 0 

2. Pullets 3 months old or older not yet of laying age 0 1221 

3. Broilers, fryers, and other meat-type chickens 

(including capons and roasters) ............ 0 

4. Other poultry raised in captivity 

(turkeys, ducks, geese, etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 231 

Specify kind of pou/try ____________ _ 

• CATTLE 

1. Cattle and calves of all ages 

(Total of a, b, and c below) ................ 0 

o. Beef cows (Include beef heifers that had calved.) 0 

h. Milk cows (Include dry milk cows and 

milk heifers that had calved.) . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 

c. Other cattle and calves (Include heifers, 

steers, bulls and calves.) ............... 0 

• HOGS 

1. Hogs and pigs of all ages ................. 0 

• OTH ER LIVESTOCK AND ANIMAL SPECIAL TIES 

1. Sheep and lambs of all ages ............... 0 

2. Horses and ponies of all ages .............. 0 

3. Other livestock - goats, mules, fur-bearing 

animals, colonies of bees, fish in captivity 

241 

1247 

1

251 

261 

271 

except at fish hatcheries, etc. . ............ 0 291 

Specify what kind 294 

297 

Page 4 

232 

235 

242 

12 • 8 

252 

262 

272 

282 

292 

296 

298 

I 

I 

I $ 1 

$ 

I'" 

$ 

$ 

1

236 

$ 

243 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 

263 

$ 

273 

$ 

283 

$ 

293 

$ 

296 

$ 

299 

$ 

1 

I 

..!.. 

1 

I 

I 

I 

: 

I 

I 

I 

I 
APPENDIX B-Continued 

Section 6 ) OPERATOR CHARACTERISTICSAnswer questions I through 6 for the person in charge of the operation. 

If a corporation answer for the manager. 

If a partnershiP answer for the person in charge or senior partner. 

923 

1 DYes 1. RESIDENCE - Does the operator live on this place? .. , ...... . 924 

1 DWhite 

2 D No 

2 D Negro or Black 

3 D American Indian 

2. RACE of operator ................................. . 4 D Asian or Pacific Islander 

9 0 Other - SpecifV 

3. AGE of operator ................................. . 

4 PRINCIPAL OCCUPATION - At which occupation did the operator 

spend the majority (50 percent or more) of his work time in 1978? 

For partnerships consider all members of the partnership together 

925 _____ Years old 

928 1 D Farming 2 D Other 

5. OFF FARM WORK - How many days did the operator (senior 

partner or person in charge) work at least 4 hours per day off 

this place in 1978? Include work at a nonfarm job. business. 

or on someone else's farm. (Exclude exchange farm work.) •. 

9{29 10 None 

201-49 days 

3 D 50-99 days 

• • • • • • 4 0 100-149 days 

50 150-199 days 

6 0200 days or more 

930 

6. In what year did you begin to operate any part of this place? ..... Year 

Section 7 > CENSUS STATUS - In January 1979. U.S. Census of Agriculture questionnaires were sent 

to farm operators throughout the United States:. 

1. Did you receive an agriculture census form around the first part of 1979? 

DYes - Enter the name and address which ,-----,.,------------------------1 appeared on that form and the Census File Number 

Census File Number (CFN). 

if available. Name 

o No - Go to section 8 Number and street 

City 

Section 8) PERSON COMPLETING THIS REPORT 

PLEASE 

PRINT 

Remarks 

Name 

931 Month 

Page 5 

Date 

: Oay 

I 

I 

I State 1 ZIP code 

Telephone 

932 Area code I Number 

I 

I 

I 

8-5 
8-6 APPENDIX B-Continued 

FOR",7S·A3(PES) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

l I 0 .. 11·78) LISTING SHEET A3(PES) BUREAU OF THE CENSUS 

1978 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE - AREA SAMPLE POST ENUMERATION SURVEY 

Complete the followIng questIons tor the head of household, 

each Individual with a "Yes" In column 4. and additional 

separate agricultural operations. 

a. What II the na ... of lhe he.d II •.• 11 Whil I. Ihe malllns .ddr ... of 

Old ... Old ... In 1978, Old ... Old ... of this hou .. holdl ye ... 01 •• e lhe h.ad 01 houI.holdl ha.e any hlv. any did ... r •. ls. FOR ha •• 20 or or olderl ealtle, hoss, other raise or SALE a.y morolrull b. What are Ih. n ..... 01.11 01/1 .. Enter the complete mailing address sheep, IIv.slock sell •• y vesetablet, or nullre.sT 

perlonl .. sldln. In Ihls hous.holdl (Include Route No., BOK No., House No., poull.y, or or .nlm.1 crops, such berrlls, Post Ott Ice, State, end ZIP code.) horses lor specialties as carn nurser, or It "Yes," 

LIst the first name. mIddle InitIal, and sal. or home durlns 19781 or hlyl lI·enhouse go to 

last name. us. du.lnS productsl colUmn 1 r. 

19781 " "Yes," It "Yes." 

skIp to skIp to It "Yes," " "No." 

" "Yes." column 11. column 11. skip to go tq next 

~ skIp to column 11. line with 

E colUmn 11. It "No," It "No," a "Yes" in 

" go to go to " "No," column 4. .: 

"0 ~ " "No," colutm B. column 9. go to 

"0 § go to column 10. After last 

~ .: column 7 • "Yes" In ., column 4, i! .: 

:r :::; go to 

column 17. 

(4) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 

(1) (2) (3) Ves No (5) Ves I No Ves I No Ves I No Ves I No Ves 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 l.r ...... I I I 

I I I I ..... I 

V'\/ 'J ~V "d ~\L/ '\.v " 

How many acr •• of 

lInd dill ... oper.tl 

durin, 19781 

Include 

acres owned 

and rented 

from others, 

minus acres 

rented to 

others. 

(11) 

Form Approved: O.M.B. No. 41-578069 

LISTING SHEET A3(PES) 

1978 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE - AREA SAMPLE POST ENUMERATION SHEET - Contil)Ued 

It "Yes" to any of columns 6, 7,8,9, or 10 

complete columns 11-16. 

Was • . .'1 

allieultural 

operation 

.n Indlvl· 

dUll or 

Ilmlly 

operallonl 

W ..... 

(allo) 

Involved 

In a parlnlrlhlp 

operatlonl 

Was ... (also) 

Involved 

In a corporal. 

operallon 

Ineludln, 

a family 

eorporallonl 

Was .•. (also) 

Involved 

In any other 

opera lion 

lueh .. an I.tal., 

trult, or 

eooperatlvel 

If associated with two or more types of 

operations fill a separate listing line' 

(column 3) for each separate operation 

(12) (13) (14) (15) 

Ves I No Ves No Ves No Ves No 

Whit I, the name and 

ph_nudler 

of the perlon In chirp of 

thll operatlonl 

(16) 

Who lives In Ih. households 

adJaelnt 10 Ihls properlyl 

A sk only once per household 

and note last names below. 

END OF INTERVIEW 

(17) 

For observation by 

enumerator. 

Are there 

roads, 

lanes, 

mailboxes, 

ele., between 

households? 

If "Yes," 

enumerate 

additional 

dwellIng 

unlt(s) 

located, or 

explain In 

column 19. 

(18) 

Remarks 

and 

reminders 

(When to callback, telephone 

numbers, explanation, etc.) 

Ves I No (19) 

I 

I 

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

I 

Date 

completed 

(20) 
Form Approved: O.M.B. No. 63-R1593 

NOTICE _ All information which would permit 

identification of the individual will be held in 

strict confidence, and will be used only by 

persons engaged in and for the purposes of 

the survey. The information will not be 

disc losed or released to others for any purpose. 

FORM AHS·2A 17-21-78) 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS 

ACTING AS COLLECTING AGENT FOR 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

ANNUAL HOUSING SURVEY 

HOUSING 

MODIFICATION SUPPLEMENT 

(Only sections relating to agriculture are shown) 

"U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1982 360-997/2125 1-3 

APPENDIX B-Continued 8-7 

7. Now I would like 10 ask some questions abollt persons in this household 

who may raise agricultural products. Today, many persons who raise 

agricultural products do not live on farms but live elsewhere and travel 

to and from their farm. The Census Bureau needs to learn more about 

the people who live in urban areas and raise agricultural products. 

During the past year did anyone in this household do any of 

the following, either here or on some other land --

a. raise any crops Including hay? 

I: I Yes 

l. I No 

b. raise any greenhouse or nursery products, or any 

fruits or vegetables for sale? 

I.:: I Yes 

[ INo 

c. raise any livestock or poultry or produce any other agricultural 

products of any kind? 

[J Yes 

[1 No 

Refer to 7a-c 

CHECK o "Yes" to la, band/or c -Ask 7d for each 

ITEM "Yes" 

[J "No" to ALL 7a-c -Skip to 7e 

d. What is the name, address and telephone number of the person who 

(Insert activity from 7a, b or c)? 

(1) Name 

Address - Number and street, city, state, ZIP code 

Telephone 

Area code Number Extension 

(2) Name 

Address - Number and street, city, State, ZIP code 

1 elephone 

Area code I Number I ExtenSion 

(3) [rfame 

Address - Number and street, city, Stale, ZIP code 

Telephone 

Area code Number Extension 

7e. AHS Control number Sample PSU : Segment I Serial I I I Fl or F2 I I 

Last name of household head 

Address - Number and streel, cily, Siale, ZIP code 


U.S. Department 

of Commerce 

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS 

Washir.lgton, D.C. 20233 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use, $300 

Postage and Fees Paid 

U.S. Department 

of Commerce 

COM-202 

i

U.,Siii,M_A.ll ® 

Special Fourth-Class _______________________________________________________________________________________ Raw-Book 

(') 

o 

< CD 

.., 

III 

(Q 

CD 

m 

< 

~ 

c:: 

III 

.-+ 

o· 

::l 

< o 

c:: 

3 

CD 

c.n 

-' 

(0 

-...J 

00 

(') 

CD 

:::I 

'" c:: 

en 

o 

-

~ (Q 

~, 

(") 

c:: 

.-+ 

c:: 

.., 

CD