U.S. Department of Agriculture • Office of Communications 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibi

discrimination in all its programs and activities on th

basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age

disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and

marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases app

to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who requir

alternative means for communication of program

information (such as Braille, large print, audiotape, e

should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA

Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W,

Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, S

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964

(voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity

provider and employer. 

Mention or depiction of commercial products or

organizations in this publication does not constitute

endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture

over other products and organizations not mentioned 

or depicted.

For more information on USDA, visit USDA’s web s

at: http://www.usda.gov

July 2000

Fact Book

1999

U.S. Department

of Agriculture

Office of

Communications
Foreword, by Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture....

Millennium Milestones......................................................................

1. U.S. Agriculture—Linking Consumers and Producers..........

What Do Americans Eat? ..............................................................................

Cost of Food Services and Distribution.........................................................

Food Prices and the Farm-to-Retail Price Spread..........................................

2. Structure of U.S. Agriculture.............................................................

Farming Regions ...........................................................................................

Farms and Land in Farms ..............................................................................

Farms by Sales Class.....................................................................................

Legal Structure of U.S. Farms (Individual, Partnership, Corporation)..........

Land Tenure...................................................................................................

Major Uses of U.S. Cropland ........................................................................

Acreage Harvested of Major Crops...............................................................

3. The U.S. Farm Sector ............................................................................

Farm Labor....................................................................................................

Agricultural Credit ........................................................................................

The Balance Sheet.........................................................................................

Net Value-Added, Net Farm Income, and Net Cash Income.........................

Farm Household Income ...............................................................................

Net Farm Income by State.............................................................................

State Rankings by Cash Receipts ..................................................................

Government Payments by Program and State ...............................................

Number of Farms and Net Cash Income by Sales Class ...............................

4. Rural America............................................................................................

Nonmetropolitan Population .........................................................................

Age and Race.................................................................................................

Nonmetropolitan Industry and Job Growth...................................................

Nonmetropolitan Employment and Wages....................................................

Nonmetropolitan Income and Poverty...........................................................

Federal Funding for Rural Area Development ..............................................
Office of Inspector General ...................................................................................

Office of the Chief Information Officer.................................................................

Office of Chief Financial Officer...........................................................................

Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs........................................

National Appeals Division.....................................................................................

USDA Community Food Security Initiative .........................................................

For More Information............................................................................................

6. Rural Development .........................................................................................

How Rural Development Works............................................................................

Rural Business-Cooperative Service .....................................................................

Rural Housing Service...........................................................................................

Rural Utilities Service ...........................................................................................

Office of Community Development ......................................................................

For More Information............................................................................................

7. Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services..............................................

Farm Service Agency ............................................................................................

Foreign Agricultural Service .................................................................................

Risk Management Agency.....................................................................................

For More Information............................................................................................

8. Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services ............................................

Food and Nutrition Service ...................................................................................

Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion ...........................................................

For More Information............................................................................................

9. Food Safety.........................................................................................................

Food Safety and Inspection Service ......................................................................

For More Information............................................................................................

ii
For More Information....................................................................................

11. Research, Education, and Economics .......................................

Agricultural Research Service.......................................................................

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service ...................

Economic Research Service ..........................................................................

National Agricultural Statistics Service ........................................................

For More Information....................................................................................

12. Marketing and Regulatory Programs .........................................

Agricultural Marketing Service.....................................................................

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.................................................

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration............................

For More Information....................................................................................

Appendix ..................................................................................................

How To Get Information from USDA’s Office of Communications .............

Conversion Chart...........................................................................................

Planting and Harvesting Calendar.................................................................

Glossary.........................................................................................................

Index...........................................................................................................
iv
by Dan Glickman, Secretary

Providing information to the public is a core function of the U.S. of Agriculture. In fact, Abraham Lincoln created USDA in 1862 

mission "to provide information about agriculture in the most compr

and general sense of the word." The Agriculture Fact Book helps fu

sion, offering thousands of useful facts about American agriculture a

communities. 

This Fact Book is also a handy reference tool that also describe

varied programs. That includes not just our agricultural production p

those that help American farmers and ranchers–but also the many oth

captured under our broad mandate. For example, many people prob

realize that USDA:

• Leads national antihunger efforts, including food stamps, scho

and the new Community Food Security Initiative;

• Provides national conservation assistance, helping protect soi

wildlife on the 70 percent of American land that is privately h

• Manages 192 million acres of forests and grassland through th

Service, which employs nearly half of USDA's workforce;

• Delivers housing, telecommunications, safe drinking water, an

the Nation's rural communities;

• Protects the safety of all meat, poultry, and egg products;

• Conducts innovative research on new crop technologies, hum

and conservation practices that allow us to grow more food an

using less water and less pesticides;

• Promotes open markets for U.S. agricultural products, and pro

aid to needy people overseas.

From production agriculture to the global marketplace and the c

from food safety to conservation, from managing our forests to admi

Nation’s feeding programs, from supporting rural America to pursui

ranging research agenda, USDA touches your life every day.

Information about all of these USDA activities can be found her

this book is not the only USDA information source. Our award-win

sites are insightful and easy to use. www.usda.gov is your gateway t

widening universe of facts, statistics, and up-to-the-minute informat
Let eligible people know that food stamps are available to help them fe

families; 

• Collect public comments on USDA regulations, including those to esta

definition of organic food and establish a roadless policy for our nation

forests;

• Disseminate the 5th edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans;

• Promote the Millennium Green project, which is improving Americans

ronment in urban, suburban, and rural areas by planting trees and garde

Whether you are a farmer, an exporter, a government official, a student, a 

tist, or an interested citizen, I’m confident that you will find this book helpful

that you will take advantage of the Agriculture Fact Book and the other infor

sources available from USDA. 

vi
Millennium Milestones

As USDA looks toward the next century and millennium, we also look to the rich past of American agriculture. The Millennium Milestones 

Agriculture Fact Book observe key historic markers that are the backgro

up to some important issues that USDA faces every day–from production 

to nutrition, from soil surveys to food safety, from education to animal he

from agricultural research to rural development. This look backward can 

look forward with better awareness as we meet the challenges of the new 

Soil Surveys

• 1830 Massachusetts became the first State to perform a soil survey

• 1894 Secretary of Agriculture, J. Sterling Morton, establishes the D

Agricultural Soils in its Weather Bureau; Milton Whitney is named 

the Division.

• 1899 The National Cooperative Soil Survey established, creating a 

shared responsibilities and costs among Federal, State, and local s

• 1901 The Division of Soils is reorganized as the Bureau of Soils. 1

types had been identified, bearing names that combined informatio

types’ location and texture–such as Jordan sandy loam.

• 1904 400 soil types had been identified, and additional soil charac

including color and organic matter content, were adopted as bases 

differentiating soil series.

• 1907 First use of official soil survey for land appraisal and tax asse

Glenn County, CA. By 1912, this type of soil interpretation had re

cial recognition and support from the National Tax Association.

• 1909 715 soil types identified.

• 1911 The first USDA circular on soils, titled Soils of the Eastern U

and Their Use, published.

• 1912 1,650 soil types identified. 

• 1920’s Michigan uses soil survey data to plan road and highway d

• Soil erosion identified as serious threat to agricultural productivit

• Ten regional erosion experiment stations set up.

• Increase in the quality and precision of the base maps, and the in

aerial photography in soils mapping, increased the precision of p

boundaries.

• 1930’s Soil surveys used by the Bureau of Reclamation in plannin

irrigation and reclamation projects.

• 1935 Soil Conservation Act establishes a Soil Conservation Servic

USDA to carry out a continuing program of soil and water conserv
residual radioactivity resulting from aboveground nuclear testing.

• 1952 Secretary’s Memorandum 1318 consolidated all soil survey work 

Department—including mapping, classification, correlation, interpreta

laboratory services, map compilation, and publication—and placed the 

in SCS.

• 1966 Public Law 89-560 gave firm authority to the soil survey to provi

mation for public and private entities for use in nonagricultural plannin

resource development.

• 1985 Soil survey interpretations used to support land designations for t

Farm Bill compliance provisions.

• 1990’s The soil survey enters an era of dynamic, multilayered database

for site-specific analyses. The National Soil Information System (NAS

becomes available as an online tool.

Nutrition Research and Nutrition Guidance

• 1796 Lemon juice introduced in British Navy to prevent scurvy.

• 1888 W.O. Atwater named as Chief of the newly organized Office of

Experiment Stations at USDA; he and others construct the first calorim

• 1894 USDA publishes Farmers’ Bulletin giving the first dietary recomm

tions (Specific vitamins and minerals have not been discovered.). Dieta

guidelines will continue to be revised as the science base evolves. 

• 1899 USDA publishes compilation of the composition of a large numb

foods (forerunner of Handbook 8, classic tables of food composition).

• 1900 By the turn of the 20th century, scientists had identified protein, f

carbohydrates as the basic nutrients in food. 

• 1902 Atwater linked dietary intake to health, noting that “the evils of ov

may not be felt at once, but sooner or later they are sure to appear–perh

excessive amount of fatty tissue, perhaps in general debility, perhaps in 

disease.”

• 1912-24 Relationship identified between “accessory food factors” (vita

and dietary deficiency syndromes, such as scurvy and beriberi.

• 1913-16 Discovery of vitamins A and B.

• 1916 The first USDA food guide, Food for Young Children, appears, lis

groups (milk and meat, cereals, vegetables and fruits, fats and fatty foo

sugars and sugary foods).

• 1917 USDA issued How To Select Foods—the first dietary recommend

for the general public—based on same five food groups.

• 1921 Guide released using same five food groups but adding suggested

amounts of foods to purchase each week for the average family.

• 1921-24 Blindness in children shown to be a result of lack of vitamin A

• 1922-27 With the implementation of a statewide prevention program, t

ter rate in Michigan fell from 38.6 percent to 9 percent. 

viii
1930s The Federal Government developed food relief and food co

distribution programs, including school feeding and nutrition educ

grams and national food consumption surveys. 

• 1932 Vitamin C isolated from lemon juice.

• 1933 USDA publishes food plans at four cost levels to help people 

food, including 12 major food groups, to buy and use in a week to 

tional needs.

• 1938 Amino acids classified as essential and nonessential.

• 1940’s Fortification of milk with vitamin D was a critical step in ri

trol. Pellagra virtually eliminated by enriching flour with niacin. 

• 1941 President Franklin D. Roosevelt convened the National Nutri

Conference for Defense, which led to the first Recommended Diet

Allowances of nutrients and resulted in the issuance of War Order 

One, a program to enrich wheat flour with vitamins and iron. 

• 1941 Evidence provided for the influence of prenatal diet on the he

newborn infant.

• 1943 Basic Seven food guide released as the National Wartime Nu

Guide (which was updated as National Food Guide in 1946).

• 1949 Framingham study of coronary heart disease risk factors begi

tify contribution of diet to development of cardiovascular disease a

of elevated serum cholesterol on the risk for coronary heart disease

• 1940’s First simple daily nutrition guide published.

• 1956 USDA published new food guide, the Basic Four, that recom

minimum number of foods from the four food groups–milk, meat, 

vegetables, and grain products; it was widely used for the next 2 d

• 1970’s Food and nutrition labeling and other consumer informatio

stimulated the development of products low in fat, saturated fat, an

terol. 

• 1977 Dietary Goals for the United States, published by Senate Sel

Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, shifted focus of dietar

from obtaining adequate nutrients to avoiding excessive intake of s

• 1979 Publication of Food began to address the role of fats, sugars, 

in risks for chronic disease. The Basic Four food groups addition o

group–fats, sweets, and alcoholic beverages–targeted for moderati

• 1980 USDA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Servic

lished first edition of Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelin

Americans (which has been revised every 5 years). This and subse

editions form the basis of Federal nutrition policy and provide a co

on what makes a healthy diet. 

• 1990 Third edition of the Dietary Guidelines promotes healthful ea

variety and moderation, and suggests a goal of 30 percent or less o

from fat and less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fat. 
1992 Food Guide Pyramid released.

• 1994 Nutrition Facts Label required to give consumers information on n

tional content of foods. 

• 1995 New (fourth) edition of Dietary Guidelines, now mandated by law

released.

Animal Health

• 1870 Foot-and-mouth disease, a severe, highly communicable viral dis

cattle, swine, sheep, goats, deer, and other ruminants, first reported in t

United States. The disease spreads widely and rapidly, causing grave p

and economic consequences. 

• 1882 Robert Koch discovered the bacterium that caused tuberculosis (T

demonstrated how it was transmitted, making it possible to diagnose th

ease in cattle and facilitating the control and eradication of TB in anim

• 1889 Bureau of Animal Industry researchers discovered the carrier of ti

(also called cattle fever, Texas fever, and distemper of cattle). A microp

causing Texas fever and its transmittal by cattle ticks caused a chronic 

problem among southern cattle. This was the first disease to be identifi

which a protozoan parasite was communicated to a mammalian specie

arthropod vector.

• 1892 Contagious bovine pleuropneumonia eradicated 49 years after its 

duction into the United States. This slow-spreading contagious bacteria

ease of cattle had caused severe loss of cattle and great economic harm

• 1899 Improved method of anthrax inoculation helps eliminate this dang

disease of warm-blooded animals (including human beings) that is cau

the spore-forming bacterium Bacillus anthracis.

• 1903 Hog cholera serum developed to combat a highly infectious viral d

of swine. Pigs were immunized using the serum from recovered pigs an

tle of the blood of an acutely ill pig.

• 1910 35 States and territories required tuberculin testing of all entering 

Tuberculosis is a contagious disease of both animals and humans. In an 

to reduce TB in the children at Indian schools, the Bureau of Animal In

began TB testing of dairy cattle herds on reservations in several States; 

35 States enacted legislation to test every cow, in every herd, on every f

• 1929 Foot-and-mouth disease, a highly contagious viral disease of cattl

sheep, goats, deer, and other ruminants, was eradicated from the United 

• 1929 Fowl plague (a viral disease reclassified in 1950 as avian influenza

eradicated from the United States.

• 1934 Glanders—a contagious, acute or chronic, usually fatal bacterial 

of horses—was eradicated from the United States.

x
1943 The cattle fever tick, Boophilus, was eradicated from the Con

United States, and deaths of cattle from tick fever stopped. Texas f

the first disease to be eradicated by eliminating the vector and the 

disease to be eradicated by using chemical agents directed at the v

• 1947 The United States began formal cooperation with Mexico to 

spread of foot-and-mouth disease. Congress also established autho

cooperate with Mexico, Central American countries, Panama, Colo

and Canada to control or eradicate other animal diseases.

• 1955 Sterile flies were used to control screwworm (a cattle pest tha

extensive damage to domestic livestock) by interrupting its ability 

Screwworms were eradicated from the entire Southeastern United 

1959, and in 1966, they were eradicated in the Southwest and in th

United States.

• 1959 Vesicular exanthema (VE) of swine was eradicated. This acut

infectious disease, first observed in California in 1932, became wi

the United States in the 1950’s. A vigorous campaign by USDA to 

the disease was successful. 

• 1971 Eradication of Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis (VEE)

borne disease of all equine species that humans can also contract. A

disease entered southern Texas in 1971, Federal and State animal h

officials, the U.S. military, and affected communities took swift ac

control and eradicate this outbreak. Efforts included spraying 13 m

acres for mosquitoes and vaccinating 2.8 million horses. 

• 1973 Sheep scabies (Psoroptic mange), which had afflicted sheep 

for more than 2,000 years, was declared eradicated in the United S

• 1974 Exotic Newcastle disease was eradicated after the destruction 

12 million chickens. In 1971, a major outbreak of this contagious a

viral disease had occurred in commercial poultry flocks in souther

Eradication efforts cost taxpayers $56 million, and the disease has 

domestic chickens in the United States since that outbreak was era

1974. 

• 1978 Hog cholera—a highly contagious viral disease of swine tha

enormous losses to the hog industry—was eradicated from the Un

after a 16-year effort by the industry and by State and Federal gov

• 1985 Lethal avian influenza eradicated. This disease is an extreme

and deadly form of avian influenza virus. Eradication efforts of a 1

1984 high pathogen avian influenza (HPAI) outbreak in eight Nort

States involved destruction of more than 17 million birds and cost 

$65 million. 
(16851763) of Connecticut.

• 1785 Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia contained one o

finest detailed descriptions of agriculture in an American State and asse

the virtues of rural life.

• 1825-50 Some schools and colleges began to offer courses in agricultu

in sciences helpful to agriculture.

• 1855 Michigan and Pennsylvania passed legislation providing for estab

ment of Michigan Agricultural College and the Farmers High School, l

Pennsylvania State College.

• 1862 The drive for agricultural education culminated in the passage of 

Morrill Land Grant College Act, which provided grants of public land 

State to be sold to fund an institution of higher education.

• 1871 Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine granted its firs

bachelor’s degree.

• 1874 Chatauqua system of adult education founded in New York.

• 1877 The University of Illinois offered the world’s first course in gener

bacteriology. 

• 1890’s Development of agricultural education in secondary schools beg

local areas and some States.

• 1890 Second Morrill Act funded land-grant colleges for blacks in State

1862 land grants were segregated.

• 1900 First corn club for boys, forerunner of 4-H clubs.

• 1903 Seaman Knapp began boll-weevil demonstration project in Texas

inspiration for extension education, along with mobile school project o

Booker T. Washington and George Washington Carver of Tuskegee Ins

• 1914 Smith-Lever Act passed establishing the Cooperative Extension S

system.

• 1924 Clark-McNary Act provided for forestry extension work.

• 1928 Future Farmers of America founded.

• 1935 Bankhead-Jones Agricultural Research Act more than doubled Fe

support of extension work.

• 1941 Extension agents worked in every rural county in the country, inc

Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

• 1964 Federal antipoverty programs led to expansion of extension educa

programs to urban areas.

• 1975 University of Nebraska professors established AGNET, the Natio

interactive computer network to exchange agricultural information. AG

allowed users miles away to access economic and management inform

• 1977 Legislation authorized funds to conduct extension programs and 

ties, as well as research programs, at the 1890 institutions and Tuskege

Institute. 

• 1994 The Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 establi

29 tribal colleges, providing an endowment fund and authorizing exten

activities at these 1994 land-grant institutions. 

xii
1794 Thomas Jeffersons moldboard plow tested.

• 1797 Charles Newbold patented first cast-iron plow.

• 1819 Jethro Wood patented iron plow with interchangeable parts.

• 1834 McCormick reaper patented.

• 1834 John Lane began manufacturing plows faced with steel saw b

• 1837 John Deere and Leonard Andrus began manufacturing steel p

• 1837 Practical threshing machine patented.

• 1841 Practical grain drill patented.

• 1844 Practical mowing machine patented.

• 1849 Mixed chemical fertilizers sold commercially.

• 1856 2-horse, straddle-row cultivator patented.

• 1862-75 Change from hand power to horses characterized the first 

agricultural revolution.

• 1868 Steam tractors tested.

• 1869 Spring-tooth harrow for seedbed preparation appeared.

• 1870’s Silos came into use.

• 1870’s Deep-well drilling first widely used.

• 1874 Glidden barbed wire patented. Availability of barbed wire all

ing of rangeland, ending era of unrestricted, open-range grazing.

• 1884-90 Horse-drawn combine used in Pacific coast wheat areas.

• 1890-95 Cream separators came into wide use.

• 1910-15 Big open-geared gas tractors came into use in areas of ex

ing.

• 1930’s All-purpose, rubber-tired tractor with complementary mach

into wide use.

• 1942 Spindle cotton picker produced commercially. 

• 1945-70 Change from horses to tractors and the adoption of a grou

logical practices characterized the second American agriculture re

• 1954 Number of tractors on farms exceeded the number of horses 

for the first time.

• Late 1950’s–1960’s Anhydrous ammonia increasingly used as che

of fertilizing nitrogen. 

• 1965 99 percent of sugar beets harvested mechanically.

• 1968 96 percent of cotton harvested mechanically.

• 1970’s No-till agriculture popularized.
National Board of Agriculture.

• 1819 New York State Board of Agriculture set up by State legislature.

• 1820 Agriculture Committee established in U.S. House of Representati

• 1825 Agriculture Committee established in U.S. Senate.

• 1839 $1,000 appropriated for Patent Office work with agricultural stati

• 1853 New York appointed first State entomologist.

• 1862 USDA set up without Cabinet status “to acquire and to diffuse am

people of the United States useful information on subjects connected w

agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word...

• 1874 Georgia set up the first State Department of Agriculture.

• 1889 USDA raised to Cabinet status.

• 1890, 1891, 1906 Meat Inspection Acts establish Federal program for

certifying safety and quality of meats.

• 1893 Office of Road Inquiry organized at USDA to run demonstration 

education programs.

• 1897 Greater emphasis in Federal agriculture program given to plant ex

ration and to increasing agricultural production.

• 1900-1920’s Federal role in regulating food safety and marketing grow

passage of Pure Food and Drug Act, Cotton Futures Act, Packers and

Stockyards Act, and Grain Futures Act.

• 1906 Appointment of first county agricultural agent.

• 1922 Capper-Volstead Act encouraged the growth of rural cooperatives

• Early 1930’s First Federal assistance to school lunch programs.

• 1930 Unprecedented drought relief legislation enacted.

• 1933-40 New Deal legislation increased Federal involvement in agricu

through production control, price support, and marketing programs; cre

rural relief and resettlement; soil conservation; crop insurance; rural el

cation; and other programs. 

• 1935 Rural Electrification Administration organized at USDA to bring 

ity to farms. 

• 1939 Food stamp plan begun.

• 1949 Rural Telephone Loan program begun.

• 1956 Soil Bank Program authorized to expand conservation of fragile l

and help control production.

• 1957 Poultry Inspection Act added poultry to the list of products inspec

USDA.

• 1961 Public Law 480 extended and expanded to increase U.S. food ass

to developing countries.

• 1964 Food Stamp Act expanded earlier food stamp program and establ

as a major form of Government assistance to the poor.

• 1965 Appalachian Regional Development Act established Appalachian

Regional Commission, a model regional rural development program.

xiv
rural areas.

• 1966 Child Nutrition Act established the School Breakfast Program 

Special Milk Program.

• 1966-67 National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty organiz

it published The People Left Behind, calling attention to rural pove

• 1971 Rural Telephone Bank organized to finance rural telephone c

• 1972 Rural Development Act established rural development as an 

mission of USDA.

• 1973 Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act emphasized maint

increasing instead of controlling production, an unusual, and short

for U.S. farm policy.

• 1975 Economic Research Service reports reversal of rural-to-urban 

during 1970-73.

• 1985 Food Security Act lowered Government farm supports, prom

exports, set up the Conservation Reserve Program, and established 

Advisory Commission on Agricultural and Rural Development Po

• 1989 30 million acres retired under the Conservation Reserve Prog

• 1994 The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agri

Reorganization Act reorganizes USDA into mission areas and call

or consolidating one-third of USDA’s 3,700 field offices.

• 1996 Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act reoriente

grams to increase reliance on market signals by allowing flexibility 

and by “decoupling” support payments from levels of production.

Highlights of USDA Agricultural Research

• 1863 First monthly crop report published by USDA.

• 1866 Division of Botany created to preserve herbarium material co

various government expeditions.

• 1871 Division of Microscopy created.

• 1873 Washington navel orange introduced into California with tree

from Brazil by USDA.

• 1875 Agricultural experiment stations established in Connecticut a

California.

• 1884 Bureau of Animal Industry established.

• 1887 15 States had formally organized experiment stations.

• 1887 Hatch Experiment Station Act provides Federal funding to S

experiment stations.

• 1888 First successful biological control of crop pest; Vedalia beetl

from Australia to control fluted scale on citrus.

• 1891 First comprehensive list of animal and human parasites deve

comprises more than 30 volumes.

• 1900 First methodical breeding of plants for disease resistance–wi

cotton.
and soybeans, thus helping to diversify southern agriculture.

• 1910 USDA domesticated the wild blueberry.

• 1910 Scientists demonstrated that pasteurization killed toxin-producing 

isms in raw milk without destroying beneficial lactic acid bacteria.

• 1918 W.W. Garner and H.A. Allard discovered that relative day and nig

length control flowering, known as photoperiodism. 

• 1923 Tobacco mosaic virus isolated; established that viruses cause man

diseases.

• 1925 Purnell Act provided for experiment stations to pursue economic 

sociological research. 

• 1932 Use of carbon dioxide tested as a method to retard decay in fresh

produce.

• 1937 Insect sterilization technique for mating disruption proposed by E

F. Knipling.

• 1938 Agricultural Adjustment Act established four regional research ce

develop new uses for farm products.

• 1941 Deep vat fermentation developed in Peoria, Illinois, by Andrew M

allowing mass production of penicillin.

• 1944 Beltsville small white turkey developed, progenitor of today’s

commercial turkeys.

• 1944 Discovery that plants use the red part of sunlight to launch growth

changes.

• 1946 Technique developed to produce high-quality frozen orange juice

concentrate.

• 1948 Time-temperature tolerance project developed nine principles for

freezing vegetables–still the industry standard.

• 1950 Economical methods for producing dextran developed; first used 

alternative to blood plasma in Korean War.

• 1950 First light-scattering instrument for measuring size of molecules

designed.

• 1950’s Process for making instant potato flakes developed.

• 1953 Agricultural Research Service created in major reorganization of 

• 1953 Discovery of THPC, compound that imparts fire resistance to cot

fabrics. 

• 1954 DEET (N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide) insect repellent developed.

• 1956 First nucleotide sequence of transfer ribonucleic acid (RNA) isol

characterized.

• 1958 National Seed Storage Laboratory set up to provide long-term sto

plant germplasm.

• 1962 First commercial semi-dwarf cultivar of a cereal grain in North Am

produced, helping to launch the “Green Revolution.”

xvi
Theodor O. Diener.

• 1973 Super Slurper developed, a combination of starch and a synth

chemical that absorbs hundreds of times its own weight in water.

• 1988 First transgenic farm animals born.

• 1989 First separation of living farm-animal sperm into male- and f

producing batches.

• 1990 Fat replacement for food—”Oatrim”—developed from carbo

fiber and natural enzymes.

• 1990’s Biodegradable plastics developed with cornstarch.

• 1994 First genetic map of blueberry.

• 1997 Gel formulation of formic acid developed to control parasitic 

• 1998 First noninvasive live-animal test for prion disease, scrapie, i

• 1998 Bacterial microbe mixture, PREEMPT, developed for compe

exclusion of Salmonella.

• 1999 Technique developed to grow taxol-producing cells in tissue 

• 1999 Rapid test developed to identify antibiotic-resistant strain of 

reduced test time from 6 weeks to 2 hours. 

Legal and Regulatory Actions on Food Safety

• 1860’s Following the Civil War, foods began to be mass produced 

marketed in the United States, which led to food safety concerns a

the way foods were processed, handled, and packaged. 

• 1880’s USDA developed methods to detect food adulteration, pavi

way for the Pure Food and Drug Act.

• 1891 Federal ante- and post-mortem meat inspection mandated for 

exports. The goal was to promote meat exports to countries by req

certification of inspection that was comparable to that which the fo

country provided. U.S. firms could request inspection of meat for d

markets, but the widespread use of this voluntary program was pre

by the limitation on appropriations. 

• 1906 Upton Sinclair’s novel, The Jungle, drew attention to unsanit

conditions in U.S. meat packinghouses.

• 1906 Five months after Sinclair’s novel was published, the Federa

Inspection Act and the U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics A

passed, establishing two separate administrations: the U.S. Depart

Agriculture (USDA) for meat inspections, and the U.S. Food and D

Administration (FDA) for inspections of all other foods. The Fede

Inspection Act established mandatory Federal inspection of all me

interstate commerce and provided continuous inspection of succes

stages of processing. The Pure Food and Drug Act prohibited misb

and adulterated foods and drugs from interstate commerce, and pro

for seizure of violative products and the imposition of criminal san
1938 Congress enacted the U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Ac

(FDCA) extending earlier legislation. Under the FDCA, the safety, pur

and wholesomeness of the food supply is ensured primarily by provisio

forbidding interstate commerce in “adulterated” food.

• 1947 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act enacted.

• 1952 In Berger v. United States, pickles held in open vats where pigeon

were flying around were in violation of section 402(a)(4) of the FDCA 

were condemned as adulterated, despite lack of direct evidence of pige

contamination of vats or pickles. The courts required only that a food 

“may” have become defective.

• 1953 Congress gave FDA authority to inspect a plant, after written noti

the owner, without a warrant and without permission of the owner.

• 1957 In the 1950’s, poultry consumption increased significantly, leadin

enactment of the Poultry Products Inspection Act for poultry slaughter 

processing.

• 1958 Food Additives Amendment of 1958.

• 1966 Fair Package and Labeling Act.

• 1967 Wholesome Meat Act.

• 1968 Wholesome Poultry Products Act.

• 1969 Good manufacturing practices regulations first adopted.

• 1970 Egg Products Inspection Act.

• 1974 In American Public Health Association v. Butz, Salmonella was r

a natural contaminant of food and not an adulterant that could be readil

trolled.

• 1986 USDA’s Processed Products Inspection Improvement Act elimina

daily Federal inspection of meat and poultry slaughter and processing p

Federal inspection was increased at plants that were deemed to have hi

health risks.

• 1990 Nutrition Labeling and Education Act.

• 1992 U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned EPA’s use of de m

standard for pesticide cancer risk.

• 1993 The public interest group, Safe Tables Our Priority (S.T.O.P.), wa

formed by parents of children who had become ill or died from E. coli

O157:H7 contamination in hamburgers.

• 1994 In Texas Food Industry v. Espy, the court ruled that E. coli O157:H

adulterant. This meant that meat and poultry contaminated with E. coli

O157:H7 must be destroyed.

xviii
from legitimate Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures by req

SPS measures to be science based.

• 1994 USDA required all raw (and partially cooked) meat and poul

to carry a label explaining safe cooking, storing, and handling prac

• 1995 The food code was revised in 1973 and, since 1995, will be 

annually because of improved information about foodborne pathog

how to prevent associated illnesses.

• 1995 FSIS also introduced a process certification program. If a com

demonstrate that its new process will “significantly reduce” pathog

can be certified. 

• 1995 FDA promulgated a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Po

(HACCP) plan for seafood (Federal Register, December 18, 1995)

• 1996 FSIS requires that all meat and poultry slaughter and process

implement the pathogen reduction/HACCP system to identify haz

critical control points in their particular production, processing, an

activities (Federal Register, July 25, 1996). HACCP focuses on id

hazards and preventing pathogen contamination rather than detecti

products.

• 1997 The National Food Safety Initiative has several components: 

warning system for foodborne illness, outbreak coordination, risk 

bioscience research, maximizing inspections to support HACCP, im

food safety education, and a strategic plan for action.

• 1997 The Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned FDA 

labels about Salmonella enteritidis (SE) risks on shell egg cartons, 

HACCP programs on all egg-producing farms to control SE.

• 1998 New and proposed regulations for the safety of juice.

• 1998 New regulation for shell eggs.

• 1999 Regulatory guidelines cover Listeria monocytogenes contam

ready-to-eat livestock and poultry products. 
1908 33 percent of population lives on farms, and 54 percent live in rur

• 1920 30 percent of the population lives on farms

• 1930 58 percent of all farms had cars; 34 percent had telephones,

13 percent had electricity

• 1933 10 percent of farms electrified; 26 percent of population lives on 

• 1935 35 percent of farms electrified

• 1940 23 percent of population lives on farm; 43 percent of population l

in rural areas

• 1950 12 percent of population lives on farms

• 1954 70.9 percent of all farms had cars; 49 percent had telephones,

93 percent had electricity 

• 1960 8 percent of population lives on farms

• 1970 26 percent of population lives in rural areas

• 1972 5 percent of population lives on farms

• 1975 90 percent of all farms had telephones; 98.6 percent had electricit

• 1979 99 percent of farms electrified

• 1982 3 percent of population lives on farms; 97 percent of farms have

telephone service

• 1988 75 percent of U.S. counties, with 26 percent of population, are

nonmetropolitan

xx
■ What Do Americans Eat? 

Consistent with dietary and health recommendations, Americans now half more grain products and a fourth more fruits and vegetables per 

they did in 1970, eat leaner meat, and drink lower fat milk. Moreover, a s

increase in the proportion of refined flour that is enriched (from 65 perce

more than 90 percent today) and changes in flour-enrichment standards in 

1983, along with big increases in grain product consumption since 1984, 

boosted per capita supplies of four of the nutrients lost in the milling proc

approximately replaced by manufacturers—iron, niacin, thiamine, and rib

and, since January 1, 1998, folate.

But contrary to recommendations, Americans are consuming record-

amounts of caloric sweeteners and some high-fat dairy products, and nea

amounts of added fats, including salad and cooking oils and baking and f

Moreover, the hefty increase in grain consumption reflects higher consum

mostly refined, rather than high-fiber, whole-grain products—less than 2 

the 150 pounds of wheat flour consumed per capita in 1997 was whole w

(Most nutrients lost during processing, including fiber, vitamins, mineral

chemicals, are not restored to refined flour.) 

A variety of factors are responsible for the changes in U.S. consump

in the last 25 years, including changes in relative prices, increases in real 

for inflation) disposable income, and more food assistance for the poor. N

ucts, particularly more convenient ones, also contribute to shifts in consu

along with more imports, growth in the away-from-home food market, ex

advertising programs, and changes in food-enrichment standards and fort

policy. Sociodemographic trends also driving changes in food choices inc

households, more two-earner households, more single-parent households

population, and increased ethnic diversity. An expanded scientific base re

and health, new Dietary Guidelines for Americans designed to help peop

choices that promote health and prevent disease, improved nutrition label

burgeoning consumer interest in nutrition also influence marketing and c

trends.

USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) estimates per capita food 

based on food disappearance data. Estimates of food for domestic human 

tion usually are calculated by subtracting measurable uses such as export

consumption, farm inputs, and end-of-year inventories from total supply 

production, beginning inventories, and imports). Accordingly, the data ar
Food supply nutrient estimates are derived from the disappearance data by

researchers in USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.

Per Capita Meat Supply Larger and Leaner. Now more than ever, we 

Nation of meat eaters—but we are eating leaner meat. In 1999, total meat con

tion (red meat, poultry, and fish) amounted to 197 pounds (boneless, trimmed

equivalent) per person, 20 pounds above the 1970 level and 91 pounds above 

average annual level for the 1930’s, when effects of the Great Depression dam

consumption. Each American consumed an average of 18 pounds less red me

(mostly less beef) than in 1970, 35 pounds more poultry, and 3 pounds more fi

shellfish. 

Nutritional concern about fat and cholesterol has encouraged the product

leaner animals, the closer trimming of outside fat on retail cuts of meat, the m

of lower fat ground meat and processed meat products, and consumer substitu

poultry for red meat—significantly lowering the meat, poultry, and fish group

tribution to total fat and saturated fat in the food supply.

Red meat (beef, pork, lamb, and veal) accounted for 58 percent of the tot

supply in 1999, compared with 74 percent in 1970. By 1999, chicken and turk

accounted for 35 percent of the total meat consumed, up from 19 percent in 1

Fish and shellfish accounted for 7 percent of total meat consumption in both y

Per capita consumption of beef reached an all-time high of 89 pounds (bo

trimmed-weight equivalent) in 1976 when beef supplies were at record levels 

of liquidation of the Nation’s beef herd. It dropped significantly in the late 19

remained flat in the early 1980’s, and then, from a 1980’s high of 75 pounds p

capita in 1985, declined steadily to 61.5 pounds in 1993. In 1994-99, increasi

plies of beef and declining beef prices spurred a 2- to 3.5-pound increase in an

per capita consumption of beef. 

Consumer concerns about cholesterol and saturated fat, inconsistent qual

lack of convenience in preparation are behind the negative trend in beef dema

Beginning around 1960, in response to concerns about fat and cholesterol, be

ducers began shifting production from the very fat English breeds like Herefo

Angus to the bigger, rangier, less fat, faster growing exotic breeds. This shift l

increasing inconsistency in the quality of beef—a less tender and less juicy pr

By 1995, one of four steaks was considered too tough to chew, according to th

National Beef Quality Audit. In addition, the mass entry of women into the pa

force has drastically reduced consumption of beef roasts and other beef cuts r

lengthy cooking times. 

Beef has lagged behind poultry and pork in marketing value-added, conv

items. In January 1999, the beef industry launched a new advertising campaig

uses the familiar “Beef, It’s What’s for Dinner” tagline and aims to inform co

and beef industry channels about a new trend—beef dishes that are fully cook

ready to microwave and serve in 10 minutes. Such dishes include traditional b

favorites like pot roast, meat loaf, and beef ribs. In addition, in 1998, the beef 

try funded new genetic research to improve beef tenderness.

2
pounds in 1999. Similarly, per capita consumption of turkey climbed from 

in 1975 to 14 pounds a year in 1999. The poultry industry has enjoyed gr

partly by catering to consumers. The industry has provided scores of new 

name, value-added products processed for consumers’ convenience, as w

of products for foodservice operators. Poultry has also benefited from its 

relative to beef and health-related concerns about beef.

Year-to-year fluctuations in pork consumption are often quite large, b

sumption has been fairly stable in the long run. In fact, annual per capita 

sumption averaged 47.6 pounds per person in 1970-74 and 47.7 pounds p

1995-99. The 1990’s quantity, however, contained much more lean and m

Through improved breeding and husbandry practices and greater trimmin

fat on retail cuts, the pork industry has lowered the fat content of retail po

than 30 percent since the 1970’s.

U.S. per capita seafood consumption for 1999 is estimated at 14.8 po

from a record high of 16.1 pounds in 1987. Despite the 8-percent decline 

1987 level, average consumption in 1999 was still 26 percent above 1970

though seafood prices outpaced those of other protein sources during tho

Consumer Price Indexes (CPI) for fish, red meat, and poultry climbed 48

223 percent, and 195 percent, respectively, from 1970 to 1998.

The next decade will undoubtedly bring more changes. Technologica

will mean a host of new products in the meat case. With little increase in 

sumption of meat products expected in the next decade, the beef, pork, po

fish industries will try to capture a larger share of a stagnant market by of

prepared products.

Long-Term Decline in Per Capita Egg Consumption Levels Off i

1990’s. Egg consumption has two components: shell eggs and egg produ

eggs are those eggs purchased in cartons in the grocery store. Egg produc

that have been processed and sold primarily to food manufacturers and fo

operators in liquid or dried form. These pasteurized eggs reach consumer

ents of foodservice menu items and processed foods—such as pasta, cand

goods, and cake mixes—or directly as liquid eggs in grocery stores.

Between 1970 and 1989, total annual consumption of shell eggs and 

ucts steadily declined about 4 eggs per person per year, from 309 eggs to 

the 1990’s, total egg consumption has leveled off, fluctuating between 23

eggs per person per year. The record high for U.S. per capita egg consum

421 eggs in 1945.

The decline in per capita egg consumption over the last few decades 

very different and somewhat counterbalancing trends: a dominating, near

decline in consumption of shell eggs, and a partially offsetting growth in 

tion of egg products during the 1980’s and 1990’s.
4

per year in the 1970s and 5 eggs per year in the 1980s. In the 1990s, the rate 

decline in per capita consumption of shell eggs has slowed to less than 1 egg p

and is expected to slow even more.

Much of the decline in shell-egg consumption since 1970 was due to cha

lifestyles (for example, less time for breakfast preparation in the morning as l

numbers of women joined the paid labor force) and the perceived ill effects of 

cholesterol intake associated with egg consumption. Total cholesterol in the U

capita food supply declined 13 percent between 1970 and 1994, from 470 mil

per person per day to 410 milligrams. Eggs contributed 39 percent of the total 

terol in the food supply in 1970 and 34 percent in 1994.

Consumption of egg products has doubled since 1983, reaching 71 eggs p

son by 1999. The growth period followed more than two decades of relatively 

stant consumption. Egg product consumption will continue to increase as con

opt for more prepared foods.

Americans Drinking Less Milk, Eating More Cheese. In 1998, Americ

drank an average of 24 percent less milk and ate 2-1/2 times as much cheese (

ing cottage types) as in 1970. Annual per capita consumption of milkfat from 

milk products (beverage milks and yogurt) has declined by half since 1970 du

lower milk consumption and a trend toward lower fat milks. Americans cut th

age consumption of fluid whole milk by two-thirds between 1970 and 1998, a

nearly tripled their use of lower fat milks. But because of the growing yen for 

and fluid cream products, the Nation failed to cut the overall use of milkfat.

Annual per capita consumption of beverage milk declined from 31 gallon

1970 to less than 24 gallons in 1998. Consumption of soft drinks, fruit drinks 

ades, and flavored teas displaced beverage milk in the diet. Big increases in ea

away from home, especially at fast-food places, and in consumption of salty s

foods favored soft drink consumption.

The beverage milk trend is toward lower fat milk. While whole milk repr

81 percent of all beverage milk (plain, flavored, and buttermilk) in 1970, its sh

dropped to 35 percent in 1998. As a result, total beverage milk contributed 51 

less fat to the average American’s diet in 1998 than in 1970. In contrast, rising 

sumption of fluid cream products meant that they contributed two times as mu

milkfat to the average diet in 1998 as in 1970. (Per capita consumption of flui

products—half-and-half, light cream, heavy cream, eggnog, sour cream, and d

jumped from 10 half pints in 1970 to 17 half pints in 1998.)

On balance, however, annual per capita consumption of milkfat from all 

milk and cream products declined by 38 percent in 1970-98, from 9.1 pounds 

son to 5.9 pounds. Of that 5.9 pounds, whole milk contributed 2.5 pounds; low

milks, 1.7 pounds; and fluid cream products, 1.7 pounds. Skim milk added 0.0

pound of fat to the average diet in 1997, and yogurt (most of which is reduced

fat-free) added 0.09 pound of fat. 
pounds per person to 28.4 pounds. Lifestyles that emphasize convenience 

probably major forces behind the higher consumption. In fact, two-thirds 

cheese now comes in commercially manufactured and prepared foods (in

foodservice) such as pizza, tacos, nachos, salad bars, fast-food sandwiche

spreads, sauces for baked potatoes and other vegetables, and packaged sn

Advertising and new products—such as reduced-fat cheeses and resealab

shredded cheeses, including cheese blends tailored for use in Italian and 

recipes—also boosted consumption.

From 1970 to 1998, consumption of Cheddar cheese, America’s favo

increased 67 percent to 9.7 pounds per capita. Per capita consumption of

Mozzarella—the main pizza cheese—in 1998 was 8.7 pounds, 7-1/3 time

than in 1970, making it America’s second favorite cheese. Cream cheese 

Neufchatel) overtook Swiss in the 1980’s to become America’s third favo

at 2.3 pounds per person in 1998. Lower fat cheeses accounted for a fifth 

16 percent; nonfat, 4 percent) of supermarket sales for the 52 weeks endi

1998 (at 20 percent, that is down 2 percentage points from 2 years earlier

to the International Dairy Foods Association. Lower fat cheeses make up 

smaller proportion of the total cheese used by food manufacturers and fo

operators.

The Array of Fruit and Vegetable Choices Widens. As Americans 

embrace national health authorities’ recommendation of consuming at lea

and vegetables a day, their array of choices continues to widen. Fresh-cut 

vegetables, prepackaged salads, locally grown items, and exotic produce—

hundreds of new varieties and processed products—have been introduced 

expanded since the early 1980’s. Supermarket produce departments carry 

produce items today, up from 250 in the late 1980’s and 150 in the mid-1

the number of ethnic, gourmet, and natural foodstores—which highlight 

duce—continues to rise.

Consumers increasingly have more access to fresh, local produce as 

number of farmers’ markets reported to State agriculture departments has 

stantially throughout the United States over the last several decades, num

around 1,755 at the end of 1993 and eclipsing 2,746 in 1998. Some analy

the total number of farmers’ markets, including those not reported, is mo

ble that figure.

While the overall market for fruits and vegetables has expanded in th

years, the mix has changed. Shifts have taken place among traditional pro

and between fresh and processed forms. Traditional varieties have lost m

to specialty varieties, and exotic produce has gained favor. For example, p

consumption of iceberg lettuce fell by 4.4 pounds (or 15 percent) betwee

1997, while per capita consumption of romaine and leaf lettuces increase

(or 69 percent) during the same period. In addition, many specialty lettuc
6

salad mixes and in upscale restaurant menus. Annual consumption of fresh ca

jumped up 3-1/2 pounds per person between 1995 and 1997, to 12-1/2 pound

person, with the introduction of packaged, ready-to-eat baby carrots, which ar

popular lunchbox and snack item.

Consumption of Added Fats and Oils Remains Near Record High.

Americans’ overriding nutrition concern in the mid-1990’s with cutting dietar

apparent in the recent per capita food supply data, which show a modest decli

1993 in the use of added fats and oils. Annual per capita consumption of adde

and oils declined 8 percent between 1993 and 1998, from a record-high 69.7 p

(fat-content basis) per person to 64.9 pounds. However, average use of added 

oils in 1998 remained about a fifth above the 1970 level. Added fats and oils i

fats and oils used directly by consumers, such as butter on bread, as well as sh

ings and oils used in commercially prepared cookies, pastries, and fried foods

Excluded is all fat naturally present in foods, such as in milk and meat.

Studies in the 1950’s and 1960’s showed that replacing saturated fatty ac

animal fat with polyunsaturated fatty acids lowered blood cholesterol levels.

Consequently, diets high in polyunsaturated oils like corn and safflower oils w

widely recommended for the prevention of heart disease. Within the added fat

oils group, animal fats declined a fourth from 1970 to 1998 on a per capita ba

vegetable fats and oils increased roughly two-fifths. Per capita consumption o

and cooking oils, most of which were high in polyunsaturated fatty acids, nea

bled between 1970 and 1998, from 15 pounds to 28 pounds.

However, concern developed about the safety of polyunsaturated fatty ac

interest in the health benefits of monounsaturated fatty acids also increased. S

research suggests that replacing saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats in the 

reduces low-density lipoprotein (LDL)—the harmful form of blood cholester

also reduces protective high-density lipoprotein (HDL)—the so-called “good 

terol.” Meanwhile, replacing saturated fats with monounsaturated fats lowers 

cholesterol but leaves HDL levels stable. In addition, polyunsaturated fatty ac

more easily oxidized than monounsaturated fatty acids, making them more lik

contribute to atherosclerosis (fatty deposits in the inner layer of the arteries).

Monounsaturated fatty acids are the most common fat in foods, but they are p

larly plentiful in olive oil, canola oil, almonds, and avocados. In the 1998 food 

ply, olive oil and canola oil together accounted for 12 percent of total salad an

cooking oils, up from 2 percent in 1985. Canola oil also is used in some soft, 

oil margarines.

In 1993, health concern about trans-fatty acids (or trans-fats) hit newspap

headlines. Trans-fats are created when liquid oils are hydrogenated to make th

more solid and stable at room temperature; they raise LDL cholesterol and low

eficial HDL cholesterol levels, and are associated with increased risk of coron

heart disease. Hydrogenated fats are used in everything from margarines, shor

crackers, cookies, baked goods, and peanut butter to foods fried in fast-food e

fried snack foods, and even some soups, beans, and cereals. From 1993 to 199

capita consumption of margarine and shortening declined by a third and nearl
tub or liquid margarines. In 1970, most margarine was the stick variety. I

the softer the margarine, the lower its percentage of partially hydrogenate

thus the lower the amount of trans-fats.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed in Novemb

food manufacturers begin disclosing on nutrition labels the amount of tra

prepared food products. Nutrition labels currently list the total grams of f

ing of product, and that total does include trans-fats, but there is no separ

showing, as they do with saturated fats, the actual amount of trans-fats. B

ing trans-fatty acids on food labels along with saturated fat, the FDA hop

encourage Americans to vote with their shopping carts and avoid foods th

in trans-fats and saturated fats. Including trans-fats on food labels is anot

the FDA to encourage food companies to alter ingredients, opting for mo

alternatives. It could take about 2 years for any new rule to go into effect

manufacturers have already reformulated their products to eliminate tran

now capitalizing on that fact as a marketing tool. 

Grain Consumption Rises by Nearly Half Since 1970. Per capita u

and cereal products reached 200 pounds in 1997 from an annual average 

pounds in 1980 and 136 pounds in 1970. The expansion in supplies reflec

grain stocks, strong consumer demand for variety breads and other instor

items, as well as grain-based snack foods, and increasing fast-food sales 

made with buns, doughs, and tortillas.

USDA’s nationwide food consumption surveys confirm the food sup

also indicating Americans are eating more grain products. Consumption 

tures—such as lasagna and pizza—increased 115 percent between 1977-

Snack foods—such as crackers, popcorn, pretzels, and corn chips—soare

cent, and ready-to-eat cereals were up 60 percent. One of the biggest cha

the grain mixture group was the explosion of ethnic foods, especially Me

Mexican foods were consumed four times more often in 1994 than in the 

Yet Americans are still eating a serving or less a day of whole-grain food

the minimum three per day the American Dietetic Association recommen

Since January 1, 1998, all enriched grain foods—including ready-to-

fast cereals, pasta, bread, rolls, flour, cakes, and cookies—have been forti

folic acid (the synthetic form of folate, a B-vitamin). In an effort to see w

this has had, researchers at USDA’s Human Nutrition Research Center on 

Tufts University in Boston studied a group of mostly white, middle-aged 

one Massachusetts town and looked at their blood levels of folic acid bef

the food fortification began. They found that average blood levels of folic 

bled. Just under 2 percent still had folic acid deficiency, compared to 22 p

before the vitamin was added to food. That should reduce the risk of neur

defects like spina bifida. It may also protect adults from heart disease and 

chances of cervical cancer in women. Folic acid is found naturally in legu

many vegetables, especially green leafy ones like spinach; citrus fruits an

whole-grain products; and eggs.
8

Per capita consumption of caloric sweeteners (dryweight basis)mainly suc

(table sugar made from cane and beets) and corn sweeteners (notably high-fru

corn syrup, or HFCS)—increased 33 pounds, or 27 percent, between 1982 an

In 1998, each American consumed a record average 154 pounds of caloric sw

ers. That amounted to more than two-fifths of a pound—or 53 teaspoonfuls—

added sugars per person per day in 1997. Of course, some of the 53 teaspoons 

added sugars were lost or wasted in the food system or in the home. But even 

allow that as much as 40 percent of the supply of added sugars might be wast

sumption would remain high—about 32 teaspoonfuls per person a day. USDA

Guide Pyramid suggests that people consuming 1,600 calories limit their inta

added sugars to 6 teaspoons per day. The daily suggested limit increases to 12

teaspoons for those consuming 2,200 calories, and to 18 teaspoons for those c

ing 2,800 calories.

A striking change in the availability of specific types of sugar occurred in 

past three decades. Sucrose’s share of total caloric sweetener use dropped from 

percent in 1970 to 42 percent in 1998, while corn sweeteners increased from 

percent to 57 percent. All other caloric sweeteners—including honey, maple s

and molasses—combined to maintain a 1-percent share.

The steep rise in caloric sweetener consumption since the mid-1980’s coi

with a 51-percent increase in annual per capita consumption of regular (nondi

carbonated soft drinks, from 28 gallons per person in 1986 to nearly 43 gallon

1998 (that is 14.9 ounces per person per day, an amount that contains more th

11 teaspoonfuls of sugar). Carbonated soft drinks provided more than a fifth 

(22 percent) of the refined and processed sugars in the 1994 American diet.

Sugar—including sucrose, corn sweeteners, honey, and molasses—is, in 

the number-one food additive. It turns up in some unlikely places, such as piz

bread, hot dogs, boxed rice mixes, soup, crackers, spaghetti sauce, lunch mea

canned vegetables, fruit drinks, flavored yogurt, ketchup, salad dressing, may

and some peanut butter.

The new food label, introduced in 1994, which lists the amount of sugars 

grams (for example, 4 grams equal 1 teaspoon) in a serving of the food, can h

people who are trying to moderate their sugar intake. This number includes bo

added sugars and those naturally present. Foods with natural sugars, such as m

and fruit, are also good sources of other nutrients, such as vitamins and miner
Total

Red meat

Poultry

Fish

Pounds per capita

200

175

150

125

100

75

50

25

0

1975 80 85 90 95 

Boneless, trimmed equivalent.

Source: USDA/Economic Research Service.

Figure 1-2.

Beef is still America’s most popular meat but chicken is ga

popularity

Beef

Pork

Chicken Turkey

Pounds per capita

100

80

60

40

20

0

1975 80 85 90 95 
10

0

100

200

300

400

500

Number per capita

Shell

Total

Processed

Source: USDA/Economic Research Service

1909 24 39 54 69 84 

Figure 1-4.

Per capita consumption of beverage milk declined 24 percent

between 1970 and 1998

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Gallons per capita

1972 77 82 87 92 

Total

Whole

2% reduced fat

Light and fat-free

1

1
more soda than milk

10

20

30

40

50

60

Gallons per capita

1945 55 65 75 85 

Beverage milk

Carbonated soft drinks1

1

Excludes flavored milk and buttermilk.

1

Figure 1-6.

Per capita consumption of cheese in 1998 was 21/2 times hi

in 1970

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1972 77 82 87 92 

1 Natural equivalent of cheese and cheese products. Excludes full-skim American and cottage 

Source: USDA/Economic Research Service.

Total

American

Italian

Oth

Pounds per capita1
12

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1997

19822

1970

Fruits Vegetables Total

Pounds per capita1

1

Fresh weight equivalent. 2Publication of Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer, which emphasized

the importance of fruits and vegetables in the daily diet.

Source: USDA/Economic Research Service.

Figure 1-8.

In 1998, per capita consumption of total added fats was 8 perc

below 1993’s record-high level but remained a fifth above the 1

level

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Pounds per capita

1970 76 81 86 91 

Total

Animal

Vegetable
Figure 1-10.

Consumption of flour and cereal products increased 48 perc

between 1970 and 1997 to 200 pounds

0

50

100

150

200

1970 75 80 85 90 

Total1

1

Excludes flavored milk and buttermilk.

Sucrose

Corn sweeteners

Pounds per capita (dry weight)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Total

Wheat Flour

Corn Products

Rice

Pounds per capita

1

1970 75 80 85 90 95 

Includes oat, rye, and barley products. 1
14

The estimated bill for marketing domestic farm foods

which does not inc

imported foods—was $466 billion in 1998. This amount covered all char

transporting, processing, and distributing foods that originated on U.S. farms. 

resented 80 percent of the $585 billion consumers spent for these foods. The r

ing 20 percent, or $119 billion, represents the gross return paid to farmers.

The cost of marketing farm foods has increased considerably over the ye

mainly because of rising costs of labor, transportation, food packaging materi

other inputs used in marketing, and also because of the growing volume of fo

the increase in services provided with the food.

In 1988, the cost of marketing farm foods amounted to $302 billion. In th

decade after that, the cost of marketing rose about 54 percent. In 1998, the ma

bill rose 4.8 percent.

These rising costs have been the principal factor affecting the rise in cons

food expenditures. From 1988 to 1998, consumer expenditures for farm foods 

$186 billion. Roughly 88 percent of this increase resulted from an increase in 

marketing bill. 

The cost of labor is the biggest part of the total food marketing bill, accou

for nearly half of all marketing costs. Labor used by assemblers, manufacture

wholesalers, retailers, and public eating places cost $228 billion in 1998. This 

5.1 percent higher than in 1997 and 65 percent more than in 1988. The total n

of food marketing workers in 1998 was about 13.8 million, about 17 percent m

than a decade ago. About 73 percent of the growth in food industry employme

occurred in public eating places.

Wage supplements comprise about 20 percent of total labor costs. Howev

cost of wage supplements has accelerated at a slower pace in recent years for 

sons. First, the cost of medical care has risen at a slower pace in recent years.

Second, union contracts often require workers to pay a greater portion of their 

ical care costs.

Labor productivity in food manufacturing industries has risen moderately 

the years, thereby causing a long-term decline in employment. This trend larg

reflects the adoption of various technologies which have reduced industry dem

labor. On the other hand, labor productivity has declined in food stores. This d

reflects increased demand for labor-intensive convenience foods prepared by 

markets. The additional services which are required to prepare these foods ha

raised employee hours relative to output, thereby accounting for the lowered p

tivity. 

A wide variety of other costs comprise the balance of the marketing bill. 

costs include packaging, transportation, energy, advertising, business taxes, n

est, depreciation, rent, and repairs. Their relative proportions are illustrated in 

accompanying dollar chart.

Packaging is the second largest component of the marketing bill. At $50 b

packaging accounted for 8.5 percent of the food dollar. Paperboard boxes and 

tainers are the largest packaging cost, and comprise approximately 40 percent 

packaging expenses. Metal cans are the second largest packaging expense, ma
Labor

Packaging

Transportation

Depreciation

Advertising

Fuels and electric

Before-tax p

Rent

20¢ 38.5¢ 8.5¢

4¢

3.5¢

4¢

3.5¢

3.5¢

4¢ 

Farm value Marketing bill

2

about 20 percent of total food packaging expenses. The costs of plastic co

wrapping materials account for another 20 percent of total food packagin

Miscellaneous packaging materials such as glass containers and metal fo

for the remaining 20 percent of total packaging costs.

The energy bill for food marketing costs totaled $21 billion in 1998, 

accounted for 3.5 percent of retail food expenditures. Natural gas and ele

prices exert the greatest impact on the energy costs of processing and reta

The prices of alternative energy sources, such as oil, have little effect. Pu

places and other food service facilities incur nearly 40 percent of the fuel 

tricity costs of food marketing. Their energy expenses have risen because 

growth in the away-from-home food market. Energy costs of food retaile

second largest, at about 26 percent of the energy bill, and consist mainly 

ity. Electricity is the primary source of energy in these food industries. Th

processing sector is responsible for another 20 percent of the food energy 

uses a combination of gas and electricity. The wholesaling sector accoun

remaining 14 percent of the food energy bill, and relies primarily on elec

Intercity truck and rail transportation for farm foods came to $24 bil

accounted for about 4 percent of retail food expenditures in 1998. Rail fr

rose about 3 percent, while trucking rates grew roughly 3.5 percent. Labo

account for 40 percent of trucking expenses, with fuel comprising anothe
industry advertising expenditures, with food service contributing another 25 p

and food retailing about 15 percent. A mix of print and broadcast media are u

promote food industry products. In recent years, food service and food retail fi

have experienced the largest increases in advertising expenditures.

Depreciation, rent, and repairs together came to $53 billion and accounte

9 percent of the 1998 consumer food dollar. The food service sector incurred 

40 percent of these costs, while food stores made up about a quarter of the tot

Manufacturing and wholesaling establishments together accounted for the rem

35 percent. Food service establishments incurred high property rental expense

and thus had the highest total of any food sector.

Net interest accounts for only 2.5 percent of total consumer expenditures

grew sharply over the last decade, rising to $13 billion in 1998. Most of the in

occurred in the food store sector, and reflected higher debt acquired due to me

and acquisition activity, particularly leveraged buyouts. Moreover, net interes

as the result of loans booked during years of rising interest rates, such as 1995

■ Food Prices and the Farm-to-Retail Price Spre

I

n the United States, total retail food prices (including meals served in restau

rose 36.0 percent over the last 10 years (1988-98). Prices of food eaten awa

home increased 32.3 percent, while retail food store prices increased 38.2 per

Prices of goods and services, excluding food, in the Consumer Price Inde

climbed 38.1 percent over the same 10 years. Transportation was up 30.3 perc

housing, 35.4 percent; medical care, 74.7 percent; and apparel and upkeep, 15

percent.

Food prices include payments for both the raw farm product and marketi

services. In 1998 the farm value, or payment for the raw product, averaged 2.2

percent of the retail cost of a market basket of U.S. farm foods sold in food st

The other 7.8 percent, the farm-retail price spread, consisted of all processing

transportation, wholesaling, and retailing charges incurred after farm product

leave the farm.

Farm-retail spreads have increased every year for the past 30 years, large

reflecting rising costs of labor, packaging, and other processing and marketing 

In 1998, farm-to-retail spreads rose an average of 3.6 percent and farmers rec

2.7 percent less for the food they produced. The farm value as a percentage of 

prices was about 1 percent lower in 1998 than in 1997. Meanwhile, retail food 

rose 2.1 percent. Widening farm-retail spreads continued to push up food cost

1998.

The percentage of the retail price accounted for by the farm value varies 

among foods. Generally, it is larger for animal products than for crop-based fo

and smaller for foods that require considerable processing and packaging. Th

percentage generally decreases as the degree of processing increases. For exa

the farm value of meat was 30 percent in 1998, while cereal and bakery produ

16
The additional manufacturing processes required for cereal and bakery pr

result in a lower farm value than for meats. Most other foods also entail f

at the farm level. Other factors that influence the farm value percentage in

portation costs, product perishability, and retailing costs. Higher levels of 

keting factors tend to lower the farm value percentage.

Table 1-1.

Farm value as a percentage of retail price for domestically 

foods, 1988 and 1998

Items 1988 1998

Livestock products:

Meats 45 30

Dairy 40 36

Poultry 49 43

Eggs 53 42

Crop Products:

Cereal and bakery 9 6

Fresh fruits 25 17

Fresh vegetables 28 20

Processed fruits and vegetables 28 18

Fats and oils 24 22

Figure 1-12.

Distribution of consumer expenditures

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Billion dollars

1970 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 9

Farm

Consumer
18

g

■ Farming Regions

The 10 major farm production regions in the United States differ in soils, sland, climate, distance to market, and storage and marketing facilities. To

they comprise the agricultural face of the Nation. 

The Northeastern States and the Lake States are the Nation’s principal m

ducing areas. Climate and soil in these States are suited for raising grains and 

for cattle and for providing pastureland for grazing. Broiler farming is import

Maine, Delaware, and Maryland. Fruit and vegetables are also important to th

region.

The Appalachian region is the major tobacco-producing region in the Na

Peanuts, cattle, and dairy production are also important there.

In the Southeast region, beef and broilers are important livestock product

Fruits, vegetables, and peanuts are grown in this region. Big citrus groves and 

vegetable production areas in Florida are major suppliers of agricultural good

Cotton production is making a comeback.

In the Delta States, the principal cash crops are soybeans and cotton. Ric

sugarcane are also grown. With improved pastures, livestock production has g

importance. This is a major broiler-producing region. 

The Corn Belt has rich soil and good climate for excellent farming. Corn

cattle, hogs, and dairy products are the major outputs of farms in the region. O

feed grains, soybeans, and wheat are also important. 

Agriculture in the Northern and Southern Plains, which extend north and 

from Canada to Mexico, is restricted by rainfall in the western portion and by 

winters and short growing seasons in the northern part. About three-fifths of t

Nation’s Winter and Spring wheat is produced in this region. Other small grai

grain sorghum, hay, forage crops, and pastures form the basis for raising cattl

Cotton is produced in the southern part.

The Mountain States provide a still different terrain. Vast areas of this reg

suited for raising cattle and sheep. Wheat is important in the northern parts. Ir

in the valleys provides water for such crops as hay, sugar beets, potatoes, fruit

vegetables.

The Pacific region includes the three Pacific Coast States plus Alaska and

Hawaii. Farmers in Washington and Oregon specialize in raising wheat, fruit, 

potatoes; vegetables, fruit, and cotton are important in California. Cattle are r

throughout the region. In Hawaii, sugarcane and pineapples are the major cro

Greenhouse/nursery and dairy products are Alaska’s top-ranking commoditie
■ Farms and Land in Farms

The United States had 2.19 million farms in 1998, up fractionally fro

A farm is defined as any establishment from which $1,000 or more of agr

products were sold or would normally be sold during the year. The numb

declined less than 1 percent, overall, during the period 1988 through 199

Land in farms continues to decline slowly; the total of 954 million ac

is down 0.2 percent from a year earlier and down 4.1 percent from 1988. 

farms has declined every year since reaching its peak at 1.206 billion acre

The average size of farms decreased from 452 acres in 1988 to 435 acres 

while the number of farms declined at a smaller rate over the same period

Southern

Plains

Lake States Pacific

Mountain

Northern

Plains

Corn Belt

Appalachia

Northea

Southeast

Delta

States
20

Number Average

Year of Farms Land in Farms Farm Size

In 1,000 In 1,000 acres In acres

1988 2,201 994,423 452

1989 2,175 990,723 456

1990 2,146 986,850 460

1991 2,117 981,736 464

1992 2,108 978,503 464

1993 2,201 968,845 440

1994 2,198 965,935 440

1995 2,196 962,515 438

1996 2,191 958,675 438

1997 2,191 968,010 436

1998 2,192 953,765 435

1A farm is any establishment from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were sold or would 

be sold during the year.

21988-92 estimates are for a June 1 reference date. 1993-98 estimates are for the entire calendar ye

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Farms and Land in F

■ Farms by Sales Class

Farms are commonly classified in size groups based on the total value of thgross farm sales. Data from USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Servi

annual Farms and Land in Farms report show that the greatest number of farm

the lower sales classes, with over 64.3 percent reporting gross farm sales of le

$20,000 in 1998. According to the survey, these small farms accounted for on

percent of the acreage operated. A relatively small number of very large farm

duce the largest share of farm sales. Only 3.1 percent of the farms in 1998 we

operations with sales of $500,000 or more, but they operated 17.6 percent of t

Average farm size increases consistently with sales class, ranging from 68 acr

farm in the less than $2,500 category to 2,471 acres for farms with receipts of

$500,000 or more.
Farms Land in fa

State 1993 1994 1995 1993 1994 

Number of farms 1,000 Acr

AL 46,000 46,000 47,000 10,000 10,200 

AK 530 520 520 940 930 

AZ 7,400 7,400 7,400 35,500 35,400 

AR 45,000 44,000 43,000 15,300 15,100 

CA 79,000 79,000 80,000 30,000 29,900 

CO 25,500 25,300 25,000 32,800 32,700 

CT 3,800 3,800 3,800 400 390 

DE 2,500 2,500 2,500 570 570 

FL 39,000 39,000 39,000 10,300 10,300 

GA 46,000 45,000 45,000 12,100 12,100 

HI 4,800 4,800 4,800 1,590 1,590 

ID 20,500 20,500 21,500 13,500 13,500 

IL 79,000 77,000 77,000 28,100 28,100 

IN 63,000 63,000 62,000 16,000 16,000 

IA 102,000 101,000 100,000 33,300 33,200 

KS 65,000 65,000 66,000 47,800 47,800 

KY 91,000 89,000 89,000 14,100 14,100 

LA 29,000 28,000 27,000 8,600 8,400 

ME 7,300 7,600 7,600 1,400 1,360 

MD 15,000 14,500 14,300 2,200 2,200 

MA 6,200 6,000 6,000 610 600 

MI 52,000 52,000 54,000 10,700 10,700 

MN 87,000 85,000 87,000 29,700 29,700 

MS 39,000 39,000 42,000 12,800 12,800 

MO 106,000 105,000 105,000 30,200 30,100 

MT 23,800 22,500 22,000 59,800 59,700 

NE 55,000 55,000 56,000 47,100 47,100 

NV 2,400 2,400 2,500 8,900 8,800 

NH 2,500 2,400 2,300 440 440 

NJ 8,900 8,900 9,000 870 860 

NM 13,500 13,500 13,500 44,200 44,200 

NY 37,500 36,000 36,000 8,100 7,900 

NC 59,000 58,000 58,000 9,400 9,300 

ND 32,500 32,000 32,000 40,400 40,400 

OH 76,000 75,000 74,000 15,200 15,200 

OK 70,500 70,000 71,000 34,000 34,000 

OR 37,500 38,000 38,500 17,500 17,500 

PA 51,000 51,000 50,000 7,900 7,800 

RI 700 700 700 63 63 

SC 24,000 23,000 22,000 5,150 5,100 

SD 34,500 34,000 33,000 44,200 44,200 

TN 84,000 83,000 81,000 12,100 12,000 

TX 200,000 200,000 202,000 30,000 129,000 

UT 13,000 13,000 13,400 11,200 11,100 

VT 6,400 6,200 6,000 1,430 1,400 

VA 45,000 46,000 47,000 8,600 8,600 

WA 36,000 36,000 36,000 16,000 15,800 

WV 20,000 20,000 20,000 3,700 3,700 

WI 79,000 79,000 80,000 17,100 16,900 

WY 9,200 9,200 9,200 34,600 34,600 

US 2,083,430 2,064,720 2,071,520 976,463 973,403 
Farms Land in farms

State 1996 1997 1998 1996 1997 

Number of farms 1,000 Acres

AL 49,000 49,000 49,000 9,700 9,600 

AK 550 560 560 920 910 

AZ 7,900 7,900 7,900 28,300 28,300 

AR 49,500 49,000 49,500 14,900 14,800 

CA 86,000 87,000 89,000 29,000 28,700 

CO 29,500 29,500 29,500 32,500 32,500 

CT 4,100 4,100 4,100 380 380 

DE 2,800 2,800 2,700 590 585 

FL 45,000 45,000 45,000 10,700 10,600 

GA 49,000 49,000 50,000 11,400 11,300 

HI 5,400 5,500 5,500 1,440 1,440 

ID 24,000 24,500 24,500 12,100 12,000 

IL 79,000 79,000 79,000 27,900 27,800 

IN 66,000 66,000 66,000 15,600 15,600 

IA 99,000 98,000 97,000 33,000 33,000 

KS 65,000 65,000 65,000 47,500 47,500 

KY 92,000 91,000 90,000 14,000 13,900 

LA 30,000 30,000 30,000 8,300 8,200 

ME 7,200 7,000 6,900 1,310 1,280 

MD 13,700 13,000 12,500 2,200 2,200 

MA 6,000 6,000 6,000 570 570 

MI 54,000 53,000 52,000 10,600 10,400 

MN 82,000 81,000 80,000 29,200 29,100 

MS 42,000 42,000 42,000 11,900 11,700 

MO 110,000 110,000 110,000 30,100 30,100 

MT 26,500 27,000 27,500 58,500 57,800 

NE 56,000 55,000 55,000 46,400 46,400 

NV 3,000 3,000 3,000 6,900 6,900 

NH 2,900 3,000 3,100 420 420 

NJ 9,500 9,600 9,600 840 830 

NM 15,500 15,500 16,000 45,100 45,300 

NY 38,000 38,000 38,000 7,800 7,800 

NC 59,000 59,000 58,000 9,500 9,500 

ND 32,000 31,500 31,000 39,900 39,700 

OH 78,000 79,000 80,000 14,900 14,900 

OK 82,000 83,000 83,000 34,000 34,000 

OR 38,500 39,000 39,500 17,500 17,500 

PA 59,000 60,000 60,000 7,600 7,700 

RI 750 750 750 65 65 

SC 25,000 25,000 25,000 5,000 5,000 

SD 32,500 32,500 32,500 44,000 44,000 

TN 91,000 91,000 91,000 12,000 12,000 

TX 224,000 225,000 226,000 132,000 131,500 

UT 15,000 15,000 15,000 11,400 11,600 

VT 6,500 6,600 6,700 1,340 1,330 

VA 49,000 49,000 49,000 8,800 8,800 

WA 39,000 39,000 40,000 15,700 15,700 

WV 21,000 21,000 21,000 3,700 3,700 

WI 79,000 79,000 78,000 16,600 16,500 

WY 9,200 9,200 9,200 34,600 34,600 

US 2,190,500 2,190,510 2,191,510 958,675 956,010 

1A farm is any establishment from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were sold or norma

be sold during the year. Source: USDA/ National Agricultural Statistics Service, Farms and Land in F

22
■ Legal Structure of U.S. Farms (Individual,

Partnership, Corporation)

Type of organization refers to the farm’s form of business organizationmay broadly be classified as individual operations (proprietorships), 

ships, or corporations (family and nonfamily). Agricultural Resource Ma

Study data indicate that individual operations are the most common type 

organization. Nine out of ten farms in the 1997 survey were classified as 

operations. Partnerships and corporations make up a very small share of f

85 percent of farm corporations are family corporations, with more than 

the stock held by people related by blood or marriage. Individual operatio

for the largest share of farmland (75 percent) and gross farm sales (60 pe

Corporate farms have the highest average farm sales. The average value o

farm sales by corporate farms in 1997 was $724,867, while partnerships 

$243,464. Gross sales for individual operations averaged $53,518, less th

ter of the corporate level. Average acreage was also higher for corporate f

acres) and for partnerships (1,006 acres) than for individual operations 

(373 acres).

Economic class

Percent of total 

(gross value Farms Land fa

of sales) 1996 1997 1996 1997 199

$1,000 - $2,499 27.4 27.6 4.4 4.3 7

$2,500 - $4,999 14.6 14.7 4.4 4.4 13

$5,000 - $9,999 12.4 12.1 5.4 5.5 19

$10,000 - $19,999 9.9 9.9 5.8 5.8 25

$20,000 - $39,999 9.0 8.9 7.4 7.3 35

$40,000 - $99,999 10.6 10.5 17.0 16.8 70

$100,000 - $249,999 9 8.9 24.0 23.5 1,16

$250,000 - $499,999 4.1 4.3 14.2 14.8 1,51

$500,000 + 3.0 3.1 17.4 17.6 2,53

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 43

1A farm is any establishment from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were sold or n

be sold during the year. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics 
24

Land tenure describes the farm operator

s ownership interest in the land far

The major land tenure categories are (1) full owners, who own all the land 

operate; (2) part owners, who own some and rent the remainder of their land; 

tenants, who rent all of their land or work on shares for others. The majority o

in the 1997 Agricultural Resource Management Study (55 percent) reported f

ership of the land they operated, while 35 percent owned part and rented part 

farmland they operated. Only 9 percent of operations reported that they rented 

their land. 

Part owners generally operate the largest farms, averaging 800 acres in 19

followed by tenants with 545 acres and full owners with 219 acres per farm. P

owners account for the largest share of acreage operated (62 percent of the tot

1997).

Gross farm sales are also concentrated on part-owner operations (54 perc

gross farm sales in 1997). The average value of gross farm sales for part owne

1997 was $125,867, about $8,988 less than the average for tenants at $134,85

farm sales for full-owner operations were much smaller, averaging $45,632.

■ Major Uses of U.S. Cropland

The major uses of U.S. cropland include cropland harvested, summer falloidled in Federal programs, and crop failure. Cropland harvested peaked i

at 351 million acres. Harvested cropland declined to 287 million acres in 198

is estimated at 314 million acres in 1998. Summer fallow acreage ranges betw

20 million and 34 million acres per year. Cropland idled in Federal commodit

conservation programs has ranged from none in 1980 and 1981 to 78 million 

in 1983 and 1988. Crop failure generally varies within a range of 5-11 million 

per year. The noticeable differences are often the result of weather conditions 

as the drought in 1988, or the flood and wet weather at planting time in 1993.

In 1983, the sharp decline in cropland harvested was the result of “PIK”

(payment-in-kind), a USDA land retirement program that paid for the land ret

with surplus commodities. The idle acreage in 1983 included nearly 49 millio

in the PIK program and more than 29 million acres in the Acreage Conservati

Reserve and Paid Land Diversion programs. 
The harvested acreage of corn in recent years has varied from 51.5 miin 1983 to 75.2 million acres in 1985, largely as the result of Federal 

reduction programs. The PIK program idled nearly 22 million acres of co

in 1983. Wheat acreage has ranged between a high of 80.6 million acres i

low of 53.2 million acres in 1988. The PIK program removed about 18 m

of wheat base from production in 1983. Barley and oat acreage harvested 

declining since the early 1970’s. Acreage has tended to shift out barley an

more profitable crops. Soybean acreage harvested has fluctuated as the re

of soybeans and corn changed and as prices for soybeans in the world ma

more or less favorable. Soybean acreage was at a 24-year high in 1998, a

Figure 2-2.

Major uses of U.S. cropland, 1974-98

Million acres

1974 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 

Cropland

harvested

Crop

failure

Summer

fallow

500

400

300

200

100

0

1

preliminary.

25
26

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Million bushels

1974 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 

Wheat 

Corn2

Cotton Sorghum2 Oats Bar2

All other

Soybeans

1Includes the 48 conterminous States.

2Corn and sorghum for grain.

3Preliminary.
■ Farm Labor

Labor use on U.S. farms has changed dramatically over the past severaAverage annual farm employment dropped from 9.9 million in 1950 

million in 1998. This decrease resulted largely from the trend toward few

larger farms, increased farm mechanization and other technological innov

and higher off-farm wages. However, farm employment appears to have s

in recent years as increases in mechanization and labor-saving technolog

eled off and the downward trend in farm numbers has slowed.

Family workers, including farm operators and unpaid workers, accou

percent of farm labor in 1998, while hired farm workers accounted for 31 

Service workers, including crew leaders and custom crews, accounted for 

of all workers on farms in 1998.

The average wage rate for hired farm workers in the United States in 

$7.47 per hour. Wages varied by type of worker: livestock workers averag

per hour, and field workers averaged $6.97 per hour. 

A significant portion of total farm production expenses is spent on la

1997 Census of Agriculture reported the expenditures for hired and contr

U.S. farms were $17.8 billion in 1997, or almost 12 percent of total farm 

expenses. About 34 percent of all farms had hired labor expenses and 12 

contract labor expenses.

The importance of labor varied significantly by farm type and size of 

proportion of total farm production expenses attributed to hired and contr

expenses was greatest on horticultural specialty farms (44 percent), fruit 

farms (40 percent), and vegetable and melon farms (32 percent). These ty

are least mechanized, and many of the commodities they produce are stil

by hand. At the other extreme, labor expenses comprised less than 5 perc

production expenses on beef cattle, hogs, sheep, and poultry farms.

Larger farms are more likely to have labor needs in excess of that pro

the family farm. Farms of 260 or more acres, which accounted for only 3

all farms, had 70 percent of all labor expenses in 1997. In terms of sales 

percent of all farms with $50,000 or more in value of products sold accou

percent of all labor expenses.
28

Farm business debt at the end of 1997 was $165.4 billion, up $9.3 billion fr1996. Farm real estate debt rose $3.7 billion (over 4 percent) from 1996 to 

billion at the end of 1997, while farm business nonreal estate debt increased $

lion (over 7 percent) to $80.1 billion at the end of 1997. The increase in farm 

1997 was higher than the recent trend of modest growth in outstanding loan b

While volatile commodity prices have generated some concern about sho

profitability in some farm enterprises, farmers and lenders maintain confidenc

long-run viability of agriculture. The availability and use of credit plays a sig

role in the sustained profitability of farm enterprises. In this regard, a symbio

tionship exists between agricultural producers and their lenders; the health of 

depends on the condition of the other.

Loans made to agricultural producers are classified as real estate and non

estate loans in the farm sector accounts. Real estate loans generally have term

to 40 years and are ordinarily used to purchase farmland or to make major cap

improvements to farm property. Non-real-estate loans are typically made for l

terms of less than 10 years, with the term depending on the purpose of the loa

Seasonal operating loans are made for less than 1 year, while loans to purchas

machinery and equipment or livestock may run for 7 years or more.

Commercial banks held over 40 percent of all farm business debt at the e

1997, providing $25.2 billion in real estate loans (almost 30 percent of total) a

$41.7 billion in non-real-estate debt (52 percent). The Farm Credit System (F

held $27.1 billion in farm business real estate loans and $15.2 billion in non-r

estate loans. In total, the Farm Credit System held about 25 percent of farm bu

loans. Favorable interest rate spreads improved FCS earnings during 1990-97

Improved borrower financial conditions have translated into improved Farm C

System performance.

Life insurance companies maintained their presence in the agricultural cr

market, as their total farm business debt rose slightly to $9.7 billion, giving th

11-percent share of the farm business mortgage market. USDA’s Farm Servic

Agency (formerly Farmers Home Administration) direct loans to farm busine

dropped by $600 million in 1997. The “Individuals and others” classification 

posed primarily of sellers financing the sale of farmland, input suppliers, farm

machinery finance corporations, and some minor lending agencies. These acc

for $19 billion in real estate loans and $18.8 billion in non-real-estate loans at 

of 1997.
Farm debt outstanding, December 31

1950 1960 1970 1980 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 

Real estate debt: $ Billion

Farm Credit

System 0.8 2.2 6.4 33.2 42.2 26.0 25.3 25.4 24.9 24.6 24

Life insurance

companies 1.1 2.7 5.1 12.0 11.3 9.7 9.5 8.8 9.0 9.0 9

Banks 0.8 1.4 3.3 7.8 10.7 16.3 17.4 18.8 19.6 21.1 22

Farm Service

Agency 0.2 0.6 2.2 7.4 9.8 7.6 7.0 6.4 5.8 5.5 5

Individuals

and others 2.1 4.5 10.5 27.8 25.8 15.2 15.6 16.1 16.7 17.5 18

Total 5.2 11.3 27.5 89.7 100.1 74.79 74.9 75.4 76.0 77.7 79

Non-real-estate debt:

Banks 2.4 4.7 10.5 30.0 33.7 31.3 32.9 32.9 34.9 36.7 37

Farm Credit

System 0.5 1.5 5.3 19.8 14.0 9.8 10.2 10.3 10.5 11.2 12

Farm Service

Agency 0.3 0.4 0.7 10.0 14.7 9.4 8.2 7.1 6.2 6.0 5

Individuals and

others 2.5 4.5 4.8 17.4 15.1 12.7 13.0 13.2 14.2 15.2 16

Total 5.7 11.1 21.3 77.1 77.5 63.2 64.3 63.6 65.9 69.1 71

Total, all 10.9 22.4 48.8 166.8 177.6138.0 139.2 139.1 141.9 146.8 150

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division.

■ The Balance Sheet

Farm business asset values are estimated to have totaled $1,088.8 billiDecember 31, 1997, an increase of 5 percent over the preceding year

business debt rose 6 percent during 1997, totaling $165.4 billion at year’s 

As a result, farm business equity is estimated to have risen 5.2 percent.

The debt-to-asset ratio for 1997 (expressed as a percentage) increase

15.1 to 15.2. This ratio is substantially below the peak of 24 percent reac

Real estate assets accounted for 78 percent of the value of farm busin

at the end of 1997. Real estate assets are expected to have increased 6 per

the year. 

Non-real-estate assets are estimated to have increased 2 percent duri

The value of machinery and motor vehicles and for crops stored decrease

to 1997, whereas, the value of purchased inputs, financial assets, and live

poultry increased during this period.
30

Figure 3-2.

Farm business debt by lender

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

CCC Storage &

Drying Facilities 

Individuals &

others

Banks

Life insurance

companies

Farm Service 

Agency1

Farm Credit

System

1965 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 

Billion dollars

Includes the former Farmers Home Administration’s loans.

Individuals and others include Commodity Credit Corporation real estate loans.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division.

1

0

50

100

150

200

Billion dollars

1965 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 9

Real estate1

Nonreal estate2

 Debt secured by farm real estate. Debt for operating purposes.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division.

1 2
On December 31, 1997, commercial banks held 40 percent of farm busin

the Farm Credit System held 26 percent.

Table 3-2.

Farm business assets, debt, and equity1

Item 1960 1970 1980 1990 

Billion dollars

Assets 171.0 273.0 965.9 841.5 

Real estate 123.3 202.4 782.8 620.0 

Non-real-estate 2/ 47.7 70.6 183.0 221.5 

Debt 22.4 48.8 166.8 138.0 

Real estate 3/ 11.3 27.5 89.7 74.7 

Non-real-estate 4/ 11.1 21.2 77.1 63.2 

Equity (assets minus debt) 148.6 224.3 799.0 703.5 

1 As of December 31. 2/ Crop inventory value is value of non-Commodity Credit Corportation (C

on farms plus value above loan rate for crops held under CCC. 3/ Includes CCC storage and d

loans. 4/ Excludes value of CCC crop loans.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division.

■ Net Value-Added, Net Farm Income, and N

Income

Net value-added and net farm income both declined by $3.5 billion in each measure remained at a level surpassed only by the record value

1996. Both these measures of farm income had risen substantially from 1

As a consequence, even though net value-added fell 3.7 percent in 1997, 

$17.9 billion greater than for 1995. Net value-added represents the total 

farm sector’s output of goods and services, less payments to other (non-f

of the economy, and is production agriculture’s addition to national outpu

The value of the sector’s production (final output) increased by $2.3 

1997. This increase, however, was exceeded by the $5.7 billion expansion 

pocket costs (intermediate consumption outlays). The result was $3.5 bill

net value-added to be distributed among the providers of resources to the 

in 1997. Hired workers and lenders received 3.9 percent and 3.5 percent m

their contributions to 1997 farm production than in 1996. By contrast, the 

non-operator landlords were down 7.4 percent. The decline in earnings to 

reflected lower returns to holders of share-rent contracts, which, in turn, c

directly to the $3.1 billion decline in the value of crop production. Most s

arrangements involve crops, and while the harvest for many major crops 

near or even exceeded the record levels of 1996, prices received in selling 

ties were significantly lower than in 1996.
32

who share in the risks of production). Typically, it is the farm operators who 

most from the increases and absorb most of the declines arising from short-te

unanticipated weather, and market conditions. In fact, an amount equal to the 

1997 drop in net value-added accrued to farm operators, as the increase in fac

ments to hired labor and lenders offset the lower payments to landlords. Decli

prices accounted for much of the drop in net value-added in 1997 and is reflec

net farm income.

Net cash income rose by $4.3 billion, a 7.7-percent increase from 1996 t

Cash earnings realized within the year from the sales of production, and the c

sion of assets, both inventories (in years in which they are reduced) and capita

sumption, into cash are the receipts included in net cash income. Unlike net fa

income, net cash income does not include the value of home consumption, ch

in inventories, capital replacement, and implicit rent and expenses related to t

operator’s dwelling—none of which reflect cash transactions during the curre

The value of the agricultural sector production (commodities and service

mere $2 billion from 1996 to 1997, but the level in 1996 had exceeded the pre

record (1994) by a whopping $20 billion. Increases of $5 billion in the value o

production and $3.6 billion in the value of soybean production more than offs

declines in value of other commodities where lower prices decreased returns. 

higher value of output only partially offset the $5.7 billion increase in interme

consumption outlays. The outcome was a $3.8 billion fall in net value-added.

The total value of final 1997 crop output was down $3.4 billion, reflectin

icant price declines for many major crops. In 1996, crop prices had been high 

first half but began a decline in the second half that continued on through 199

Soybeans were an exception as prices ascended to an unusually rarified level 

per bushel or more in the first half of 1997. Soybean prices began tailing off in 

second half, but still finished the year in a range favorable to producers. With 

crop harvests in 2 consecutive years, farmers sold during the year approximat

they harvested, incrementing inventories by a modest $323 million. Inclusion 

of the inventory change enables a full accounting of a current year’s productio

the tabulation of the calendar year’s farm sector output. 

The total value of livestock production in 1997 was $4 billion higher than 

previous year, the second consecutive year with significant increase. The valu

cattle produced jumped $5 billion, and hog producers added another $498 mi

to the production of meat animals. The value of dairy products declined $1.8 

Market prices available to farmers for hogs and broilers declined sharply in th

half of 1997, beef cattle prices were steady throughout the year after staging a

comeback from lows reached in first half of 1996, and dairy prices bottomed 

and turned up in the summer of 1997. The $5 billion rise in cattle production 

from a jump in production in response to the improvement in market prices.

Producers reversed the herd liquidation which they had been employing to mi

the consequences of being caught in an ongoing cost-price squeeze without p

of an immediate turnaround. The rapid structural change occurring in livestoc

production with regional shifts in production and consolidation into large ope
Yea

1994 1995 1996 1997 

$ Million $ 

Final crop output 100,314 95,805 115,591 112,498 

Food grains 9,545 10,417 10,741 10,603 

Feed crops 20,351 24,581 27,265 27,638 

Cotton 6,738 6,851 6,983 6,515 

Oil crops 14,657 15,496 16,362 19,911 

Tobacco 2,656 2,548 2,796 2,886 

Fruits and tree nuts 10,335 11,119 11,933 12,790 

Vegetables 13,893 14,913 14,561 15,086 

All other crops 14,897 15,165 15,935 16,668 

Home consumption 72 104 92 78 

Value of inventory adjustment2 7,170 (5,390) 8,924 323 

Final animal output 89,691 87,632 92,190 96,200 

Meat animals 46,785 44,828 44,414 49,925 

Dairy products 19,935 19,894 22,820 20,989 

Poultry and eggs 18,445 19,070 22,345 22,183 

Miscellaneous livestock 3,004 3,227 3,425 3,471 

Home consumption 409 365 333 380 

Value of inventory adjustment2 1,112 248 (1,147) (749) 

Services and forestry 17,886 19,388 20,671 22,074 

Machine hire and custom work 2,071 1,928 2,154 2,601 

Forest products sold 2,743 2,947 2,824 2,840 

Other farm income 4,392 5,213 5,894 6,350 

Gross imputed rental value of farm dwellings 8,680 9,300 9,799 10,283 

Final agricultural sector output 207,891 202,824 228,452 230,771 

Less: Intermediate consumption outlays 104,903 109,002 112,852 118,552 

Farm origin 41,278 41,626 42,675 45,695 

Feed purchased 22,631 23,829 25,234 25,232 

Livestock and poultry purchased 13,273 12,335 11,229 13,753 

Seed purchased 5,373 5,462 6,212 6,711 

Manufactured inputs 24,398 26,155 28,640 28,964 

Fertilizers and lime 9,180 10,033 10,934 10,933 

Pesticides 7,225 7,726 8,526 8,827 

Petroleum fuel and oils 5,312 5,427 6,019 6,223 

Electricity 2,682 2,968 3,161 2,981 

Other intermediate expenses 39,227 41,220 41,536 43,892 

Repair and maintenance of capital items 9,083 9,470 10,254 10,394 

Machine hire and custom work 4,790 4,792 4,719 4,833 

Marketing, storage, transportation expenses 6,821 7,182 6,926 7,106 

Contract labor 1,805 1,969 2,129 2,596 

Miscellaneous expenses 16,728 17,807 17,508 18,964 

PLUS: Net Government tranactions 989 106 98 56 

+ Direct Government payments 7,879 7,279 7,340 7,496 

- Motor vehicle registration and licensing fees 415 462 423 461 

-Property taxes 6,475 6,711 6,819 6,979 

Gross value added 103,977 93,929 115,699 112,275 

less: Capital consumption 18,695 19,099 19,419 19,520 

Net value-added 85,282 74,830 96,280 92,755 

LESS: Factor payments 37,015 38,847 42,928 42,931 

Employee compensation (total hired labor) 13,506 14,321 15,406 16,011 

Net rent received by nonoperator landlords 11,774 11,799 14,301 13,243 

Real estate and non-real-estate interest 11,735 12,726 13,221 13,678 

Net farm income 48,266 35,984 53,352 49,824 

1Final sector output is the gross value of the commodities and services produced within a year

added is the sector’s contribution to the national economy and is the sum of the income from p

earned by all factors of production. Net farm income is the farm operators’ share of income from 

production activities. The concept presented is consistent with that employed by the Organizati

Cooperation and Development.

2A positive value of inventory change represents current-year production not sold by Decembe

value is an offset to production from prior years included in current-year sales.

Na = not applicable.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division
34

1994 1995 1996 1997 Amou

Million dollars $ Millio

Gross farm income 215,770 210,104 235,791 238,267 2,47

Gross cash income 198,326 205,476 217,791 227,952 10,16

Farm marketings 181,241 188,108 199,580 208,665 9,08

Crops 93,072 101,090 106,575 112,097 5,52

Livestock and products 88,169 87,018 93,005 96,568 3,56

Government payments 7,879 7,279 7,340 7,496 15

Farm-related income 9,206 10,088 10,872 11,791 91

Noncash income 9,161 9,770 10,223 10,741 51

Value of home consumption 481 469 425 458 3

Rental value of dwellings 8,680 9,300 9,799 10,283 48

Operator and other dwellings1 8,241 8,732 9,167 9,716 54

Hired laborer dwellings 439 568 631 566 (6

Value of inventory adjustment 8,283 (5,142) 7,777 (425) n

Total production expenses 167,504 174,120 182,439 188,443 6,00

Intermediate product 103,513 107,494 111,145 116,417 5,27

Farm origin 41,278 41,626 42,675 45,695 3,02

Feed purchased 22,631 23,829 25,234 25,232 (

Livestock and poultry purchased 13,273 12,335 11,229 13,753 2,52

Seed purchased 5,373 5,462 6,212 6,711 49

Manufactured inputs 24,398 26,155 28,640 28,964 32

Fertilizer and lime 9,180 10,033 10,934 10,933 (

Pesticides 7,225 7,726 8,526 8,827 30

Fuel and oil 5,312 5,427 6,019 6,223 20

Electricity 2,682 2,968 3,161 2,981 (18

Other 37,837 39,713 39,830 41,757 1,92

Repair and maintenance 9,083 9,470 10,254 10,394 13

Other miscellaneous 28,754 30,243 29,576 31,364 1,78

Interest 11,735 12,726 13,221 13,678 45

Real estate 5,782 6,042 6,359 6,544 18

Non-real-estate 5,954 6,685 6,862 7,133 27

Contract and hired labor 15,311 16,290 17,535 18,606 1,07

Net rent to nonoperator landlords2 11,774 11,799 14,301 13,243 (1,05

Capital consumption 18,695 19,099 19,419 19,520 10

Property taxes 6,475 6,711 6,819 6,979 16

NET FARM INCOME3 48,266 35,984 53,352 49,824 (3,52

Gross cash income 198,326 205,476 217,791 227,952 10,16

Cash expenses 147,648 153,640 161,354 167,168 5,81

Cash expenses, excluding net rent 134,495 140,433 145,620 152,494 6,87

Intermediate product 102,566 106,532 109,962 115,142 5,18

Interest 11,338 12,303 12,785 13,196 41

Cash labor expenses 14,873 15,722 16,904 18,040 1,13

Property taxes 5,718 5,876 5,970 6,117 14

Net rent to nonoperator4 13,154 13,206 15,733 14,674 (1,05

NET CASH INCOME 50,678 51,836 56,438 60,783 4,34

1Value added to gross income. Value added to net farm income equals difference in net farm income 

returns to operators.

2Includes landlord capital consumption.

3Statistics in and above the Net Farm Income line represent the farm sector, defined as including far

operators’ dwellings located on farms. Statistics below the Net Farm Income line represent only the f

businesses to the exclusion of the operators’ dwellings. 4Excludes landlord capital consumption.

Na = not applicable.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division.
ficient quantities to achieve an equilibrium. As an aside, a consequence o

restructuring is that a higher percentage of feed is being purchased as opp

being grown on the farms producing the livestock. 

■ Farm Household Income 

Farm operators have been surveyed by the annual Agricultural ResourManagement Study (formerly the Farm Costs and Returns Survey) ab

finances and production of their farms since 1985. Beginning in 1988, US

lected additional information about the operator’s household. In 1997, th

recent year for which the survey data are available, about 98 percent of fa

covered in the household definition. Included are those run by individual

nerships, and family corporations. Nonfamily corporations, cooperatives

tional farms are not included in the household definition.

Like many other U.S. households, farm households receive income f

ety of sources, one of which is farming. The 1997 average household inc

operators households was $52,300, which is on par with the average U.S

About 89 percent of the average farm operator’s household income came 

farm sources, and many operators spent most of their work efforts in occu

other than farming. Off-farm income includes earned income such as wag

salaries from an off-farm job and net income from an off-farm business. O

income also includes unearned income, such as interest and dividends, an

Security.

For the majority of farm operator households, off-farm income is c

U.S. farms are run by households that depend mainly on off-farm income

percent of operators reported a nonfarm major occupation in 1996, and a

percent were retired. Most operators of larger farms reported farming as t

occupation, and their households were more likely to depend on farm inc

Average household income and dependence on off-farm income also 

among types of farm households. For example, 8 percent reported negativ

income for 1997. On average, these households lost $47,566 from farmin

year. About 34 percent had household income of $50,000 or over, with fa

averaging $29,025. Among occupational categories, households of opera

reported occupations other than farming or retired had the highest averag

income, largely from off-farm sources. Data on operators’ age show that 

associated with the oldest operators had the lowest average household inc

on operators’ educational level show significant increases in average inco

each higher educational level.
36

Wages and salaries

$28,212

(53.9%)

Farm incom

$5,989

(11.4%)

Other off-farm in

$8,251

(15.8%)

Interest and dividends

$3,555

(6.8%)

Off-farm business income

$6,340

(12.1%)

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, 

Resource Economics Division, 1997 Agricultural Resource Management Study.

Figure 3-4.

Average farm and off-farm income for farm operator household

by size of farm, 1997

Off far

Farm

Source of in

Size of farm:1

Less than 

$50,000

$50,000–

$249,999

$250,000–

$499,999

$500,000 

and over

-$3,438

$49,377

$16,142

$38,177

$44,131

$34,460

$1

$36,289

 Based on gross value of farm sales, which includes farm businesses’, 

share landlords’, and production contractors’ shares of agricultural production.

Source: USDA Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division, 

1997 Agricultural Resource Management Study.

1
■ Net Farm Income by State

Thirty-one of the 50 States experienced declines in net farm income odegrees in 1997 in contrast to the across-the-board increases experie

prior year. In order to retain perspective, remember that 1996 was truly a

tional year with record yields for major crops and prices that remained un

high. The value of crop production soared in 1996 reflecting rebounds in 

harvested and yields for major crops.

Number of Average Sh

Item households household income1 off-fa

Number Dollars 

All operator households 2,011,568 52,347 

Household income class:

Negative 151,543 -35,678 

0-$9,999 178,539 5,302 

$10,000-$24,999 398,564 17,438 

$25,000-$49,999 591,897 36,116 

$50,000 and over 691,025 117,843 

Operator major occupation:

Farm or ranch work 756,299 48,314 

Other 866,331 63,954 

Retired 388,939 34,335 

Operator age class:

Under 35 years 153,470 50,842 

35-44 years 378,549 48,597 

45-54 years 503,402 65,194 

55-64 years 423,229 51,795 

65 years or older 552,918 44,058 

Operator educational level:

Less than high school 312,036 27,879 

High school 870,210 47,750 

Some college 448,285 50,652 

College 381,037 84,877 

1The household income of farm operator households includes the net cash farm income that a

farm operation, less depreciation, as well as wages paid to household members for work on th

income from farmland rentals, and net income from another farm business, plus all sources of 

accruing to the household. In cases where the net income from the farm was shared by two or 

holds, the net cash income was allocated to the primary operator’s household based on the sh

operator reported receiving.

2Income from off-farm sources is more than 100 percent of total household income if farm inco

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division, 1997 Agricultural 

Management Study.
38

in production. Corn and soybeans led the recovery, and the producers of these 

crops, along with hogs, were among the principal beneficiaries of favorable p

Previous growth in the economies of Southeast Asia translated into demand fo

agricultural products and helped to support commodity prices and boost farm 

These economies began to falter in the summer of 1997 and began to reduce t

demand for imports of agricultural commodities. 

In 1997, farmers faced contrasting production and market conditions dep

on the types of commodities produced. Cattle producers experienced stable pr

throughout the year at levels significantly above the lows of 1996 and benefitt

lower feed as a consequence of declining grain prices. Rising hog prices in th

half of 1997 led hog producers to step up production only to see prices drop o

extent of the production increase became known. Soybean producers experie

soaring prices in the first half of the year as world stocks dwindled but saw pr

retreat in the latter half of the year, eventually returning to near beginning-yea

Wheat producers suffered perhaps the most market adversity in 1997. Ma

prices were low at the beginning of 1997 and declined throughout the year. A 

in demand for exports of U.S. wheat resulted from the depreciation in the curr

values in many countries. This effectively reduced the demand for imports int

consuming countries and increased the competitive advantage of exporting co

Dairy prices were impacted by additional supplies of milk in States not tr

ally known for dairy farming. California in particular has experienced a large 

in the production of milk. Expansion is occurring in large, dry-lot dairy opera

that by all indications are among the lowest cost producers. Higher cost produ

will have to reduce capacity to bring price and quantity into equilibrium. This 

is not unlike what has been occurring in hog production for the last 5 years an

occurred in the broiler industry several decades ago.

The contrasting commodity situations yielded some distinctly different re

effects. Leading cattle States, particularly those with cow-calf operations, wer

leaders in year-over-year gains in net farm income. Income was up more than 

percent in Oklahoma and Wyoming. Income was down more than 50 percent 

Dakota (-90), Maine(-75), Wisconsin(-66), and New York(-51). The latter thre

are traditional dairy-producing States. The North Dakota agricultural econom

heavily dependent on wheat sales, and producers suffered a one-third drop in 

tion due to lower yields, giving farmers less to sell at lower prices.

California continues to lead the Nation in cash receipts and farm income, 

ing both its substantial land mass and its commodity mix, which is heavily we

towards those with high value of production per acre. California’s net farm in

1997 slipped 1.7 percent to $5.8 billion, down from $5.9 billion in 1996. Iowa 

$3.7 billion, representing a reduction of 7 percent, maintained its position as t

with the second largest net farm income in 1997. Two additional States earne

least $3.5 billion in net farm income for 1997—Texas ($3.6 billion) and North

Carolina ($3.5 billion)—and three additional States exceeded $2 billion—Ge

Illinois, and Nebraska. In contrast, four States had their net farm income plum

excess of 50 percent: North Dakota (-90), Maine (-75), Wisconsin (-66), and N
sons and cold weather may put producers in the more northern latitudes a

tive disadvantage to the more Southern States, in terms of costs per unit o

■ State Rankings by Cash Receipts

The top 10 States in cash receipts for all commodities in 1997 were CTexas, Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Kansas, North Carolina, Minnesota, 

Georgia. The share of total cash receipts derived from crop or livestock s

greatly among these 10 top-ranked States. 

California led the Nation in crop sales with $19 billion, and was the 

ing State for 8 of the sector’s top 25 commodities: dairy products, greenh

nursery products, hay, grapes, tomatoes, lettuce, almonds, and strawberri

other commodities in which California is a leading producer tend to be p

expensive to transport, either because they are bulky and\or require speci

such as refrigeration. Three-quarters of California’s farm sales were from 

fruits and nuts equaled 30 percent, vegetables, 24 percent; and greenhous

ery, 9 percent. Florida’s pattern of cash receipts is similar to California , w

bles, fruits and nuts, and greenhouse and nursery accounting for 69 perce

agricultural sales. By contrast, 61 percent of Texas’ cash receipts were fro

and 71 percent of that was cattle and calves. Over 8 percent of the Nation

Figure 3-5.

Net farm income, 1997

Bottom 10 States in

net farm income

Top 10 States in

net farm income

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division
total and livestock 43 percent. Feed grains and oilseeds represented 56 percen

Iowa’s sales, while hogs accounted for 23 percent. Iowa leads the Nation in bo

and hog sales.

Cattle and calves remained the top ranked commodity in generation of ca

receipts for 1997, as sales surged $5 billion or 16 percent. In fact, the sales of 

and calves are still $3.3 billion or 8.3 percent below the peak attained in 1993

1997 represents a significant reversal of the slide. Historically, cattle producti

the related herd size has evidenced the existence of a multi-year cycle, and ind

tions are that cattle had previously been in the downward phase of that cycle. 

largest of the animals produced in significant quantities in the U.S. agricultura

cattle have by far the longest gestation period and the longest growth stage in 

oping into an adult animal for marketing and breeding purposes, all of which 

tribute to the length of the cycle. Texas led in cattle and calf receipts with $5.

billion, up $454 million (8.3 percent) from the prior year but still $340 million 

percent) below its 1993 peak in sales. Nebraska ($4.4 billion) and Kansas ($4

lion) were the second and third leading producers of cattle. 

Dairy products ranked second in cash receipts, with California remaining 

leader in sales with over $3.6 billion. Dairy sales in California slipped $97 mi

2.6 percent) in 1997, but the State’s sales have risen $955 million (36 percent

1993. This shift is significant, both geographically in the replacement of prod

in the Lakes States and structurally in the production of milk via large operati

The rapid population growth in California and other adjacent States has create

explosion in the demand for dairy products sufficient to enable large dairies c

of achieving economies of scale to be cost competitive, regionally. Wisconsin 

second in dairy sales but lagged considerably behind California in 1997, follo

New York, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota. These five States were the only one

sales of dairy products exceeding a billion dollars. 

Corn and soybeans were the third and fourth-ranked commodities in the N

with Iowa and Illinois the undisputed leaders in sales of these commodities. I

corn receipts were highest at $3.8 billion, followed by Illinois with $3.5 billio

also lead in soybean sales of $3.3 billion followed by Illinois, with $3.1 billio

1997. This is first time any States have reached the $3 billion level in soybean 

which indicates what an exceptional year 1997 was for soybean producers.

40
Table 3-6States ranked by cash receipts, with 5 leading commodities, 19971

Livestock

Total and products Crops State’s top ranking commodities by value of cash receipts

Cash Cash Cash

State Rank receipts Rank receipts Rank receipts 12345ALABAMA 26 3,227 15 2,431 34 796 Broilers Cattle and calves Cotton Chicken eggs GreenhALASKA 50 32 50 6 50 26 Greenhouse/nur. Dairy products Hay Potatoes Cattle ARIZONA 31 2,145 32 888 29 1,257 Cattle and calves Dairy products Lettuce Cotton CantalARKANSAS 11 5,862 10 3,416 15 2,446 Broilers Soybean Rice Cotton Cattle CALIFORNIA 1 25,289 2 6,294 1 18,995 Dairy products Grapes Greenhouse/nur. Cattle and calves Lettuce COLORADO 17 4,399 12 3,012 25 1,388 Cattle and calves Corn Wheat Dairy products HogsCONNECTICUT 43 496 43 218 40 279 Greenhouse/nur. Dairy products Aquaculture Chicken eggs TobaccDELAWARE 40 748 39 573 44 174 Broilers Soybean Greenhouse/nur. Corn Dairy pFLORIDA 9 6,243 28 1,265 5 4,978 Greenhouse/nur. Oranges Tomatoes Cane for sugar Dairy pGEORGIA 10 5,887 9 3,442 16 2,445 Broilers Cotton Peanuts Chicken eggs Cattle HAWAII 45 483 48 68 39 415 Pineapples Cane for sugar Greenhouse/nur. Macadamia nuts Dairy pIDAHO 24 3,315 25 1,389 20 1,926 Cattle and calves Dairy products Potatoes Wheat HayILLINOIS 5 9,276 18 1,937 2 7,339 Corn Soybean Hogs Cattle and calves Dairy pINDIANA 14 5,506 19 1,896 10 3,610 Corn Soybean Hogs Chicken eggs Dairy pIOWA 3 12,841 4 5,530 3 7,311 Corn Soybean Hogs Cattle and calves Dairy pKANSAS 6 9,001 5 5,017 8 3,985 Cattle and calves Wheat Corn Sorghum grain SoybeaKENTUCKY 21 3,633 17 1,978 22 1,655 Tobacco Horses/mules Cattle and calves Soybean CornLOUISIANA 32 2,140 36 659 23 1,481 Cotton Cane for sugar Rice Soybean Cattle MAINE 44 486 42 258 42 228 Potatoes Dairy products Chicken eggs Aquaculture BluebeMARYLAND 36 1,538 31 915 35 623 Broilers Greenhouse/nur. Dairy products Soybean Cattle MASSACHUSETTS 41 532 46 102 38 430 Cranberries Greenhouse/nur. Dairy products Apples Sweet MICHIGAN 22 3,588 27 1,352 19 2,236 Dairy products Greenhouse/nur. Corn Soybean Cattle MINNESOTA 8 8

155 8 4

054 7 4

101 Soybean Corn Dairy products Hogs Cattle 
42Table 3-6

States ranked by cash receipts, with 5 leading commodities, 19971

Livestock

Total and products Crops State’s top ranking commodities by value of cash receipts

Cash Cash Cash

State Rank receipts Rank receipts Rank receipts 12345NEVADA 47 310 44 180 45 130 Cattle and calves Hay Dairy products Onions PotatoNEW HAMPSHIRE 48 166 47 69 47 97 Dairy products Greenhouse/nur. Apples Cattle and calves ChristmNEW JERSEY 39 776 45 180 36 596 Greenhouse/nur. Dairy products Cranberries Pepper, green BluebeNEW MEXICO 34 1,915 26 1,354 37 562 Cattle and calves Dairy products Hay Chili peppers OnionsNEW YORK 28 2,896 21 1,859 31 1,037 Dairy products Greenhouse/nur. Apples Cattle and calves CornNORTH CAROLINA 7 8,302 6 4,694 11 3,608 Hogs Broilers Tobacco Greenhouse/nur. TurkeyNORTH DAKOTA 25 3,313 38 611 14 2,702 Wheat Cattle and calves Sunflower Soybean Barley OHIO 16 5,345 20 1,869 12 3,476 Soybean Corn Dairy products Greenhouse/nur. Hogs OKLAHOMA 18 4,369 11 3,061 27 1,308 Cattle and calves Wheat Hogs Broilers GreenOREGON 27 3,113 34 740 18 2,373 Greenhouse/nur. Cattle and calves Hay Wheat Dairy pPENNSYLVANIA 20 4,128 14 2,789 26 1,339 Dairy products Greenhouse/nur. Cattle and calves Chicken eggs MushrRHODE ISLAND 49 83 49 9 48 74 Greenhouse/nur. Dairy products Sweet corn Potatoes ChickeSOUTH CAROLINA 35 1,695 33 797 32 898 Broilers Tobacco Greenhouse/nur. Cotton TurkeySOUTH DAKOTA 19 4,237 22 1,820 17 2,417 Cattle and calves Corn Soybean Wheat Hogs TENNESSEE 30 2,292 29 1,005 28 1,287 Cattle and calves Soybean Broilers Tobacco Dairy pTEXAS 2 13,461 1 8,184 4 5,277 Cattle and calves Cotton Greenhouse/nur. Dairy products BroilerUTAH 37 953 35 715 41 238 Cattle and calves Dairy products Hay Hogs GreenVERMONT 42 513 40 416 46 97 Dairy products Cattle and calves Greenhouse/nur. Hay ChristmVIRGINIA 29 2,401 24 1,538 33 863 Broilers Cattle and calves Dairy products Tobacco TurkeyWASHINGTON 15 5,382 23 1,604 9 3,778 Apples Dairy products Wheat Cattle and calves PotatoWEST VIRGINIA 46 394 41 324 49 71 Broilers Cattle and calves Dairy products Turkeys ChickeWISCONSIN 12 5,756 7 4,070 21 1,686 Dairy products Cattle and calves Corn Soybean Hogs WYOMING 38 845 37 646 43 199 Cattle and calves Sugar beets Hay Sheep and lambs Hogs1All cash receipts are in million dollars.

S

S

S
Table 3-7Leading States for cash receipts, 19971

Top 10 States by their value of cash receipts

Commodity 1 Rank Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

$ Million State and $ million

CA TX IA NE IL KS NC MN FL 

Total 208,665 25,289 13,46 112,841 10,092 9,276 9,001 8,302 8,155 6,243 

TX CA NE IA KS NC WI MN GA 

Livestock & poultry 96,568 8,184 6,294 5,542 5,530 5,017 4,694 4,070 4,054 3,442 

CA IL IA TX FL NE MN KS WA 

Crops 112,097 18,995 7,339 7,311 5,277 4,978 4,550 4,101 3,985 3,778 

TX NE KS CO OK IA CA SD MN 

Cattle and calves 1 36,094 5,849 4,385 4,354 2,286 2,009 1,652 1,323 1,188 973 

CA WI NY PA MN TX MI WA ID 

Dairy products 2 20,989 3,618 2,948 1,528 1,526 1,200 787 732 728 634 

IA IL NE IN MN OH KS SD MO 

Corn 3 20,456 3,777 3,524 2,643 1,600 1,325 964 890 782 781 

IA IL IN MN OH MO NE AR SD 

Soybeans 4 18,321 3,293 3,107 1,550 1,511 1,360 1,180 1,053 787 756 

GA AR AL NC MS TX MD DE CA 

Broilers 5 14,151 2,277 2,096 1,653 1,372 1,226 775 532 530 472 

IA NC MN IL NE IN MO OK OH 

Hogs 6 13,197 2,957 2,017 1,169 1,011 833 805 779 423 413 

CA FL TX NC OH OR MI PA GA 

Greenhouse & nursery2 7 11,431 2,346 1,134 1,043 943 525 469 433 362 306 

KS ND MT WA OK ID SD TX MN 

Wheat 8 8,926 1,503 1,270 699 694 523 423 402 362 317 

TX CA GA MS AR NC LA AZ AL 

Cotton 9 6

515 1

582 1

097 709 625 562 329 328 294 228 
44Table 3-7 Leading States for cash receipts, 19971

Top 10 States by their value of cash receipts

Commodity 1 Rank Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

$ Million State and $ million

GA OH CA PA IN AR TX IA AL 

Chicken eggs 11 4,531 359 357 345 315 300 276 268 242 221 

CA WA NY OR MI PA AZ AR GA 

Grapes 12 3,053 2,816 124 37 21 15 14 14 4 3 

NC KY TN SC VA GA FL OH IN 

Tobacco 13 2,886 1,193 730 228 213 191 158 32 29 26 

NC MN MO AR CA VA IN SC PA 

Turkeys 14 2,880 528 400 236 215 202 189 144 144 97 

ID WA CA WI OR ND ME MN MI 

Potatoes 15 2,259 526 432 152 139 128 113 100 99 80 

CA FL GA OH VA NJ IN SC TX 

Tomatoes 16 1,852 870 610 58 48 44 28 24 23 22 

FL CA AZ TX n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a 

Oranges 17 1,717 1,128 580 5 3

AR CA LA TX MS MO n.a n.a n.a 

Rice 18 1,657 717 319 262 168 137 54

KS TX NE MO OK AR IL NM SD 

Sorghum grain 19 1,619 666 450 204 86 60 29 28 21 20 

CA AZ NJ NM CO OH FL NY WA 

Lettuce 20 1,608 1,251 303 14 13 10 6 6 3 3

WA CA NY MI PA VA ID NC OR 

Apples 21 1,527 817 167 126 92 53 29 18 17 16 

MN ID ND CA MI MT WY CO NE 

Sugar beets 22 1,349 389 239 194 128 126 59 58 54 45 

CA n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a 

Almonds 23 1

127 1

127
Government payments of $7.3 billion in 1996 and $7.5 billion 1997 wcantly lower than the average for the first half of the 1990’s. Total p

both years were slightly higher than those of 1995 but 45 percent lower th

$13.4 billion in 1993 which was the highest level since 1988. Direct gov

payments were expected to begin declining with the 1996 Farm Act. Eve

payments in 1996 and later years reflect the production flexibility payme

under the 1996 Act, adjustments for deficiency payments owed to farmer

commodities in 1996 and repayments by farmers for overpayments under 

ous farm program also are included in 1996 and 1997 payments.

Under the old farm program, deficiency payments due to producers w

in as many as three payments, in 2 calendar years. The first payment was 

an estimation of the final amount likely to be owed to the producer, using 

market prices over the relevant period; and subsequent payments were th

ance due once the actual market prices became known.

During the 1995/96 marketing year, commodity prices received by fa

tended to be higher than had been projected when determining initial defi

payments for the 1995/96 crops. For many producers, this meant that the 

ment received as the first deficiency payment for the 1995 crops exceeded 

they were due, once all the information necessary to complete the final de

became available. As a consequence, they were required to reimburse US

these reimbursements were then available for disbursement under produc

flexibility contract payments.

After 1997, the influence of the deficiency repayment adjustments sh

cluded and the payment totals will more closely follow the declining leve

duction flexibility contract payments specified in the 1996 Farm Act. The 

totals will be constrained by the fixed funding set forth for production fle

contracts in the 1996 Farm Act through the year 2002.

Innovative legislation was implemented in 1996

As a refresher, new legislation enacted effective for 1996 represented 

cant departure from that which it replaced, mandating sweeping changes 

operational design of Federal farm programs for a period of 7 years. Und

farm programs, government payments to farmers will decline over 7 year

absolute terms and as a proportion of production income. Both the declin

ments and diminishing role of the Government crystallized in the new leg

represent extensions of trends under which Government assistance as a sh

production income was already in a decline.

The 1996 Farm Act, more formally known as The Federal Agricultur

Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, signed in April1996, initiated a ne

Government farm policy for 1996 through 2002 that disconnects the link 

production history and the level of Federal support payments. The legisla

severed the links between Government payments and the crops produced 

modity prices. During the 7-year period covered by the 1996 Act, payme

mined during a one-time, sign-up window in 1996 are scheduled to declin
crop acreage and program yields remain constant throughout the 7 years, but 

rates are scheduled to generally decline. Nonrecourse marketing loans admini

by the Commodity Credit Corporation remain available for the contract crops

oilseeds, and extra long staple cotton. The loan rates are generally much lowe

past support levels and marketing loans are available to producers. Consequen

farmers don’t necessarily have to place the commodity under loan in order to 

the benefits for which they are eligible and the Government’s potential financ

exposure through loan defaults is reduced.

Restrictions: Farmers are not bound to plant any particular set of crops a

have flexibility as to what they do plant, with some exceptions pertaining to fr

vegetables. Two requirements that farmers must meet are to comply with esta

conservation measures and either buy crop insurance or sign a waiver to all Fe

disaster assistance.

Exceptions: The legislation contains special language for peanuts and su

that generally maintains the structure of those programs established under the

previous legislation but at lower support levels, thereby reducing the Governm

exposure. The dairy price support program will be phased out over 4 years an

dairy milk marketing orders are to be reduced by two-thirds in 3 years. Tobac

program provisions are covered under separate legislation and are not affected 

1996 Farm Act. 

■ Number of Farms and Net Cash Income 

by Sales Class

The number of farms decreased slightly to 2,057,910 in 1997, and the percof farms in each major sales class changed somewhat. Almost three quart

all U.S. farms have annual sales of less than $50,000, while approximately 1 p

of all farms have sales greater than $1 million. Farms with over $250,000 in s

account for less than 7 percent of all farms but dominate American agricultura

put. These large farms sell 65 percent of the Nation’s livestock and 61 percent 

the crops. They have 61 percent of the gross cash income compared with 59 p

of the cash expenses. In 1997 they accounted for 67 percent of the Nation’s ne

income. Approximately 35 percent of direct Government payments went to th

farms.

46
Table 3-8Government payments, by program and State, 19971State Feed grain Wheat Rice Cotton Wool Act Conservation2 Miscellaneous3 

1,000 dollars

Alabama (318) (3) 0 (112) 0 25,138 41,081 Alaska 0 0 0 0 0 990 500 Arizona (140) (59) 0 (933) (7) 787 47,019 Arkansas (1,502) (394) 7 (505) 0 12,912 264,339 2California (1,022) (147) (11) (1,217) 6 13,200 209,727 2Colorado (8,687) (318) 0 0 0 78,338 106,292 1Connecticut (77) 0 0 0 0 162 1,299 Delaware (571) (1) 0 0 0 347 5,950 Florida (106) (1) 0 (11) 0 5,967 13,198 Georgia (892) (38) 0 (249) 0 27,866 82,520 1Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0 163 391 Idaho (301) (528) 0 0 1 38,583 72,675 1Illinois (81,151) (135) 0 0 0 62,071 571,701 5Indiana (44,556) (71) 0 0 0 30,364 279,429 2Iowa (86,847) (1) 0 0 0 148,216 651,533 7Kansas (29,526) (1,356) 0 0 0 151,940 408,725 5Kentucky (7,354) (39) 0 0 0 22,353 68,107 Louisiana (824) (42) (27) (534) 0 7,578 151,195 1Maine (66) 0 0 0 0 2,170 2,093 Maryland (1,962) (4) 0 0 0 2,152 19,304 Massachusetts (45) 0 0 0 0 211 1,030 Michigan (19,121) (90) 0 0 1 20,854 119,642 1Mi

t

(56

472) (540) 0 0 (5) 86

946 387

120 4
48Table 3-8 Government payments, by program and State, 19971

State Feed grain Wheat Rice Cotton Wool Act Conservation2 Miscellaneous3 

1,000 dollars

Nevada (1) (5) 0 0 0 940 1,161 New Hampshire (30) 0 0 0 0 172 747 New Jersey (537) 0 0 0 0 226 3,940 New Mexico (1,228) (35) 0 (25) 0 18,201 22,085 New York (4,622) (13) 0 0 0 4,601 39,667 North Carolina (3,349) (28) 0 (61) 0 17,744 73,459 North Dakota (5,178) (1,305) 0 0 5 103,387 264,640 3Ohio (25,323) (146) 0 0 0 25,899 185,998 1Oklahoma (1,622) (916) 0 (66) 0 49,644 158,561 2Oregon (103) (170) 0 0 2 26,371 37,328 Pennsylvania (2,910) (3) 0 0 0 7,447 30,936 Rhode Island (1) 0 0 0 0 35 88 South Carolina (1,325) (35) 0 (80) 0 12,242 32,242 South Dakota (18,150) (262) 0 0 0 70,459 216,067 2Tennessee (2,899) (53) 3 (97) 0 20,310 58,944 Texas (23,460) (579) (30) (1,366) 10 157,557 516,435 6Utah (154) (8) 0 0 0 9,491 10,767 Vermont (129) 0 0 0 0 741 2,481 Virginia (1,580) (21) 0 (2) 0 5,989 26,204 Washington (373) (556) 0 0 0 53,529 94,680 1West Virginia (183) (0) 0 0 0 2,425 3,433 Wisconsin (26,168) (9) 0 0 0 45,635 157,114 1Wyoming (302) (29) 0 0 (3) 10,241 12,481 

United States (559,723) (8,964) (54) (5,851) 14 1,693,264 6,377,266 7,4
g

Million dollars

1950 np np np np np 246 37 

1951 np np np np np 246 40 

1952 np np np np np 242 33 

1953 np np np np np 181 32 

1954 np np np np np 217 40 

1955 np np np np np 188 41 

1956 np np np np 54 220 280 

1957 np np np np 53 230 732 

1958 np np np np 14 215 859 

1959 np np np np 82 233 367 

1960 np np np np 51 223 429 

1961 772 42 np np 56 236 387 

1962 841 253 np np 54 230 368 

1963 843 215 np np 37 231 370 

1964 1,163 438 np 39 25 236 278 

1965 1,391 525 np 70 18 224 235 

1966 1,293 679 np 773 34 231 267 

1967 865 731 np 932 29 237 284 

1968 1,366 747 np 787 66 229 268 

1969 1,643 858 np 828 61 204 199 

1970 1,504 871 np 919 49 208 166 

1971 1,054 878 np 822 69 173 149 

1972 1,845 856 np 813 110 198 140 

1973 1,142 474 np 718 65 72 136 

1974 101 70 np 42 4 192 125 

1975 279 77 np 138 13 193 107 

1976 196 135 4 108 39 209 47 

1977 187 887 130 89 5 328 192 

1978 1,172 963 3 127 27 239 499 

1979 494 114 59 185 33 197 294 

1980 382 211 2 172 28 214 276 

1981 243 625 2 222 35 201 605 

1982 713 652 156 800 46 179 946 

1983 1,346 864 278 662 84 188 5,874 

1984 367 1,795 192 275 118 191 5,493 

1985 2,861 1,950 577 1,106 98 189 924 

1986 5,158 3,500 423 1,042 112 254 1,325 

1987 8,490 2,931 475 1,204 144 1,531 1,972 

1988 7,219 1,842 465 924 117 1,607 2,306 

1989 3,141 603 671 1,184 81 1,771 3,436 

1990 2,701 2,311 465 441 96 1,898 1,386 

1991 2,649 2,166 550 407 154 1,858 431 

1992 2,499 1,403 512 751 188 1,899 1,916 

1993 4,844 1,909 650 1,226 173 1,967 2,633 

1994 1,447 1,156 337 826 202 1,978 1,933 

1995 3,024 587 784 30 98 1,896 860 

19965 (384) (473) 175 (105) 56 1,793 6,279 

1997 (560) (9) 0 (6) 0 1,693 6,377 

np = no program. 1Components may not add due to rounding. Includes both cash payments an

kind (PIK). 2Includes Great Plains and other conservation programs. 3Through 1970, total am

Soil Bank program, which was discontinued in 1971. Starting with 1971, amounts include all ot

4Less than $500,000. 5Commodity specific payments in 1996 reflect final deficiency payments 

under previous law, as well as repayments by farmers of unearned deficiency payments disbur

advance of final determination. Production flexibility payments under the 1996 Farm Act are inc

the miscellaneous category.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division.
50Table 3-10. Number of farms and net cash income by size class, 19971

$1,000,000 $500,000 $250,000 $100,000 $50,000 $20,000 Le

Item and over to $999,999 to $499,999 to $249,999 to $99,999 to $49,999 $

Thousands

Number of farms 19 35 83 207 188 270 

Million dollars

Gross cash income 71,104 31,298 36,324 43,506 20,679 12,675 1

Cash receipts from marketings 68,126 29,470 33,590 39,828 18,470 11,049 Crops 33,421 15,419 19,621 24,024 9,861 6,485 

Government supported 4,886 6,743 10,210 11,722 4,718 2,660 Nonsupported 28,535 8,676 9,411 12,303 5,143 3,825 

Livestock 34,706 14,051 13,969 15,803 8,609 4,564 Government payments 470 762 1,397 2,051 974 962 Farm-related income 2,508 1,067 1,337 1,627 1,235 664 

Cash expenses 50,015 21,367 26,650 31,306 14,065 10,004 1Net cash income 21,090 9,932 9,674 12,200 6,614 2,671 

Percent

Percent of total:Number of farms 0.9 1.7 4.0 10.1 9.1 13.1 

Gross cash income 31.2 13.7 15.9 19.1 9.1 5.6 

Cash receipts from marketings 32.6 14.1 16.1 19.1 8.9 5.3 

Crops 29.8 13.8 17.5 21.4 8.8 5.8 

Government supported 11.7 16.1 24.4 28.0 11.3 6.4 Nonsupported 40.6 12.3 13.4 17.5 7.3 5.4 

Livestock 35.9 14.6 14.5 16.4 8.9 4.7 
Table 3-10.

Number of farms and net cash income by size class, 19971

$1,000,000 $500,000 $250,000 $100,000 $50,000 $20,000 L

Item and over to $999,999 to $499,999 to $249,999 to $99,999 to $49,999 $

Dollars

Per farm operation: 1

Gross cash income 3,788,552 900,997 437,983 210,210 110,145 46,934 

Cash receipts from marketings 3,629,883 848,350 405,024 192,438 98,378 40,912 

Crops 1,780,711 443,872 236,587 116,080 52,524 24,014 

Government supported 260,341 194,099 123,107 56,637 25,130 9,849 Nonsupported 1,520,370 249,773 113,480 59,443 27,394 14,165 

Livestock 1,849,172 404,479 168,437 76,358 45,854 16,898 

Government payments 25,054 21,933 16,840 9,910 5,187 3,563 Farm-related income 133,615 30,714 16,119 7,862 6,581 2,459 

Cash expenses 2,664,864 615,090 321,339 151,263 74,918 37,043 1

Net cash income 1,123,688 285,907 116,644 58,947 35,227 9,891 1Farm operations may have several households sharing in the earnings of the business (for example, partners or shareholders in the farm corporation). The number of hou

per farm operation tends to increase as sales per farm increase.Source: USDA,Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division
52

■ Nonmetropolitan Population

Today, the United States is primarily metropolitan. People who live in largand their suburbs account for 80 percent of the total population. Nonmetr

people outside large cities and suburban counties numbered about 54.5 millio

1998. Although nonmetro population continues to increase, its proportion of t

population has fallen slightly over the last several decades because the metro 

tion grew even more rapidly.

A metro area, by definition, must have an urban nucleus of at least 50,000 

ple, and may include fringe counties that are linked to that nucleus because th

workers commute to the central area. All other counties are nonmetro. 

After 1970, most nonmetro counties that were losing population in the 19

began to grow again because of job development, commuting, or the developm

retirement communities that drew retirees in from other areas. However, after 

low farm income and a slump in mining and manufacturing employment led t

but widespread decline in nonmetro population, generally in the same areas th

declined before 1970. Some nonmetro counties, though, grew enough as retir

or recreation areas, or from their proximity to metro jobs, to produce overall n

metro population growth during the decade.

Since 1990, there is evidence once again of increased retention of people 

metro areas. From 1990 to 1996, the population of nonmetro counties grew at 

annual pace more than double that of the 1980’s, with far fewer counties decli

This change has affected all types of counties and most regions of the country

Improvement in nonmetro economic conditions is thought to be generally res

for this change. But, recreation and retirement counties continue to be the mo

rapidly developing group. Declining population is still characteristic of areas 

dependent on farming, three-fourths of which have continued to have more pe

moving out than in. The nonmetro population grew between 1996 and 1998, b

pace of growth has slowed. 

■ Age and Race

Age distributions reflect past demographic events (births, deaths, and migrand provide important clues about future changes in the labor supply and 

demand for goods and services. The age distribution of the U.S. population is 

dominated by the post-World War II rise in fertility rates known as the baby b

whose members were born in 1946-64. From the time the youngest baby boom
to have a favorable balance of people in incomeproducing age groups. A

the country benefit from the current age structure.

Because of migration, which consists primarily of young adults and 

dren, metro areas captured a much higher percentage of the “baby boome

higher metro percentage of working-age adults has been a persistent patte

of this century. Metro/nonmetro differences among the youngest and olde

become increasingly large. In a reversal of previous trends, the birth rates 

areas in this decade have been greater than in nonmetro areas. In large m

reversal is due to the delayed childbearing among women in the large me

boom segment. Birth rates for nonmetro women are higher at younger ag

larly for women in their twenties, an age group not well represented in no

areas.

Increases in life expectancy over the past 50 years and the aging of th

ulation segment born in the 1920’s increased the proportion of elderly be

and 1998. The percentage of the population over age 75 rose dramatically

in nonmetro areas. Retirement migration to nonmetro areas, coupled with 

high levels of nonmetro outmigration of young adults and their children, 

in a slightly higher proportion of older people in nonmetro areas: the perc

the nonmetro population age 60 or older was 18 percent in 1998, 15 perc

areas. For the first time since 1960, children under age 10 outnumber pre

teenagers in metro areas. This is not true for nonmetro areas.

The minority population is truly in the minority in nonmetro areas, a

percentage is growing. By 1997 minorities constituted 17 percent of the t

metro population, accounting for more than half of the population growth 

Minorities are still much more likely than Whites to live in metro areas, b

presence in nonmetro areas is increasing.

The relatively high proportion of the population under age18 in all th

minority groups indicates that there is a large pool of potential labor forc

among minorities and that minorities have a sizable proportion of their ow

tion to support. This is partly fueled in the rural Asian and Hispanic popu

the higher birth rates among recent immigrants. Well over a third of the p

all four rural minority groups were under age 18 in 1997, compared with 

the White population (table 4-1). The proportion in prime labor force age

25 and 44 is similar for all groups, including Whites.

In 1997, 9 million nonmetro residents belonged to one of four minor

Blacks, Hispanics, Asians (including Pacific Islanders), and Native Amer

Blacks made up close to two-thirds of the nonmetro minority population 

their share has declined since then as the rate of growth for other groups 

increased. In 1997, 54 percent of the nonmetro minority population was B
54

Asia

Age group White Black Native American Hispanic Is

Percent

17 or younger 25.0 36.4 39.3 40.0 

18-24 8.7 12.9 11.6 12.7 

25-44 28.7 26.6 25.9 29.3 

45-59 17.5 13.4 14.1 10.7 

60-74 13.5 7.6 7.2 5.7 

75 and older 6.6 3.2 1.9 1.6 

Thousands

Population 43,458 4,877 888 2,789 4

Source: Prepared by ERS using data from the March 1997 Current Population Survey, Bureau of the 

■ Nonmetropolitan Industry and Job Growth

Goods-Producing Industries

Manufacturing, natural resource-based industries such as farming and mi

and other goods-producing industries have historically been the mainstay of t

economy. Growth in rural goods-producing jobs was stronger during the 1970

during the 1980’s or so far in the 1990’s. Much of the growth during the 1970

attributable to national manufacturing firms that opened branch plants in rural 

and also to booming construction activities. While goods-producing industrie

mally spring back during economic recovery, in more recent years, over perio

recession and recovery, job growth in these industries has been sluggish. In no

areas during the 1980’s, jobs in farming declined by 383,000 (1.8 percent ann

and jobs in mining declined by 118,000 (2.4 percent annually), while manufa

increased by 20,000 jobs (table 4-2). Nonmetro areas also lost goods-produci

during the 1990-91 recession, but have gained jobs in more recent years. Betw

1989 and 1997, the total number of nonmetro goods-producing jobs increased 

433,000. The new jobs were in construction (324,000), manufacturing (200,0

agricultural services/forestry/fishing (153,000). Those gains were partially off

declines in farming (156,000) and mining (88,000) jobs. 

Services-Producing Industries

Nonmetro services-producing industries grew steadily during 1969-97, c

8.8 million new jobs in the period. Similar to the goods-producing industries, 

number of rural services-producing jobs grew faster during the 1970’s (2.5 pe

annually) than during the 1980’s (1.8 percent annually). During 1989-97, job 

in the rural services-producing sector picked up, growing almost as fast as du
Industry 1969 1979 1989 1997 

Thousands 

Nonmetro total 17,704 21,668 23,942 27,687 

Goods-producing 7,480 8,532 8,216 8,649 

Farm 2,564 2,351 1,968 1,812 

ASFF1 166 242 355 508 

Mining 361 550 432 344 

Construction 800 1,177 1,228 1,552 

Manufacturing 3,589 4,213 4,233 4,433 

Services-producing 10,224 13,136 15,726 19,039 

TCPU2 725 904 972 1,153 

Wholesale trade 423 753 781 867 

Retail trade 2,541 3,224 3,896 4,804 

FIRE3 734 1,052 1,095 1,315 

Services 2,718 3,620 4,997 6,526 

Government 3,082 3,583 3,986 4,373 

Metro total 73,353 91,620 113,375 128,723 

Goods-producing 22,755 24,658 24,691 24,892 

Farm 1,414 1,413 1,228 1,142 

ASFF1 340 626 1,019 1,465 

Mining 374 605 614 489 

Construction 3,670 4,729 6,064 6,813 

Manufacturing 16,957 17,284 15,765 14,983 

Services-producing 50,597 66,962 88,684 103,831 

TCPU2 4,070 4,723 5,393 6,398 

Wholesale trade 3,675 4,920 5,924 6,311 

Retail trade 10,908 14,556 18,794 21,552 

FIRE3 5,181 7,487 9,572 10,463 

Services 14,005 20,463 32,239 41,702 

Government 12,759 14,814 16,762 17,407 

1Agricultural services, forestry, and fishing

2Transportation, communication, and public utilities

3Finance, insurance, and real estate

Source: Prepared by ERS using data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Econ

1970’s (2.4 percent annually). General services, such as hotel accommod

cuts, car repair, and entertainment, provided the largest number of new ru

million). Nonmetro retail trade added 980,000 new jobs, growing faster (

annually) so far in the 1990’s than it had in the two previous decades (2.4 

cent annually in the 1970’s and 1980’s).

Total Employment

Nonmetro areas gained jobs at a rate comparable to that of metro are

the 1970’s, but fell far behind metro growth during the 1980’s. Nonmetro 
56

siderably slower in nonmetro (1 percent annually) than in metro areas (2.2 pe

annually) during 1979-89. More encouraging is the most recent performance 

areas. In contrast to the 1980’s trend, rural areas weathered the 1990-91 reces

better than urban areas. In nonmetro areas, total jobs grew at a 1.8 percent ann

during 1990-97; in metro areas, jobs grew at a 1.6 percent annual rate (table 4

Most of the growth in both areas was in services-producing industries, 3.3 mi

of 3.7 million new nonmetro jobs and 15.1 out of 15.3 million new metro jobs

Goods-producing industries contributed 433,000 new nonmetro jobs while m

areas gained only 201,000 goods-producing jobs. 

■ Nonmetropolitan Employment and Wages

I

n 1998, 25.5 million people 16 years old and older were in the nonmetropo

work force, either at work or looking for work. On average, 1.2 million or 4

percent of these workers were unemployed during the year. The continuing na

economic expansion has brought about the lowest nonmetro unemployment r

25 years, with widespread reductions in unemployment among all groups of w

including minorities and teenagers. In 1998, 14.1 percent of teenagers, 10.3 p

of Blacks, and 7.1 percent of Hispanics in nonmetro areas were unemployed (

4-3). These rates, however, remain well above the 1998 average for nonmetro 

(4.2 percent). The official unemployment rate excludes those jobless people n

actively seeking work, but who indicate they want or are available for work (m

ally attached workers), and part-time workers who want full-time jobs. The no

adjusted unemployment rate, which includes marginally attached workers and 

untary part-time workers, was 8.8 percent.

Nonmetro unemployment rates in 1998 were slightly higher than metro r

(4.8 and 4.4 percent, respectively.) During the 1980’s, nonmetro unemployme

were consistently higher in nonmetro areas than in metro, but below the metro 

for a few years after the 1990-91 recession (figure 4-1). The nonmetro adjuste

unemployment rate has remained higher than the metro rate throughout the 19

In 1998, the nonmetro unadjusted rate of 8.8 percent was somewhat above the 

percent metro rate.

Nonmetro earnings have risen during the 1990’s, in contrast to the earnin

losses of the previous decade. The inflation-adjusted, average nonmetro week

earnings for wage and salary workers fell 12.6 percent between 1979 and 199

from $491 to $429 (1998 dollars). Average metro weekly earnings fell a smal

1.4 percent between 1979 and 1993. As a result, the metro/nonmetro average 

earnings gap grew sharply, increasing from $73 to $127 (1998 dollars). From 

to 1998, however, nonmetro weekly earnings increased 7.8 percent, to $462 (

dollars), while metro earnings were up 5.4 percent (table 4-4). The absolute d

value of the metro-nonmetro wage gap has changed little during the 1990’s, b

nonmetro earnings have risen at a faster rate than metro earnings.
Nonmetro Metro 

Thousands

Civilian labor force 25,510 112,163 13

Total employment 24,289 107,174 13

Unemployed 1,221 4,989 

Unemployment rate:

Percent

All civilian workers 4.8 4.4 

Men 4.7 4.4 

Women 4.9 4.6 

Teenagers 14.1 14.7 

White 4.2 3.8 

Black 10.3 8.7 

Hispanic 7.1 7.2 

Adjusted unemp. rate1 8.8 7.9 

1Unemployment rate adjusted to include marginally attached workers and workers employed p

for economic reasons.

Source: Current Population Survey, Bureau of the Census.

Table 4-4.

Average weekly earnings for metro and nonmetro wage and 

workers, 1979-98

U.S. Metro Nonmetro Metro-Nonmetro 

1998 dollars

1979 541 564 491 73

1990 530 556 429 127

1998 564 586 462 124

Percent

1979-90 change -2.0 -1.4 -12.6 74

1990-98 change 6.4 5.4 7.8 -2

Source: Prepared by ERS using data from the Current Population Survey, Bureau of the Censu
58

■ Nonmetropolitan Income and Poverty

Nonmetropolitan median household income increased by 4.6 percent from to 1997 after adjustment for inflation, going from $28,734 to $30,057. T

median income of metropolitan households increased 2.3 percent, from $38,5

$39,381. With nonmetro income growing more than metro income, the incom

between nonmetro and metro households narrowed slightly. Nonmetro househ

income lagged metro household income by 23.7 percent in 1997, down from 

percent gap in 1996. In both nonmetro and metro areas, married-couple famil

much higher median income than do other household types, and non-Hispanic 

households have much higher median income than households headed by min

(table 4-5). 

The poverty rate in nonmetro America stood at 15.9 percent in 1997, unc

from the previous year, and higher than the metro poverty rate of 12.6 percent

nonmetro poverty rate has been quite stable over the last 10 years, remaining 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1985 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 

Percent

Nonmetro adjusted

Metro adjusted

Nonmetro 

Metro 

Note: Beginning in the first quarter of 1994, the adjusted unemployment rate is defined as the total

unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reason

as a percent of the civilian labor force, plus all marginally attached workers (U-6). Prior to the first qu

1994, the adjusted unemployment rate is defined as total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plu

of workers part time for economic reasons as a percent of the civilian labor force, plus all discourage

Source: Current Population Survey, Bureau of the Census.
increasing household income with a stagnant poverty rate suggests that n

income growth is more commonly occurring among higher than lower in

lies.

Nonmetro poverty rates continued to be higher than metro poverty ra

demographic groups (figure 4-3). People living in families headed by wo

enced the highest poverty rates of all family types (41.2 percent in nonme

and 34.5 percent in metro), and a high proportion of nonmetro women no

relatives were also poor (31 percent). Over one-fifth of nonmetro children 

poor families.

The poverty rates among nonmetro minorities were much higher tha

nonmetro Whites and substantially higher than those of metro minorities

rate was highest for nonmetro Blacks (31.9 percent), followed by nonmet

Americans (31.6 percent) and nonmetro Hispanics (30.7 percent). Despit

incidence of poverty among nonmetro minorities, two-thirds of the nonm

were non-Hispanic Whites because of the large White majority in the non

lation. However, the Hispanic share of the nonmetro poor has nearly doub

recent years, growing from 5.8 percent in 1986 to 10.4 percent in 1997. 

Table 4-5.

Median household income by family type and race/ethnicity

Nonmetro Metro Nonmetro

Dollars P

Total 30,057 39,381 

By household type:

Married-couple family 41,060 55,533 

Female-headed family 18,580 24,304 

Unrelated women2 13,310 19,062 

Unrelated men2 21,446 30,022 

By race/ethnicity of householder:

White, non-Hispanic 31,546 43,868 

Black 19,987 25,804 

Hispanic 22,538 27,077 

Native American3 21,124 33,653 

1Percent by which nonmetro income is lower than metro.

2Persons who live alone or with nonrelatives.

3The sample of Native Americans is very small, making estimates of their household income s

to high variability.

Source: Prepared by ERS using data from the March 1998 Current Population Survey.
60

Percent

Nonmetropolitan

Metropolitan

0

5

10

15

20

1987 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 

Figure 4-3.

Poverty rates by population group, 1997

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent poor

Nonmetro Metro

Unrelated* Elderly Children Black

Women

In 

Femaleheaded

families

In 

Marriedcouple

families

Total Native

American**

NonHispanic

White

*Women living alone or with nonrelatives.

**The sample of Native Americans is very small, making estimates of their poverty status subject to h

Source: Prepared by ERS using data from the March 1998 Current Population Survey.

Source: Prepared by ERS using data from the Bureau of the Census’ Consumer Income P-60 series
I

n fiscal year 1997, Federal funds reaching nonmetro counties averaged 

per person, while metro counties averaged $5,333 per person (table 4-6

significant regional differences exist. The nonmetro Midwest received the 

amount of Federal funds, $4,522 per person, while the nonmetro South a

received slightly higher amounts per person. The nonmetro West received 

amount of Federal funds, $5,046 per person (table 4-7).

Federal funding includes grants, loans, and other payments to suppo

ture, forest management, housing, transportation, education, health, publ

tance, Social Security, veterans’ benefits, defense, energy, and so on. Figu

the metro-nonmetro distribution of funds are based on the share of Feder

that can be reliably traced to county levels. Interest on the national debt h

excluded for analytical purposes.

Nonmetro counties received a large share of their funds from income 

programs, especially retirement and disability programs. About 42 percen

nonmetro funds were for such programs, compared with 33 percent of th

funds (table 4-6). The nonmetro West received the highest amounts of pe

grants, salary and wages, and procurement contracts. However, the nonm

received only about 37 percent of its Federal funds per person for retirem

disability programs, compared to about 42 percent for the nonmetro Nort

43 percent for nonmetro Midwest as well as nonmetro South (table 4-7).

Table 4-6.

Federal funds per capita, FY 1997

Object class of funds All counties Metro counties 

Dollars

All Federal funds, including loans 5,218 5,333 

Salaries and wages 611 675 

Procurement contracts 646 736 

Direct payments to individuals 2,868 2,726 

For retirement and disability 1,810 1,762 

Other than retirement & disability 959 964 

Other direct payments 39 20 

Grants 721 721 

Loans 432 455 

Direct loans 77 52 

Guaranteed loans 355 403 

All expenditures, excluding loans 4,885 4,878 

Note: Details may not add due to rounding.

Source: Prepared by the ERS using data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
62

Northeast Midwest South 

Object class of funds Region Region Region 

Dollars

All Federal funds, including loans 4,839 4,522 4,824 

Salaries and wages 433 283 325 

Procurement contracts 336 185 273 

Direct payments to individuals 2,983 2,818 3,121 

For retirement and disability 2,027 1,952 2,069 

Other than retirement & disability 956 866 1,052 

Other direct payments 14 208 81 

Grants 792 608 753 

Loans 281 420 271 

Direct loans 116 275 130 

Guaranteed loans 165 145 141 

All expenditures, excluding loans 4,558 4,102 4,553 

Note: Details may not add due to rounding.

Source: Prepared by the ERS using data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
g

USDA is the third-largest civilian Department of the U.S. Governmena variety of agencies, Government corporations, and other entities th

more than 95,000 people at over 15,000 locations in all 50 States and 60 

The Department has undergone a historic reorganization to improve 

among its broad range of programs and agencies. This reorganization, wh

headquarters and field structures, was authorized by the Department of A

Reorganization Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-354), signed into law in Octobe

The reorganization focused the Department’s work under the followi

mission areas, which operate over 200 programs. These areas are describ

ters 6-12 of this Agriculture Fact Book:

Rural Development

Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services

Food Safety

Natural Resources and Environment

Research, Education, and Economics, and

Marketing and Regulatory Programs.

Some organizations serve the entire Department of Agriculture, inclu

mission areas. Among these are the Assistant Secretary for Administratio

(Departmental Administration), Office of the Chief Economist, Office of 

General, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Chief Inform

Officer, Office of General Counsel, and Office of Communications, all of 

report directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. The Office of Congression

Intergovernmental Affairs serves as liaison between the Department and 

Congress and their staffs, State and local governments, and Indian tribes 

members. 

■ Departmental Administration

Departmental Administration (DA) provides leadership and guidance that USDA is managed effectively, efficiently, and fairly in its admin

program and services. The Departmental Administration Staff Offices pro

port to policy officials of the Department and overall direction and coord

the administrative programs and services of the Department. In addition, 

ages the Headquarters Complex and provides direct customer service to W

DC, employees.
64

and coordination for USDA civil rights and equal employment opportunity pr

CR is responsible for promulgating policies that will increase the participatio

women, minorities, and persons with disabilities at all levels in the USDA wo

and ensure equal opportunity in the delivery of USDA programs and services 

customers without regard to race, gender, national origin, disability, and other 

tected bases. CR works in collaboration with the USDA mission areas in impl

ing civil rights laws, regulations, and best practices in both employment and

agricultural program delivery areas.

In 1999, CR focused on improving civil rights accountability systems wi

USDA and is developing policies on accountability, reprisal, and disciplinary 

corrective actions. CR also issued departmental regulations on compliance rev

for programs conducted and assisted in the processing of civil rights complain

In March 1999, a consent decree was signed to settle the civil rights class 

brought against USDA by African American farmers from across the country. 

claims filed under the class are now being reviewed and settled.

The backlog of program complaints was substantially reduced through th

of the Early Resolution Task Force. Of the l,088 backlog cases existing in Sep

1998, only 2 cases remain. The Statute of Limitations (Section 741 of 

the Omnibus Bill) Project within CR has the responsibility of reviewing progr

discrimination complaints filed prior to July 1, 1997.

In July 1999, the Director of Civil Rights appointed a Task Force on Sexu

Orientation to update the 1994 Task Force Report and to make recommendati

to address issues of sexual orientation.

CR continued to work with agencies to develop training modules in civil 

areas including sexual harassment and disability employment. USDA is explo

new technologies to deliver training to USDA employees throughout the Unit

States.

A strong Civil Rights program supports USDA’s goals. The Civil Rights 

ensures that customers have full access to all USDA programs and activities, 

program and equal employment opportunity complaints are handled fairly and

expeditiously, and that the best supervisory and management practices are fol

so that a diverse staff of USDA employees are highly productive and effective

The Civil Rights program directly supports three of the Department’s manage

initiatives–civil rights, outreach, and human resource management.

Office of Human Resources Management

The Office of Human Resources Management provides overall direction 

leadership for USDA human resources management programs and initiatives. 

OHRM establishes departmental human resources management policy and re

USDA in governmentwide initiatives. The office develops and administers gu

principles, and objectives supporting human resources management, safety 
ance reviews. This office fully supports the civil rights initiatives of the D

Office of Civil Rights and provides operational human resources manage

services for the Office of the Secretary and departmental staff offices.

OHRM manages an employee career management program to assist 

employees in managing their careers. The program was enhanced in 1998

making available to field employees an on-site 2-day Individual Career M

Workshop. A total of 12 workshop sessions were delivered to field emplo

different locations nationwide.

In addition, OHRM administers the Summer Intern Program and 14 

dent internships, which employed a total of 5,334 students in 1999. This 

increase of more than 26 percent from the prior year. Of the students emp

percent were African American; 10.4 percent, Hispanic; 4.0 percent, Asia

percent, American Indian or Alaska Native. Also included in this group w

students with disabilities. 

Office of Procurement, Property, and Emergency Prep

The Office of Procurement, Property, and Emergency Preparedness (

provides leadership and policy guidance concerning procurement, proper

ment, energy conservation, disaster management, and coordination of em

grams. OPPEP also promotes and establishes USDA policy for alternativ

vehicles, and the purchase of biobased, environmentally preferable, and r

products.

OPPEP is working to simplify and reduce the cost of procurement, a

improve access to information about procurement and property managem

for businesses and other members of the public. The cost of procurement 

reduced by expanding the use of commercial credit cards (purchase cards

Purchase Card Management System to make small purchases. At the end 

over 19,000 purchase cards had been issued to qualified holders througho

OPPEP also introduced a Fleet Card Program so that cardholders may pu

and service for government vehicles. Over 42,000 fleet cards were issued 

OPPEP posts USDA procurement and property management policy and p

on the Departmental Administration web site (www.usda.gov/da.html). B

interested in selling to USDA can view “Doing Business with USDA” at 

OPPEP also posts information about disaster relief at this web site.

In October 1998, USDA published in the Federal Register Uniform P

for the Acquisition and Transfer of Excess Personal Property, in accordan

provisions of Section 923 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and R

of 1996. As of June 1999, OPPEP transferred excess personal property w

million to 1994 institutions (tribal), 1890 institutions, and Hispanic-servi

institutions.
66

Inspector

General

Chief Financial

Officer

Chief Information

Officer

Under Secretary for

Rural Development

Assistant Secretary 

for Congressional 

Relations

Under Secretary for

Farm and Foreign 

Agricultural Services

S

De

Under Secretary for

Natural Resources 

and Environment

Forest Service

Natural Resources

Conservation Service

Farm Service Agency

Foreign Agricultural 

Service

Risk Management 

Agency

Rural Utilities Service

Rural Housing Service

Rural Business

Cooperative Service

Office of Congressional

and Intergovernmental

Relations
General

Counsel

utive

ations

Director of

Communications

r Secretary for

Nutrition, and 

umer Services

Under S

for Mark

Regulat

nt Secretary 

ministration

November 1998

Under Secretary for

Research, Education,

and Economics

Under Secretary 

for Food Safety

d Nutrition Sevice

or Nutrition

d Promotion

Food Safety and 

Inspection Service

Agricultural Research Service

Cooperative State 

Research, Education 

and Extension Service

Economic Research Service

National Agricultural

Statistics Service

Agricultural 

Animal and 

Inspection S

Grain Inspe

and Stockya

Administrat

s

sources 

ent

ent and Property

ent

Disadvantaged

Utilization

s

tive Support

tive Law Judges

ficer

ontract Appeals
68

1Full-time equivalent (FTE). For example, two half-time employees would count as one FTE.

Number of

Year USDA employees

1948 60,815

1949 63,063

1950 67,560

1951 66,150

1952 62,825

1953 62,492

1954 63,309

1955 64,191

1956 69,423

1957 74,215

1958 77,264

1959 79,998

1960 81,585

1961 85,238

1962 89,168

1963 94,527

1964 94,781

1965 94,548

1966 98,688

1967 102,175

1968 105,628

1969 101,848

1970 100,860

1971 102,698

1972 104,540

1973 104,104

1974 1

1975 1

1976 1

1977 1

1978 1

1979 1

1980 1

1981 1

1982 1

1983 1

1984 1

1985 1

1986 1

1987 1

1988 1

1989 1

1990 1

1991 1

1992 1

1993 1

1994 1

1995 1

1996 1

1997 

1998 

1999 

Nu

Year USDA emp
Montana 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

New Hampshire 

New Jersey 

New Mexico 

New York 

North Carolina 

North Dakota 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina 

South Dakota 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virginia 

Washington 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 

Number of

State employees*

Alabama 1,140

Alaska 851

Arizona 1,605

Arkansas 1,815

California 7,162

Colorado 2,531

Connecticut 157

Delaware 208

District of Columbia 6,559

Florida 1,629

Georgia 2,357

Hawaii 429

Idaho 2,524

Illinois 1,513

Indiana 733

Iowa 1,840

Kansas 1,068

Kentucky 1,085

Louisiana 2,867

Maine 240

Maryland 3,008

Massachusetts 336

Michigan 1,105

Minnesota 1,600

Mississippi 1,881

Missouri 3,905

Number of

Territory employees*

American Samoa 6

Commonwealth of 

Northern Mariana Islands 5

Guam 33

State 

Territory 

Marshall Islands 

Puerto Rico 

Trust Territories of the Pacifi

U.S. Virgin Islands 
70

Number of

Country employees*

Argentina 3

Australia 3

Austria 6

Bahamas 1

Belgium 6

Bermuda 1

Brazil 5

Bulgaria 1

Canada 3

Chile 3

China 7

Columbia 1

Costa Rica 4

Dominican Republic 2

Egypt 2

Ethiopia 1

Federated States of Micronesia 10

France 7

Germany 4

Guatemala 5

Haiti 1 

Hong Kong 2

India 1

Indonesia 2 

Italy 4

Ivory Coast 1

Jamaica 2

Japan 10

Kenya 2

Malaysia 

Mexico 

Morocco 

Netherlands 

New Zealand 

Nicaragua 

Nigeria 

Pakistan 

Panama 

Peru 

Philippines 

Poland 

Republic of Korea 

Republic of Palau 

Russia 

Saudi Arabia 

Singapore 

South Africa 

Spain 

Sweden 

Switzerland 

Thailand 

Turkey 

Ukraine 

United Arab Emirates 

United Kingdom 

Venezuela 

Vietnam 

*Permanent, full-time employees.

Nu

Country emp

■ In 1999, USDA had nearly 1,000 employees with targeted disabili

in permanent full-time positions.
Black males

4.1%

Asian American males 1.4% 

Native American males 1.5%

Black females

6.6%

Wh

48.

White females

30.6%

Hispanic males

3.4%

Hispanic females

1.9%

Asian American females .9% 

Native American females 1.0

Office of Operations

Mail

Smokey Bear receives more mail than any individual in the Departm

year, USDA receives over 180 million pieces of mail, and at the Washing

headquarters alone, over 21 million pieces of mail are handled each year—

average of about 84,000 pieces of mail processed each workday. 

The headquarters mail operation is an active employer of people wit

ties. Over one-third of its employees are people with disabilities. Workin

with private and public placement organizations, the division has succeed

ing these employees into the work force. In recognition of its success in h

disabled, the division has received numerous government and private-sec

The mail center is one of USDA’s reinvention laboratories supportin

President Gore’s National Performance Review, in which the Departmen

an active role. One advance is the implementation of computer-assisted m

systems, which will improve efficiency and reduce by at least five the num

employees needed for this staff. Also, USDA is taking the lead in develop

mentwide mail management initiatives that are projected to save over $2 
72

is designed to provide modern, safe, and efficient office space for USDA emp

in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. The George Washington Carver Ce

in Beltsville, Maryland, was completed last year. This 350,000-square-foot m

office complex provides space for over 1,100 employees. Much of the day-to-

building operation is done by Mellwood, a community rehabilitation, nonprofi

nization that provides employment opportunities for persons with severe disab

The George Washington Carver Center includes a telework center. The ce

will provide 31 work stations for USDA employees under the flexiplace conc

for short-term (3 months or less) task forces involving employees who are on 

rary duty assignments in the metro area.

In addition, the first phase of the modernization of the 1.3 million-square

USDA South Building is well underway. This nearly 70-year-old building is m

need of renovation. When finished, this project coupled with the George Wash

Carver Center will enable USDA agencies in the metro area to move out of m

expensive leased space into modern and efficient USDA-managed space.

Print on Demand

The Office of Operations’ Consolidated Forms and Publications Distribut

Center (CFPDC) and the Mail and Reproduction Division are currently offeri

Print on Demand services to all user agencies.

Print on Demand is state-of-the-art technology and the wave of the future 

modern warehousing and forms management programs. Substantial cost savin

printing and storage costs can be accrued to agencies by utilizing this service. 

sheets, non-carbon and double-sided forms, pamphlets, and many other printe

no longer need to be stored for future use. Instead, these items are scanned or 

wise inputed onto small optical storage discs, and then hard copies are produc

needed and only in the quantity needed to fill a specific order.

To date, CFPDC has reduced its cut-sheet inventory items by over 10 per

anticipates that Print on Demand technology will enable further reductions of 

30 percent.

Computers for Learning

The Office of Operations’ Centralized Excess Property Operation (CEPO

active participant in Vice President Gore’s Computers for Learning Initiative. 

collects excess/surplus computer equipment from USDA and 17 other Federa

cies in the Washington metropolitan area. Initially, the equipment is offered fo

by other agricultural agencies. Computer equipment not needed by agencies i

and, if possible, repaired.

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) p

departmentwide leadership and oversight for implementing and executing Sm

Business Programs prescribed under Sections 8 and 15 of the Small Business 

1958, as amended. It also has implementation responsibilities for Executive O
OSDBU develops policy to enhance the utilization of small, minority

women-owned small businesses in the contract and program opportunitie

It analyzes procurement trends and develops initiatives to improve contra

small, minority, and women-owned small businesses. It provides outreac

awareness and solicit small business interest in USDA programs, and it m

reports the percentage of contract awards by USDA to small, minority, an

owned businesses.

OSDBU’s goal is to provide information, guidance, and technical as

to ensure continuous growth in the rate of small business participation in 

programs and procurements.

If you are interested in business opportunities with the Department o

Agriculture, visit our web site at www.usda.gov/da/smallbus.html or call 

(202) 720-7117 for more details.

Office of Ethics

The Office of Ethics was created in 1998 to direct and coordinate the 

programs within the various mission areas of the Department and to serv

quarters staff directly. The Office develops departmentwide policies and r

provides training to USDA staff on the various rules governing employee 

conflicts of interest, and political activity; administers personal financial 

reporting by senior staff; and counsels employees on these matters. Over 

year, the Office has invested heavily in Internet technology to provide on

modules for USDA staff stationed all over the world, and was the first Fe

agency to offer disclosure reporting through a secure online, web-based s

In addition to USDA staff, employees from other Federal agencies and th

have accessed the ethics web site located at www.usda.gov/ethics

Office of Outreach

The Office of Outreach provides overall leadership and coordination 

that all potential customers have full access to all USDA programs and se

In conjunction with other USDA agencies, special emphasis is directed to

underserved populations. The Office administers the Outreach for Sociall

Disadvantaged Farmers Program, authorized by Section 2501 of the Food

Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990.

■ Office of the Chief Economist

The Office of the Chief Economist advises the Secretary of Agriculturand programs affecting U.S. agriculture and rural areas. This advice 

assessments of USDA program proposals, legislative proposals, and econ

opments of importance to agriculture and rural areas. In addition, the Offi

Chief Economist is responsible for several programs, described below, th

nate activities across USDA agencies.
74

World Agricultural Outlook Board

The World Agricultural Outlook Board is USDA’s focal point for forecas

projections of global commodity markets. Each month the Board brings toget

interagency committees of experts to forecast the supply, use, and prices of m

commodities in the United States and abroad. The committees also clear agric

forecasts published by other USDA agencies. This teamwork ensures that US

forecasts are objective and consistent.

Because the weather is vital to crop forecasts, specialists from the Board 

side by side with weather forecasters from the National Oceanic and Atmosph

Administration to monitor the weather and assess its effect on crops. Their wo

vides timely information on potential changes in global production.

The Board also coordinates departmentwide activity on long-term econom

jections, remote sensing, and climate. The Department is one of the largest us

remote sensing in the Federal Government. The Board coordinates remote sen

activities at USDA and chairs the Department’s Remote Sensing Coordination

Committee. The Board also hosts the Department’s Chief Meteorologist, who 

as the principle spokesperson on weather and climate issues and chairs a depa

tal weather and climate coordinating committee.

The World Wide Web address for the World Agricultural Outlook Board i

http://www.usda.gov/oce/waob/index.htm

Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis

This office is responsible for coordinating, reviewing, and approving all r

assessments and cost-benefit analyses of mitigation measures associated with 

regulations of the Department. Major regulations are economically significan

an impact of at least $100 million each year) and have a primary effect on hum

health, human safety, or the environment. The office provides direction to US

agencies on appropriate methods for these analyses and serves as a focal poin

matters relating to risk assessment in interagency reviews.

The World Wide Web address for the Office of Risk Assessment and 

Cost-Benefit Analysis is http://www.usda.gov/oce/oracba/index.htm

Agricultural Labor Affairs

The coordinator of agricultural labor affairs is responsible for coordinatin

USDA’s agricultural labor policy. Areas of concern include immigration, the H

Temporary Agricultural Worker Program, worker protection standards for pes

use, farm labor supply, and agricultural employment issues.

The World Wide Web address for this office is http://www.usda.gov/oce/oc

affairs/affairs.htm
sustainable development into the Departments policies and programs, en

economic, social, and environmental considerations are balanced in decis

The director also directs and coordinates the Department’s domestic and 

policies and programs in sustainable development, including sustainable 

forestry, and rural communities.

The World Wide Web address for this office is http://www.usda.gov/o

index.htm

Global Change Program Office

Global climate change, whether from natural causes or human activi

have important consequences for farming, forestry, and rural areas. The G

Change Program Office functions as the USDA-wide coordinator of glob

program and policy issues facing the Department. The Office coordinates 

with other agencies, interacts with the legislative branch on climate chan

and represents USDA in international climate change discussions. It also 

of objective assessment of the economic effects of climate change and pr

mitigation strategies on agriculture and forestry.

The World Wide Web address for this office is http://www.usda.gov/o

gcpo/index.htm

Office of Energy Policy and New Uses

The Office of Energy Policy and New Uses assists with development 

mental energy policy and coordination of departmental energy programs 

gies. The Office provides economic analysis on energy policy issues, coo

USDA energy-related activities within and outside the Department, and s

feasibility of new uses of agricultural products.

The World Wide Web address for this office is http://www.usda.gov/o

index.htm

■ Office of Inspector General

USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), the first civilian OIG in thGovernment, was established in 1962 and became fully operational 

OIG conducts and supervises audits and evaluations, as well as investigat

enforcement efforts relating to USDA’s programs and operations. It provi

ship and coordination and recommends policies for activities that will pre

detect fraud and abuse and promote economy, efficiency, and effectivene

programs and operations. Furthermore, OIG keeps the Secretary and Con

informed of problems and deficiencies related to administration of USDA 

and operations, and of the actions designed to correct such problems and 
76

ies, and penalties. Management agreed to put an additional $114 million to be

and recover more than $55 million. Investigative efforts resulted in 782 indict

and 560 convictions.

OIG continued work on three Presidential initiatives to improve the effici

three USDA programs. A nationwide cooperative effort by OIG and the Rural

Housing Service identified over $4.3 million in misused funds at Rural Renta

Housing apartment complexes operated by 20 owners and management agent

cases are under investigation. Schemes included double-charging apartment c

plexes for management-related expenses and charging apartment complexes f

sonal expenses of the owner or management agent. In addition, 145 apartmen

complexes had serious physical deterioration, 215 needed minor repairs, and 

conditions that posed a health and safety hazard to tenants.

Operation “Kiddie Care” is still finding a high level of fraud in the Child 

Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). The 22 sponsoring organizations termin

from the program had been receiving $45.4 million in program funds annually

Ohio case, 11 persons have been implicated in a conspiracy to illegally obtain 

than $1.1 million in CACFP funds. Nine of the individuals have been indicted

seven have pled guilty and have been sentenced to as much as 2 years 9 month

incarceration and restitution of $790,000.

Operation Talon was designed and implemented by OIG to locate and ap

fugitives, many of them violent offenders, who are current or former food stam

recipients, and was made possible by legislative changes in welfare reform. T

nationwide initiative has been expanded to include a total of 42 metropolitan 

23 States, and the total number of arrests through Operation Talon has climbe

about 5,600, as a result of joint OIG/State and local law enforcement operatio

fugitives arrested during Operation Talon have included dangerous felons wan

murder, child molestation, rape, and kidnapping, and over one-third of those a

were sought in connection with violent crimes or illegal drug activity.

■ Office of the Chief Information Officer

The Chief Information Officer is the Department’s senior information techofficial. The Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) supports pro

delivery in USDA by planning, directing, and coordinating the Department’s 

mation and technology resources.

In accordance with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 and similar legislation

lations, and executive orders, OCIO provides long-range-planning guidance, r

all major technology investments to ensure that they are economical and effec

coordinates interagency Information Resources Management projects, and pr

information exchange and technical interoperability.

OCIO also provides telecommunications and automated data processing 

services to USDA agencies through its Telecommunications Services and Ope
of the Secretary, Office of the General Counsel, Office of Communication

the Chief Financial Officer, and Executive Operations.

OCIO has oversight responsibilities for the Service Center Moderniz

Initiative (SCMI), which is the cornerstone of the overall reorganization a

modernization effort of the Department. The ultimate goal of the SCMI i

an environment of one-stop, quality service for customers of the Farm Se

Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Rural Deve

mission area agencies. 

■ Office of the Chief Financial Officer

The Chief Financial Officer has responsibility for oversight of all finanmanagement activities relating to USDA programs and operations. T

of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) directs, manages, provides policy 

and coordinates financial management activities and operations. It ensure

ance throughout the Department with applicable accounting standards an

and ensures adequate controls over asset management, including cash ma

operations, real property, equipment, and inventories. Through partnershi

provides financial management leadership and service to support quality 

delivery in the Department.

OCFO is responsible for developing and maintaining an integrated d

accounting and financial management system which provides complete, r

consistent, and timely financial information that is responsive to the need

managers. OCFO is also responsible for ensuring auditable financial state

OCFO operates the largest automated administrative servicing opera

Federal Government—the National Finance Center (NFC) in New Orlean

NFC processes salary and benefit payments for nearly 450,000 Federal e

performs administrative services for more than 100 Federal departments 

cies, and acts as recordkeeper for the Federal Government’s Thrift Saving

(TSP). The TSP currently services an $88 billion account for 2.5 million 

employees and retiree members. 

■ Office of Congressional and Intergovernme

Relations

Office of Congressional Relations

USDA’s Office of Congressional Relations serves as the Department

liaison with Members of Congress and their staffs, providing information 

Department’s legislative agenda, budget proposals, programs, and policie
Governors and State Commissioners of Agriculture, and other State and local 

officials, on various issues relating to their States. OIA is responsible for disse

ing information on programs involving the implementation of USDA policies 

procedures applicable to the Department’s intergovernmental relations. 

OIA participates with the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and the Assistant

Secretary for Congressional Relations in the overall planning, formulation, an

direction of the activities of the office relating to intergovernmental affairs. O

serves as the USDA liaison with the White House and other executive branch

agencies and departments with respect to intergovernmental affairs.

American Indian and Alaska Native Programs

The Director of Native American Programs, located in the Office of

Intergovernmental Affairs, is USDA’s primary contact with tribal government

their members. The director serves as the principal adviser and representative 

matters related to USDA policy and programs which affect and are available t

American Indians and Alaska Natives. The director also chairs USDA’s Nativ

American Working Group, which reports to the Secretary and provides advice

port, and other assistance to the director. In 1992, USDA adopted an America

and Alaska Native policy which guides USDA’s interactions with Indian tribe

USDA provides a wide range of programs and services in all mission are

American Indian and Alaska Native communities. In recent years, the Departm

has reached out to inform American Indians and Alaska Natives about USDA 

grams and services available to them, to deliver programs more effectively to 

tribes, and to initiate new programs in response to the needs of Indian tribes. I

October 1997, USDA published a Guide to USDA Programs for American Ind

and Alaska Natives to improve tribal communities’ access to USDA programs

The guide is also available on the USDA home page at the following address:

www.usda.gov/news/pubs/indians/open.htm

■ National Appeals Division

The National Appeals Division was established in 1994 to conduct impartiadministrative appeal hearings and reviews of adverse program decisions 

by officers, employees, or committees of designated agencies of the Departme

Agriculture. 

The World Wide Web address for the division is: www.nad.usda.gov

78
The USDA Community Food Security Initiative is seeking to cut hungAmerica in half by the year 2015. This initiative is creating and expa

roots partnerships that build local food systems and reduce hunger. USDA 

with States, municipalities, nonprofit groups, and the private sector to str

local food systems by replicating best practices of existing efforts and by 

new community commitments to fight hunger.

Goals

Create new and enhance existing local infrastructures to reduce hung

insecurity.

Increase economic and job security by helping low-income people to 

living wage jobs and attain self-sufficiency.

Bolster food and nutrition assistance by strengthening the Federal nu

safety net and by increasing the amount of supplemental foods provided 

groups.

Improve community food production and marketing by aiding projec

process, and distribute food locally.

Boost education and awareness by increasing efforts to inform the pu

nutrition, food safety, and food security.

Improve research, monitoring, and evaluation efforts to help commu

and strengthen food security.

Methods

Catalyze the development of new partnerships on the local, State, an

levels to help communities reduce hunger.

Improve the coordination between existing USDA programs–such as 

assistance programs, community food grants, ongoing research, farmers’ 

and food recovery projects–and related Federal, State, and community in

Expand technical assistance to States, communities, and nonprofit gr

build long-term local structures to increase food security.

Increase public awareness of the causes of food insecurity and highli

innovative community solutions to hunger.
80

Departmental

Administration

Freedom of Info Act Liaison

Evelyn M. Davis

Rm 0612-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7765

FAX 202-690-4728

Civil Rights Freedom of Information

M. Farook Sait

Rm 334-W

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7569

FAX 202-205-2891

National Appeals Division

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Larry Shrum

Park Office Center

Rm 1113

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-1164

FAX 703-305-2825

lshrum@usda.gov

Office of Budget and

Program Analysis

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Jacquelyn Chandler

Rm 118-E

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-1272

FAX 202-690-3673

jyc@obpa.usda.gov

Office of the Chief

Economist

Public Information Officer

Raymond L. Bridge

Rm 5143-S

Washington, DC 20250-3812

202-720-5447

FAX 202-690-1805

rbridge@oce.usda.gov

Agricultural Labor Affairs

Al French

Rm 112-A

Washington, DC 20250-3810

202-720-4737

FAX 202-690-4915

al.french@usda.gov

World Agricultural Outlook Boar

Public Information Officer

Raymond L. Bridge

Rm 5143-S

Washington, DC 20250-3812

202-720-5447

FAX 202-690-1805

rbridge@oce.usda.gov

Chief Meteorologist

(Vacant)

Rm 5143-S

Washington, DC 20250-3812

202-720-8651

FAX 202-720-4043

Office of Risk Assessment 

and Cost-Benefit Analysis

Alwynelle (Nell) Ahl

Rm 5248-S

Washington, D.C. 20250-3811

202-720-8022

FAX 202-720-1815

aahl@oce.usda.gov

Global Change Program Office

Jim Hrubovcak

Rm 112-A

Washington, DC 20250-3814

202-720-6699

FAX 202-401-1176

jhrubovcak@oce.usda.gov

Sustainable Development

Adela Backiel

Rm 112-A

Washington, DC 20250-3810

202-720-2456

FAX 202-690-4915

adela.backiel@usda.gov

Office of Energy Policy and New U

James Duffield

Rm 112-A

Washington, DC 20250-3815

202-401-0523

FAX 202-401-0533

jduffield@oce.usda.gov
Officer

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Gary Barber

Rm 4088-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-1221

FAX 202-690-2568

gbarber@usda.cfo.gov

Office of Chief Information

Officer

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Howard Baker

Rm 404-W

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8657

FAX 202-205-2831

howard.baker@usda.gov

Office of the General

Counsel

Freedom of Info Act Attorney

Kenneth Cohen

Rm 1547-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-5565

FAX 202-720-5837

Director, Info Mgmt Div

Sharon Friend

Rm 9-E

Washington, DC 20250-2309

202-720-6915

FAX 202-690-6305

sjfriend@oig.usda.gov

Chief, Policy Dev & Info

Nancy Bartel

Rm 9-E

Washington, DC 20250-2309

202-720-5677

FAX 202-690-6305

nabartel@oig.usda.gov

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Carol Martin

Rm 29-E

Washington, DC 20250-2309

202-720-5677

FAX 202-690-6305

cjmartin@oig.usda.gov

USDA Community Fo

Security Initiative

Coordinator

Joel Berg

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-5746 Rm 536-A

FAX 202-690-1131

joel.berg@usda.gov
82

ppy 

Americans

Helping the people of rural America develop sustainable communities andimprove their quality of life is the goal of USDA’s Rural Development m

area. USDA believes rural Americans have a right to the same quality of life a

enjoyed by people who live in suburban and urban areas.

USDA Rural Development is working to eliminate substandard housing f

rural America by helping rural people buy, build, repair, or rent decent housin

It also creates jobs by providing funding and technical assistance to support th

growth and creation of rural businesses and cooperatives. In a typical year, Ru

Development programs create or preserve more than 150,000 rural jobs, enab

60,000 to 70,000 rural Americans to buy homes, and help over 450,000 low-in

rural people rent apartments or other housing.

Other Rural Development programs help rural communities build or imp

community facilities, such as schools, health clinics and fire stations. Rural

Development also has programs that help rural communities build or extend 

utilities, including water, electricity, and telecommunications services.

Program assistance is provided in many ways, including direct or guaran

loans, grants, technical assistance, research and educational materials. To acc

its mission, USDA Rural Development often works in partnership with State, 

and tribal governments, as well as rural businesses, cooperatives, and nonprofi

agencies.

USDA Rural Development programs are delivered through its three agen

Rural Utilities Service (RUS), Rural Housing Service (RHS), and Rural Busin

Cooperative Service (RBS). RUS addresses rural America’s need for basic ser

such as clean running water, sewers and waste disposal, electricity, and teleco

cations. RHS addresses rural America’s need for single-family and multi-fam

housing as well as health facilities, fire and police stations, and other commun

facilities. RBS provides help to rural areas that need to develop new job oppo

ties, allowing businesses and cooperatives to remain viable in a changing econ

The Office of Community Development, a branch of Rural Development, is w

with these three agencies to improve the economy and living conditions in the

Nation’s rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities.

In addition, the Federal Government is seeking to form partnerships with 

other entities— such as State, local, and tribal governments; private and nonp

organizations; and member- owned cooperatives—to revitalize rural areas. Ru

Development programs are provided across the Nation through 47 State office

and 800 field offices. 
The following examples illustrate how USDA Rural Development is wserve rural citizens and bolster the quality of life in rural communitie

■ Earth Day, April 22, 1999. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickma

investments of over $150 million of USDA funds to improve 82 w

tems in 44 States and Puerto Rico. USDA Rural Development W

Wastewater Program funds were leveraged with funds from oth

excess of $50 million for an effort totaling over $200 million.

As part of this national initiative, in Lapel, IN, Rural Developm

a $2.76 million low-interest loan to make major wastewater syste

ments. The check was presented at an Earth Day celebration at th

mentary school. Upon receipt of the check, the 500 school kids sa

Birthday to You Dear Earth,” and “We Have the Whole World in o

The Rural Development funds are making infrastructure impro

two phases. In the first phase, existing sewer lines will be rehabili

lines will be built, and some existing sewer lines will be converted 

water lines. This will eliminate the leakage of ground water into t

system that overwhelms the treatment plant. Nearly 800 users in L

benefit by this community project. The day’s events were organiz

the theme of “Get the Eeek Out of Stoney Creek,” referring to the 

there have been health concerns due to the high bacteria levels me

nearby Stoney Creek. 

Since 1940, USDA programs have loaned over $15 billion for 

ing water and sanitary sewer systems in rural America. The loan p

boasts a loan payback rate of 99.9 percent.

■ Rural Development presented a $75,000 check to the directors of 

Citizens Fire Group, Inc., in Missouri. This Community Facilitie

funding presented a loan to the not-for-profit corporation in the am

$55,000 and a grant of $20,000.

The loan funds were used to purchase a pumper tanker truck a

funds will be used to upgrade and replace fire fighting equipment 

firefighters of the Irondale Fire Protection District. Outdated com

equipment will also be replaced with state-of-the-art equipment.

When the fire district was formed in 1996, its directors immed

working to improve the fire fighting equipment, hoping to reduce 

fire insurance rates. The ultimate goal is to improve the effectiven

fire district and provide quality fire protection for citizens.

■ The loss of businesses has forced many local communities to dive

economies and encourage existing small businesses to expand and 

employment opportunities. In Ironwood, MI, a community of app

7,500 residents, Extreme Tool and Engineering, Inc., is an examp

pany that has greatly benefited from USDA’s Rural Developmen

and Industry Guarantee Loan Program. Global Tool and Engi
For its employees, the loss of employment would force the skilled w

to relocate in order to support their families. Knowing they had the ex

and ability to be competitive in the world marketplace, four of its emp

purchased the facility from the parent company and created Extreme T

Engineering, Inc. Since purchasing the company, they have been able 

sity and expand their customer base and product line. With the assistan

their lender and USDA Rural Development, they have successfully es

lished themselves in a competitive market and saved jobs, as well as a

new jobs, in an area desperately in need of them.

The following overviews describe the three Rural Development agencies 

their main programs.

■ Rural Business-Cooperative Service 

Creation of viable new and improved businesses and cooperatives in ruralAmerica is the top priority of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (R

This agency works through partnerships with public and private community-b

organizations to provide financial assistance, business planning, and technical 

tance to rural businesses. It also conducts research into rural economic issues

ing rural cooperatives, and provides educational material to the public.

Business and Industry (B&I) Loan Guarantees help to finance rural bu

and industry projects that create employment opportunities and improve the e

nomic and environmental climate in rural communities, including pollution ab

ment and control. Loan guarantees are made for projects that foster sustained

community benefits and open private credit markets. Priority for B&I loan gu

is given to applications for loans from rural areas or cities of 25,000 or less, w

loans limited to areas that are not located within the outer boundary of a city h

population of 50,000 or more and the immediately adjacent urbanized area. L

limited to $25 million for any one borrower.

Under the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program, the Cooperative Stock Purch

Authority provides financial assistance for the purchase of startup cooperativ

for family-sized farms where the commodities are produced to be processed b

cooperative.

Direct Business and Industry (B&I) Loans are made to public, private,

and cooperative organizations, Indian tribes or tribal groups, corporate entitie

or individuals to finance businesses within economically deprived communiti

The program provides economic stimulus which helps rural areas in greatest n

Intermediary Relending Program Loans finance business facilities and

community development projects in rural areas, including cities of less than 2

Loans to intermediaries support the establishment of new business facilities a

community development projects in rural areas.

84
and other reasonable project expenses. The maximum amount of a grant 

while the maximum amount of a loan is $450,000. Loans have a maximu

years and are repaid without interest. These loans and grants are available 

RUS electric and telecommunications borrowers.

Rural Business Enterprise Grants help public bodies, nonprofit co

and federally recognized Indian tribal groups finance and develop small a

ing private business enterprises located in rural areas. Grants may be used 

and develop land and to construct buildings, plants, equipment, access str

roads, parking areas, and utility and service extensions. In addition, fund

used for refinancing, fees for professional services, technical assistance, 

and working capital, financial assistance to a third party, production of te

programs targeted to rural residents, and rural distance-learning networks

Rural Cooperative Development Grants finance the establishment 

operation of centers for cooperative development. The program enhances 

economy of rural areas by developing new cooperatives and fostering im

operations for existing co-ops.

The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program p

information to farmers and other rural users on a variety of sustainable ag

practices, including crop and livestock operations. It helps agriculture by 

reliable, practical information on production techniques and practices tha

costs and that are friendly to the environment.

The National Sheep Industry Improvement Center promotes strat

development activities to strengthen and enhance production and marketi

sheep, goats, and their products in the United States. The center, which h

of directors to oversee its activities, operates a revolving fund for loans an

The Research on Rural Cooperative Opportunities and Problem

provides funding for cooperative research agreements with universities, S

agencies, and nonprofit associations. Information and research findings fr

projects are published by the institution or by USDA Rural Development

Cooperative Services helps improve the performance of the Nation

tives and promotes understanding and use of the cooperative form of bus

working together for their mutual benefit in cooperatives, rural residents 

able to reduce costs for production supplies and consumer goods, obtain 

might otherwise be unavailable, and achieve greater returns for their prod

Cooperative Services accomplishes its mission by (1) responding to requ

nical assistance from rural residents who want to organize a cooperative o

operations of an existing cooperative; (2) providing information and educ

materials relating to cooperatives; (3) conducting research on cooperative 

structural, managerial, policy, member governance, legal, and social issu

collecting and disseminating statistics to support research and technical a

work.

Rural Business Opportunity Grants can be made to provide techn

tance training and planning for business and economic development in ru
and controlled by the people who use them. Coops help rural people maintai

trol of local resources and improve their standard of living. In the United Stat

are an estimated 40,000 cooperatives that do everything from helping farmers 

and process their crops to providing electricity and credit services.

Cooperatives are organized by people who want to: (a) improve their barg

power, (b) reduce their costs for goods or services, (c) obtain products or serv

otherwise unavailable to them, (d) expand their marketing opportunities, (e) im

their product service or quality, or( f) increase their income.

For 65 years, USDA has been providing ideas and leadership to the coop

community through its prize-winning magazine, “Rural Cooperatives,” publis

bimonthly. Each issue carries news, features, and columns that report on issue

impacting cooperatives and highlighting successful co-op practices. USDA R

Development also provides the public with more than 100 publications and vi

about cooperatives—ranging from “How to Start a Cooperative” to “Tax Trea

for Cooperatives.” To order a free publication and video catalog or to request 

magazine subscription order form, call (202) 720-8381.

■ Rural Housing Service

Decent, safe, sanitary, affordable housing and essential community facilitieindispensable to vibrant rural communities. USDA’s Rural Housing Serv

(RHS) has the responsibility to make these essential elements available to rur

Americans. RHS programs help finance new or improved housing for more th

60,000 moderate- or low-income families each year. These programs also hel

communities finance construction, enlargement, or improvement of fire statio

libraries, hospitals, medical clinics, day care centers, industrial parks, and oth

essential community facilities.

Home Ownership Loans provide assistance to low-income households i

rural communities, helping them to purchase, construct, repair, or relocate a h

Borrowers are offered 33-year direct loans at fixed interest rates with annual s

to bring the effective interest rate to as low as 1 percent, depending on the fam

adjusted income. Moderate-income rural residents can be assisted with loan g

tees offered through private lenders at terms up to 30 years. The loans, both d

guaranteed, can cover up to 100 percent of market value or acquisition cost,

whichever is less.

Home Improvement and Repair Loans and Grants enable very low-in

rural homeowners to remove health and safety hazards from their homes and 

homes accessible for people with disabilities. Loans have a maximum interes

of 1 percent. Grants are available for people age 62 and older who cannot affo

repay a loan. A combination of funds from a loan and grant can be used by eli

elderly residents. Housing preservation grants are made to nonprofit groups a

government agencies to finance rehabilitation of rental units for low-income

residents. 

86
sons. Loans have a maximum term of 30 years, can equal up to 100 perce

appraised value or development cost, whichever is less, and can be used t

new housing or to purchase or rehabilitate existing structures. In addition 

lending program, USDA offers loan guarantees to extend the reach of Fe

resources to some lower income working families and elderly individuals

Rental Assistance payments subsidize rent costs to ensure that low-in

tenants will pay no more than 30 percent of their income for rent.

Community Facilities Loans, Loan Guarantees, and Grants finance t

tion, enlargement, extension, or other improvements for community facil

providing essential services in rural areas and towns with a population of 

or less. Funds are available to public entities such as municipalities, coun

special-purpose districts, Indian tribes, and nonprofit corporations.

Housing for Farm Workers

Farm workers are among the most poorly housed and lowest paid wo

United States. RHS provides housing for migrant and farm laborers throu

programs. The Farm Labor Housing program provides loans to public or 

agencies or to farmers to enable them to build farm labor housing. In Stat

California, many farm laborers are able to build their own homes through 

Self-Help Housing Program.

Outreach to Native Americans

The Rural Housing Service is reaching out to better inform Native A

our programs and working to overcome barriers to lending on tribal land

Single Family Housing direct loans and grants worth $13 million were m

or to repair homes for Native Americans, including $1.9 million, to build 

mately 31 single family houses on tribal lands. An additional $44.2 millio

teed another 390 housing loans made to Native Americans by private sec

Loans and grants made through the Housing Repair program totaled over 

and repaired 365 dwellings.

In FY 1998, the Community Facilities program made 16 loans and g

federally recognized Indian tribes, for a total of $5.2 million. These range

a $29,000 grant to the Band of Nor-El-Muk in California for a city hall to 

million loan guarantee to the Chitimacha Tribe in Louisiana for building 

living complex. Six other loans and grants for almost $10 million were m

facilities that primarily will serve Native Americans.

In 6 States, we used $10.4 million of Multi-Family Housing funds in 

to build 9 rental housing complexes containing 197 apartments on Native 

reservations or in communities where most tenants will be Native Americ

$900,000 in housing preservation grants was provided to nonprofits or tri

9 States for repair of 170 deteriorating single- or multi-family units that h

low-income Native American families.
Building Partnerships

Partnerships with the private and nonprofit sectors form the foundation o

RHS programs. For example, our private, nonprofit partners operate USDA-fu

multi-family housing complexes, looking after the needs of the tenants and m

ing the properties. Partners deliver USDA Community Facilities, Multi-Famil

Single Family Guaranteed Loan programs. They provide funds to leverage ou

and help us serve more people. They provide valuable services, such as loan

packaging and homebuyer education and outreach. As Federal human and mo

resources shrink, these partnerships will become even more crucial to our dai

operations. Therefore, we are actively reaching out to organizations whose go

missions complement ours. This section describes a number of different types 

nerships found in our programs, from homeownership to child care, and mult

housing managers to leveraging.

Guaranteed Loan Programs

Some of our most important partnerships are created through our loan guar

RHS has loan guarantee programs in the Single Family, Rural Rental Housing

and Community Facilities programs. This type of loan is a collaboration with 

lenders by which the lender funds the loan and RHS issues a guarantee for up 

percent of the amount of the loan. With the assurance of RHS behind them to 

them in case of default, banks are more confident and willing to extend eligib

a wider range of customers. For example, a prospective homeowner unable to 

downpayment could still buy a home because he or she could borrow the full 

using a lender backed by a USDA guarantee.

President’s National Partnership in Homeownership

The National Partnership in Homeownership is a Presidential initiative w

sets up a partnership between government and the private sector to address ho

ership issues at the local level. The partners work to enhance the relationship 

Federal, State, and local government and the private sector and to expand hom

ership opportunities.

The Rural Home Loan Partnership

The Rural Home Loan Partnership, begun in 1996 under the President’s N

Partnership for Homeownership initiative, saw great success in 1998 as the ho

ownership rate reached an all-time high of over 66 percent nationally and 75.

cent in rural areas. The Partnership, which expanded in 1998, now includes R

Local Initiatives Support Corporation (Rural LISC), the Federal Home Loan B

System, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corpo

(FDIC) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), as well as U

Rural Housing Service.

The partnership delivers a new single-family mortgage product which en

families earning 80 percent of area median income or below to achieve homeo

ship. RHS provides a subsidized mortgage to cover part of the cost of a house

88
community development corporations helps direct resources to needy are

technical assistance, and builds partnerships for other Rural Developmen

In 1998, the Rural Home Loan Partnership made home loans worth $19.8 

($13 million from RHS and $6.8 million from the other partners) to help 

become successful homeowners.

Community Development Financial Institution Partnership

The Community Development Financial Institution Partnership was 

in 1998 between RHS and various community development financial inst

(CDFI’s) throughout the country. The purpose of the partnership is to pro

ownership opportunities to low-income applicants by combining the reso

RHS and CDFI’s.

CDFI’s are specialized private institutions that serve populations wh

tional financial institutions are not serving. They provide a wide range of 

products and services to under-served communities. Some of these servic

mortgage financing for first-time homebuyers and basic financial service

by low-income households. RHS and the CDFI’s have a common goal of 

to build stronger communities through creating healthy local economies, 

communities, generating local tax revenues, and empowering residents b

homeownership. In most cases, other partners are included in the partner

provide homeownership counseling and sometimes additional sources of 

funds.

In 1998, through this partnership, the Rural Housing Service funded 

with $2.5 million in 10 local partnerships. The CDFI’s and other funding 

provided over $1 million to leverage with the RHS funds. Over 65 percen

ilies served had incomes of 50 percent or less of the median income for th

Centralized Service Center Improves Operations

In October 1996, a Centralized Service Center (CSC) in St. Louis, M

to provide automated loan servicing to RHS single-family housing borrow

effort exemplifies the reinvention of Government, intended to make Gove

services work better and cost less. The service greatly expands services to 

while substantially reducing the staff needed to operate the program natio

In its first year of full operation, CSC refined its mortgage servicing 

increase the speed and accuracy of information about borrower accounts. 

are posted on the day they are received, unless legal action is pending. Du

1998, CSC automated much of its pay-off functions. Pay-off quotations a

provided within 2 business days, instead of the 10 days it previously took 

data.

The staff at the CSC have received specialized training to serve custo

effectively. About 60 CSC staff members are fluent in Spanish so that the

the 14 percent of the RHS borrowers who speak Spanish. The CSC’s mon

ments, major letters, and telephone service are provided in both English a

A program specialist fluent in Navajo is available to service the accounts 
Servicing Partnership Team was implemented to provide customers with addi

contact opportunities from Rural Development field offices.

■ Rural Utilities Service 

USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS) programs touch the lives of tens of mof rural Americans daily. Through project financing and technical assista

RUS builds infrastructure to provide rural businesses and households with mo

telecommunications, electricity, and water. Today, this also means bringing th

“information superhighway” to rural America.

The Water 2000 Initiative is an ambitious undertaking to extend safe, de

able drinking water to rural communities. At least 2.2 million rural Americans 

with critical quality and accessibility problems with their drinking water, incl

estimated 730,000 people who have no running water in their homes. Since it 

in 1994, Water 2000 has already improved drinking water quality or provided 

lic water supply for the first time to some 2.5 million people in more than 1,30

communities nationwide.

RUS is a partner with rural business and economic development efforts,

providing infrastructure that is the foundation for competitiveness. It is a tech

and financial resource in a time of change for rural utilities.

Rural Telecommunications Loans and Loan Guarantees build modern 

communications systems that provide rural areas with “on ramps” to the infor

superhighway by making financing available for telecommunications facilitie

made to rural telephone cooperatives and companies help bring reliable and a

able telecommunications services to more than 15 million rural Americans.

Rural Electric Loans and Loan Guarantees provide reliable, safe, and 

able electricity to rural America by financing power distribution, generation, a

transmission systems. Loans are made to nonprofit and cooperative associatio

public bodies, and other utilities which serve more than 25 million rural Amer

Distance Learning and Medical Link Loans and Grants bring distanc

learning and telemedicine to rural America. Education and adequate medical 

are crucial to the survival of rural communities, but are becoming increasingly 

cult to provide to rural communities. This program employs innovative ways 

existing telecommunications infrastructure to extend the reach of educational 

medical expertise into communities without that expertise. The new loan prog

being developed to further expand rural telecommunications infrastructure.

Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants develop water and waste

disposal systems (including solid waste disposal and storm drainage) in rural 

and towns with populations of less than 10,000. The funds are available to pu

entities such as municipalities, counties, special-purpose districts, Indian tribe

and nonprofit corporations. RUS also guarantees water and waste disposal loa

made by banks and other eligible lenders.

90
emergency repairs and replace existing facilities. Grants can be made in r

and towns with a population of 10,000 or less and a median household in

more than 100 percent of the State’s median nonmetropolitan household 

■ Office of Community Development

USDA Rural Development’s Office of Community Development admEmpowerment Initiative, a Presidential initiative designed to provid

cally depressed rural areas and communities with real opportunities for g

revitalization. Its mission: to create self-sustaining, long-term economic d

in areas of pervasive poverty, unemployment, and general distress, and to 

strate how distressed communities can achieve self-sufficiency through in

and comprehensive strategic plans developed and implemented by allianc

private, public, and nonprofit entities. 

In the first selection round, announced in December 1994, three rura

Empowerment Zones (EZ) and 30 rural Enterprise Communities (EC) we

nated by President Clinton and Vice President Gore. Each EZ is receiving 

and each EC $2.97 million in a Federal grant. This one-time, 10-year gra

addition to funding benefits and tax incentives. In the second round, anno

December 1998, Clinton and Gore designated an additional 5 rural Empo

Zones and 20 rural Enterprise Communities. Each of these EZ’s receives 

and each EC $250,000 in an initial Federal grant. Additional funding ben

incentives are also available to Round II communities. Further, designate

ties qualify for earmarks of program funds from Rural Development agen

Community Empowerment 

There are no written guidelines or formula to give to communities re

community empowerment. Community empowerment is a flexible evolv

that is different for each community. It includes a number of tangible and 

benefits that will enable a community to achieve its goals. The basic elem

community empowerment include:

■ Learning to use its own initiative to secure resources from many s

(Federal, State, local, corporate, foundations, etc.) to implement i

plan.

■ Using citizen participation on the board and in program administr

improve, through experience, the community’s ability to manage 

and monitor the programs of its subgrantees.

■ Developing within communities an alliance of community leader

obtain the capacity to plan, organize, manage, and implement its 

plan to generate sustainable community and economic revitalizati

■ For sustained economic and community development, focusing o

lationships between community needs and a variety of connected 

rather than on narrow single-purpose programs; i.e., business dev
ss ae ceased ad te coutys capacty to ep tse. s 

empowerment. Once this is learned, it cannot be taken away.

■ Regional partnerships that bring representatives from several commun

discuss issues and work collectively to identify opportunities and strat

resolve challenges that face their region as a whole.

■ Educational initiatives that provide job training for family wage jobs, 

puter skills training, and youth development initiatives to prepare you

ple for the working world.

■ Enabling all segments of society to have a voice when it comes to map

out a path for community empowerment and providing mechanisms fo

who previously fell outside of the system to become involved and play 

in securing a better future for them and their families. 

■ Learning, through information sharing communities, the “best practic

instituting economic and community development programs and proje

Champion Communities

More than 180 rural communities organized and completed the valuable str

planning process as part of their application for Round I of the Initiative. To ass

their important work produced continuing benefits to these communities, USDA 

nated them as “Champion Communities” and provided continuing assistance to 

During Round II, 160 communities submitted applications; 15 of the 25 designa

communities were Champion Communities from Round I. Communities that su

applications for the first time in Round II are now eligible for Champion status.

National Centers of Excellence: College/University Partnership Project

Local capacity building toward economic sustainability is being enhance

through a 2-year partnership among four rural colleges and USDA. The five c

and universities assist EZ/EC communities with strategic plan implementation

through training programs and other sources of expertise. 

National Centers of Excellence: Tribal College Partnership

A related initiative helps tribal communities develop empowerment prog

through the technical assistance of tribal colleges. With assistance from USDA

colleges are developing programs of training and community service to addre

critical needs of the communities they serve. The initiative responds to Presid

Clinton’s Executive Order 13021, which asked Federal departments and agen

integrate American Indian tribal colleges into their programs.

Rural Economic Area Partnership (REAP) Zones

Rural areas in the Northern Great Plains face unique challenges due to thei

isolation, low-density populations, and changing economic base. Rather than hi

poverty, these areas are challenged by declining populations, slowing economic 

and growing difficulty in providing public services. To counter these troubling t

two REAP Zones were established in multi-county areas of North Dakota.

92
Rural areas in the southern tier of New York face unique challenges 

their isolation, low-density populations, and changing economic base. Ra

high poverty, these areas are challenged by declining populations, job los

economic activity, and growing difficulty in providing public services. To 

these troubling trends, two REAP Zones were established in multi-county 

New York.

Southwest Border Regional Partnership

In response to Vice President Gore’s challenge that EZ/EC adopt reg

approaches to planning and problem-solving, Empowerment Zones, Ente

Communities, and Champion Communities from the southwest border re

the Southwest Border Region Partnership.

Zones

Kentucky Highlands—KY

Mid-Delta—MS

Rio Grande Valley—TX

Round I Enterprise

Communities

Chambers County—AL

Greene & Sumter Counties Rural—AL

East Central Arkansas—AR

Mississippi County—AR 

Arizona Border Region—AZ

Imperial County—CA

City of Watsonville—CA

Jackson County, Florida—FL

Crisp/Dooly—GA

Central Savannah River Area—GA

Northeast Louisiana Delta—LA

Macon Ridge—LA

Lake County—MI

City of East Prairie,—MO

North Delta Mississippi—MS

Halifax/Edgecombe/Wilson—NC

Robeson County—NC

La Jicarita—NM

Greater Portsmouth—OH

Southeast Oklahoma—OK

Josephine County—OR

City of Lock Haven Federal—PA

Williamsburg-Lake City—SC

Beadle/Spink/South Dakota—SD

Fayette County/Haywood County—TN

Scott/McCreary Area—TN

Accomack-Northampton, Virginia—VA

Lower Yakima County Rural—WA

Central Appalachia —WV

McDowell County—WV

Zones

Desert Communities—CA

Southwest Georgia United—G

Southernmost Illinois Delta—I

Lake Aggasiz—ND

Oglala Sioux Tribe—SD

Round II Enterprise

Communities

Metlakatla Indian—AK

Four Corners—AZ

Cities of Orange Cove, Huron, 

Tule Tribe—CA

Empowerment Alliance of Sou

Florida—FL

Molokai—HI

Town of Austin—IN

Wichita County—KS

Bowling Green—KY

City of Lewiston—ME

Clare County—MI

Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux 

City of Deming—NM

Tri County Nations—OK

Fay-Penn—PA

Allendale ALIVE—SC

Clinch-Powell—TN

Middle Rio Grande—TX

Tri-County Rural—WA

Northwoods Niijii—WI
and economic distress in the counties of the lower Mississippi Delta. Seven D

States were involved in a Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commission 

of poverty that began in 1989. The Delta Regional Initiative joins the Souther

EZ/EC forum, The Lower Mississippi Delta Development Center (formerly

Commission), The Foundation for the Mid-South, and The Enterprise Cooper

of the Delta in a Partnership Agreement to develop a long-range strategic plan 

implement the recommendations from the Lower Mississippi Delta Developm

Commission’s Report—“The Delta Initiative.” The Delta Regional Initiative i

both urban and rural EZ and EC from 219 counties in 7 States.

94

Selected Accomplishments by Rural Empowerment Zones and

Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC) as of January 2000

New businesses attracted to Rural Empowerment Zones 

and Enterprise Communities 

Businesses served through Intermediary Relending

Programs/Revolving Loans/Micro Loans 

Businesses served through business development 

and job training initiatives 

Businesses started through incubators and entrepreneurial initiatives 

Clients placed in jobs through career planning

and job placement programs 

Clients served through business development 

and job training initiatives 1

Jobs created or saved 1

New loan funds established for business development and job training 

Loans provided for business development and job training 

New electric, gas, and water/drainage hookups 

New or improved water/drainage system 

New/upgraded computers provided 

Number of new staff members hired to work in EZ/EC Communities 

Number of staff trained in EZ/EC Communities 

Number of new houses constructed and houses rehabilitated 

Number of new health care professionals hired and health care 

providers trained 
Rural Development

Acting Director, Legislative & Public

Affairs

Gladys Rodriguez

Rm 5039-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-1019

FAX 202-690- 4083

gladys.rodriguez@usda.gov

Deputy Public Affairs Director

Dan Campbell

Rm 5040-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-6483

FAX 202-690-4083

dan.campbell@usda.gov 

Deputy Legislative Director

Brenda Morton

Rm 2123-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-2367

FAX 202-690-0311

bmorton@rurdev.usda.gov

Acting Deputy Director

Correspondence Branch

Martha Harvin

Rm 5007-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8472

FAX 202-720- 1161

mharvin@rdmail.rural.usda.go

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Dorothy Hinden

Rm 0361-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-690-0031

FAX 202-692-0034

dhinden@rdmail.rural.usda.go
96

The Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services mission area includes three agthe Farm Service Agency (FSA), the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), 

Risk Management Agency (RMA). This mission area serves production agric

helping to keep America’s farmers and ranchers in business as they face the u

tainties of weather and markets.

These agencies deliver commodity, credit, conservation, and emergency

assistance programs that help improve the stability and strength of the agricul

economy, expand overseas markets for U.S. agricultural products, and promo

food security. They also sanction the provision by the private sector of a broad

crop insurance program and other risk management tools.

The ongoing evolution of the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services mi

area, through reorganization, crop insurance reform, and farm program chang

profoundly altered the way it operates. The Federal Agriculture Improvement 

Reform Act of 1996 replaced the traditional Federal role in some farm progra

with the economic forces of the marketplace. The management of risk in this 

setting has moved more fully to an emerging partnership between Governmen

the private sector.

The public interest calls for a dynamic, efficient agriculture that provides 

sustainable, safe, and affordable food and fiber supply. The challenge is to ser

public interest at a time of diminishing resources and a decreased role for the 

Government. 

■ Farm Service Agency

FSA Mission

The FSA mission is to ensure the well-being of American agriculture and 

American public through efficient and equitable administration of agricultura

modity, farm loan, conservation, environmental, emergency assistance, and do

and international food assistance programs. 

The FSA home page can be found at http://www.fsa.usda.gov

FSA Vision

FSA is a customer-driven agency with a diverse and multi-talented workf

empowered and accountable to deliver programs and services efficiently, and 

cated to promoting an economically viable and environmentally sound Ameri

agriculture.
programs from several agencies, including the Agricultural Stabilization 

Conservation Service, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (now a se

Risk Management Agency), and the Farmers Home Administration. Thou

has changed over the years, the agency’s relationship with farmers dates 

1930’s. 

At that time, Congress set up a unique system under which Federal f

programs are administered locally. Farmers who are eligible to participat

programs elect a three- to five-person county committee that reviews cou

operations and makes many of the decisions on how to administer the pro

This grassroots approach gives farmers a much-needed say in how Feder

affect their communities and their individual operations. After more than 

remains a cornerstone of FSA’s efforts to preserve and promote American 

1996 Act

The 1996 Farm Bill significantly changed U.S. agricultural policy by 

the link between income support payments and farm prices. Farmers who 

in the wheat, feed grains, cotton, and rice programs in any one of the prev

could enter into 7-year production flexibility contracts and receive a serie

annual “transition payments.” These payments are independent of farm p

specific crop production, in contrast to the past, when deficiency paymen

based on farm prices and the production of specific crops.

The Federal Government no longer requires land to be idled, nor doe

payments if farmers switch from their historical crops. The contract, how

requires participating producers to comply with existing conservation pla

farm, wetland provisions, and planting flexibility provisions, and to keep 

agricultural uses. 

The law provided for a one-time signup, which ended August 1, 199

producers to enter into production flexibility contracts. There will be no a

signups except for land coming out of the Conservation Reserve Program

who entered into a contract are also eligible for market transition loans at 

offices.

Marketing Assistance Loan Programs

FSA administers commodity loan programs for barley, corn, honey, 

sorghum, mohair, oats, oilseeds, peanuts, rice, sugar, tobacco, wheat, upl

extra-long-staple cotton.

The agency provides the operating personnel for the Commodity Cre

Corporation (CCC), which provides assistance with respect to products o

agricultural commodities through loans and purchases. This provides farm

interim financing and helps maintain balanced and adequate supplies of f

modities and their orderly distribution throughout the year and during tim

plus and scarcity. 
98

pledging the crop itself as collateral. Nonrecourse means that the producer ca

charge debts in full by forfeiting or delivering the commodity to the Governm

The nonrecourse loan allows farmers to pay their bills and other loan pay

when they become due, without having to sell crops at a time of year when pr

tend to be at their lowest. Later, when market conditions are more favorable, f

can sell crops and repay the loan with the proceeds. Or, if the prevailing price 

crop remains below the loan level set by CCC, farmers can keep loan proceed

forfeit the crop to CCC instead. The repayment rate may also be reduced by U

to minimize the costs of storing commodities and to allow commodities produ

the United States to be marketed freely and competitively, both domestically 

internationally. 

CCC loan rates are designed to keep crops competitive in the marketplac

A producer must have entered into a production flexibility contract to be eligi

for nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for wheat, feed grains, rice, and u

cotton. Any production of a contract commodity by a producer who has enter

a production flexibility contract is eligible for loans.

Nonrecourse loans are also available for extra-long-staple cotton, oilseed

peanuts, tobacco, raw cane sugar, and refined beet sugar, regardless of whethe

producer has entered into a production flexibility contract. Price support for th

marketing quota crops—tobacco and peanuts—is made available through pro

loan associations. By law, these programs must operate at no net cost to the U

Treasury, and no-net-cost and marketing assessments are applied to both prod

and purchasers.

Commodity Purchase Programs

Forfeitures under nonrecourse commodity loan programs are not the only 

by which CCC acquires inventory. Under the dairy price support program, CC

surplus butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk from processors at announced pric

support the price of milk. These purchases help maintain market prices at the 

lated support level. This program was to be replaced in 2000 with a recourse l

program. However, the 2000 Act extended the dairy price support program un

2001.

CCC can store purchased food in over 10,000 commercial warehouses ac

the Nation approved for this purpose. However, commodity inventories are no

simply kept in storage. FSA employees work to return stored commodities to 

trade channels. At the agency’s Kansas City Commodity Office in Kansas Cit

Missouri, FSA merchandisers regularly sell and swap CCC inventories using

commercial telecommunications trading networks.

Beyond the marketplace, CCC commodities fill the need for hunger relie

in the United States and in foreign countries. FSA employees work closely wi

USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service to purchase and deliver foods for the Nat

School Lunch and many other domestic feeding programs. When donated to “

for Peace,” and programs administered by voluntary organizations, these U.S

products and foods help USDA fight hunger worldwide. 
ducers of eligible crops with protection comparable to the catastrophic ri

plan of crop insurance (see Risk Management Agency). It helps reduce p

risks faced by producers of crops for which Federal crop insurance is not 

It also reduces financial losses that occur when natural disasters cause a c

loss of production or prevented planting of an eligible crop.

Eligible crops include certain commercial crops or other agricultural 

ties (except livestock):

■ for which catastrophic risk protection under section 508(b) of the 

Crop Insurance Act is not available; and

■ that are produced for food or fiber.

Crops specifically included by statute include floricultural, ornament

and Christmas tree crops, turfgrass sod, seed crops, aquaculture (includin

tal fish), and industrial crops.

When damage to a crop or commodity occurs as a result of a natural 

producers requesting NAP assistance must meet certain requirements.

Emergency Loans

FSA provides emergency loans to help cover production and physica

counties declared disaster areas by the President or designated by the Sec

Agriculture or the FSA Administrator (physical loss loans only). Emerge

also are available in counties contiguous to such disaster areas. These loa

to qualifying established family farm operators. Loans for crop, livestock

real-estate losses are normally repaid in 1 to 7 years, and in special circum

to 20 years. Loans for physical losses to real estate and buildings are norm

in 30 years, and in special circumstances, up to 40 years.

Other Emergency Assistance

In the aftermath of a natural disaster, FSA makes available a variety 

emergency assistance programs to farmers in counties that have been des

or declared disaster areas.

FSA has several programs that are activated, usually by congression

during certain types of disasters. Among these are the Tree Assistance Pr

which provides payments to eligible tree and vineyard growers who incu

due to natural disasters, including losses caused by freeze, excessive rain

drought, tornado, and earthquakes. 

Another such program, the Livestock Indemnity Program, helps live

producers who suffered losses from recent natural disasters. It provides a 

reimbursement to eligible producers for livestock losses.

The Dairy Production Disaster Assistance Program helps dairy producer

suffered losses from natural disasters by providing a partial reimbursement fo

The Small Hog Operation Payment Program involved direct cash pa

to small hog producers to help them weather economic crisis. USDA esti

80-90 percent of producers, or nearly 100,000 nationwide, were eligible 

payments.
100

fertilizer, and farm machinery.

Emergency Conservation Program

The Emergency Conservation Program provides emergency cost-share fu

for farmers to rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural disasters that create n

conservation problems which, if not treated, would:

■ impair or endanger the land,

■ materially affect the productive capacity of the land,

■ represent unusual damage which is not the type likely to recur frequen

the same area,

■ be so costly to repair that Federal assistance is or will be required to re

land to productive agricultural use.

The assistance may be used for: removing debris from farmland; grading

shaping, and re-leveling farmland; restoring livestock fences; and restoring irr

structures.

Farm Loans

FSA offers direct and guaranteed farm ownership and operating loan pro

to farmers who are temporarily unable to obtain private, commercial credit an

meet other regulatory criteria. Often, these are beginning farmers who cannot 

for conventional loans because they have insufficient net worth. The agency a

helps established farmers who have suffered financial setbacks from natural d

or whose resources are too limited to maintain profitable farming operations.

Under the guaranteed farm loan program, the agency guarantees loans m

conventional agricultural lenders for up to 95 percent of principal, depending 

circumstances. The lender may sell the loan to a third party; however, the lend

always responsible for servicing the loan. All loans must meet certain qualify

criteria to be eligible for guarantees, and FSA has the right to monitor the len

servicing activities. Farmers interested in guaranteed loans must apply to a co

tional lender, who then arranges for the guarantee.

For those unable to qualify for a guaranteed loan, FSA also lends directly

loans are made and serviced by FSA officials who also provide borrowers wit

supervision and credit counseling. Funding authorities for direct loans are lim

and applicants may have to wait until funds become available. To qualify for a 

farm ownership or operating loan, the applicant must be able to show sufficien

repayment ability, pledge enough collateral to fully secure the loan, and meet 

regulatory criteria. 

Conservation Programs

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) protects our most fragile farm

by encouraging farmers to stop growing crops on highly erodible and other en

mentally sensitive acreage. In return for planting a protective cover of grass o

on vulnerable property, the owner receives a rental payment each year of a mu

contract. Cost-share payments are also available to help establish permanent a
In the 18th CRP signup, held in 1998, about 5 million acres of land w

accepted into the program. The accepted acreage includes 3.2 million acr

erodible land, almost 2.8 million acres of land located within conservatio

areas, over 450,000 acres of wetland and protective upland acres, and 217

to be restored to rare and declining habitats. Also, bids involving over 10

of long leaf pine habitat were accepted.

Another conservation program, the Conservation Reserve Enhancem

Program, is part of the CRP. This program shields millions of acres of Am

soil from erosion by encouraging the planting of protective vegetation. B

wind erosion as well as runoff and sedimentation, it also protects air and 

quality and helps improve countless lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, and oth

water.

State governments have the opportunity to participate in this groundb

environmental improvement effort. USDA provides incentives to agricult

ers to participate, while State governments contribute specialized local kn

technical help, and financial assistance. The result is an environmental en

effort tailored to the specific environmental needs of each State.

FSA works with USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service an

agencies to deliver other conservation programs, including the Environm

Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP helps farmers and ranchers improve 

their property to protect the environment and conserve soil and water reso

Participants can take advantage of education in new conservation manage

practices, technical support, cost-share assistance, and incentive payment

Where To Get More Information on FSA Programs

■ Further information and applications for the programs described i

chapter are available at local FSA offices. These are usually listed 

telephone directories in the section set aside for governmental/pu

organizations under “U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Servi

FSA State offices supervise the agency’s local offices and are usu

in the State capital or near the State land-grant university.

■ For information on commodity sales and purchases, contact:

USDA FSA Kansas City Commodity Office 

P.O. Box 419205

Kansas City, MO 64141-6205

Telephone: 816-926-6364

■ FSA’s aerial photographs of U.S. farmlands are used extensively b

Government and private organizations and the public. Order form

index are available from FSA local offices. For more information 

graphic services, including high-altitude photography, contact:

USDA FSA Aerial Photography Field Office

2222 West 2300 South

Salt Lake City, UT 84119-2020

Telephone: 801-975-3500
102

Dialing for Hog Relief

In an effort to reach out to struggling hog producers, employees from

several USDA agencies created and staffed an “800” number for farmer

to get information on FSA’s Small Hog Operation Payment (SHOP)

Program. The workers answered questions on application procedures an

qualifications from several hundred hog farmers. Fifty million dollars wa

provided to financially suffering hog farmers through direct cash paymen

“Hay Net” Aids Drought-Distressed Livestock

In August 1998 a new program was initiated to match farmers and ranch

without enough hay to feed their drought-distressed livestock with those

who had surplus hay. Those in need registered at FSA’s local offices and

received a list of the closest producers with hay to spare, and vice versa.

Farmers then could contact each other and make appropriate arrangements. It was a good example of farmers helping farmers, and a great too

for getting hay where it was needed as quickly and efficiently as possible

Louisiana FSA Helps Fulfill a Dream

John Jenkins worked at local dairies in Louisiana for most of his life,

and he wanted to operate his own dairy farm. With the assistance of a FS

county committee member, Jenkins was able to apply for and receive a lo

to help him get started. His new farm is one of just seven minority-opera

dairies in the State, which had 581 dairies in 1997. 

Gleaning Success

FSA won first place in the 1998 USDA Food Drive, collecting 277,628

pounds of food, more than twice as much as its goal of 100,000 pounds 

and more than any other USDA agency. The food was donated to food

banks, churches, homeless shelters, and soup kitchens.

A Green Thumb Up for a Youth Loan Borrower

Missourian Holly Norman always was fascinated with growing plants 

and flowers. She wanted to start up a greenhouse business, but, being on

14, couldn’t get funds from a commercial institution.

She went to FSA’s Polk County office to check out loan possibility. Her

plan of operation was found to be top notch, and she got her loan, namin

her business the Little Bit of Garden. She got two greenhouses built and

stocked them with landscaping, vegetable, bedding, and house plants. Ho

tends to her business every day and knows, even though her family helps

out, that the responsibility for her loan repayment is hers. Any profit she

makes goes toward repaying the loan, and FSA is sure she’ll make a grea

business owner.
The Agency and Its Mission

The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) is a USDA agency that repre

the diverse interests of U.S. farmers and the food and agricultural sector a

It collects, analyzes, and disseminates information about global supply an

trade trends, and emerging market opportunities. FAS seeks improved ma

for U.S. products and implements programs designed to build new marke

maintain the competitive position of U.S. products in the global marketpl

FAS also carries out food aid and market-related technical assistance 

and operates a variety of congressionally mandated import and export pro

FAS helps USDA and other Federal agencies, U.S. universities, and other

the global competitiveness of U.S. agriculture and helps increase income 

availability in developing nations by mobilizing expertise for agricultural

economic growth.

Formed in 1953 by executive reorganization, FAS is one of the small

agencies, with about 950 employees. FAS operates worldwide with staff 

covering more than 130 countries. Washington-based marketing specialis

policy analysts, economists, and others back up the overseas staff. 

Roughly 70 percent of the annual FAS budget is devoted to building 

overseas for U.S. farm products. This includes the funding for all of FAS

attache offices overseas, as well as its work with U.S. commodity associa

cooperative promotion projects. The remaining funds cover other trade fu

including gathering and disseminating market information and trade poli

get a complete picture of the services offered and information available f

FAS invites you to visit its homepage at: http://www.fas.usda.gov

Overseas Representation

FAS’ foreign service officers, with a support staff headquartered in W

DC, head up 47 agricultural affairs and 17 agricultural trade offices overs

In addition, these officers manage 36 satellite offices headed by foreign n

employees. Our foreign service officers wear many hats, serving as diplo

negotiators, reporters, and marketing representatives for U.S. agricultural 

processors, and exporters. By partnering with other USDA and Federal a

international organizations, State and local governments, and the U.S. pri

our officers provide information used to plan and develop strategies for im

market access, promoting world food security, pursuing U.S. rights under 

ments, and developing programs and policies to make U.S. farm products 

more competitive. For example, in FY 1999, FAS offices overseas submi

than 3,800 reports from 88 different countries, covering 29 different agric

modities of interest to the United States. They also advise U.S. ambassad

on agricultural matters and represent U.S. agriculture before the governm

and public of their host countries.
104

Turbulent Decade for Agricultural Exports Ends in a Downturn

Everything’s relative, some say. U.S. agricultural exports closed out the d

at $49 billion in fiscal 1999, a $9-billion gain since 1990. Had the path been s

upward, it would have been judged a rock-solid performance. Instead, exports

exploded past $50 billion in mid-decade, climbing to $60 billion in 1996. Bul

modity prices were high, consumer food exports were setting new records, an

mism reigned.

But that was as good as the numbers would get. For the next 3 years, the 

tum turned in another direction, as commodity prices were steadily eroded by 

global supplies, increasing competition, a strengthening U.S. dollar, and weak

demand from a global financial crisis that began in Asia. Of course, $49 billio

ahead of any export levels achieved before the mid-1990’s. But, it is also the w

performance since 1994, down 9 percent from 1998 and a full 18 percent belo

1996 record.

Fiscal Year 1999 Exports Summary

Fiscal year 1999 did not shape up much better. Pressures from large supp

subsequent low prices maintained their grip on farm commodity markets, eve

though most countries affected by the crisis are back on the recovery path.

U.S. solid wood products and seafood products fared generally better tha

cultural products in 1999 world markets. Wood product sales were down only 

percent from the previous year, while seafood netted a 19-percent increase in 

value.

U.S. agricultural imports continued to grow in fiscal 1999, edging up to a 

record of $37.5 billion. Despite the combination of lower exports and rising im

agriculture posted its 40th straight annual trade surplus–albeit the lowest surp

since 1987–at $11.5 billion. The highest was $27.2 billion in 1996.

Bulk Agricultural Exports Off 11 Percent 

Bulk commodities took another plunge in fiscal 1999, as sagging demand 

large global production brought some of the lowest prices in decades. While e

volume rose 15 percent to 114 million tons, weak prices more than offset add

nage. Corn was an exception–a 38-percent increase in tonnage lifted coarse g

a 12-percent value gain. The major factor: less competition from China and

Argentina. For wheat, U.S. aid donations helped prop up volume, but export 

still dropped 4 percent. Soybean exports plummeted 23 percent, reflecting lar

global supplies, weak demand, and rock-bottom prices. Cotton fared worse, w

sharply reduced volume from the small U.S. crop, plus low prices. Total U.S

commodity exports were $10 billion below fiscal 1996’s $28.8 billion.
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Billion $

Fiscal years

1990 991 92 93 94 95 96 97

Table 7-1.

U.S. Bulk Commodity Exports, FY 1998-99

FY 1998 FY 1999 1998

Commodity —$ million— P

Coarse grains 4,991 5,607 

Soybeans 6,137 4,748 

Wheat 3,805 3,664 

Tobacco 1,448 1,376 

Cotton 2,543 1,323 

Rice 1,138 1,015 

Pulses 319 270 

Peanuts 203 188 

Other 359 376 

Total 20,942 18,566 

Note: Fiscal years are October-September (i.e., fiscal 1999 ran Oct. 1, 1998-Sept. 30, 1999).
106

U.S. exports of intermediate agricultural products dropped 12 percent in 

1999 to the lowest since 1994. Most product categories were down, with shar

declines for soy meal, soy oil, hides, and animal fats. For oilseed products, lar

South American supplies, intense competition, and lackluster demand cut pric

volumes. Hides got a tanning as sluggish Asian demand paired with a slowdo

Europe. Bright spots were few. Wheat flour exports surged 52 percent, mainly 

U.S. donations to Bangladesh, Yemen, and other destinations, as well as $10 m

in sales to Israel. Among the top four U.S. markets, intermediate product sale

percent to the European Union (EU), 4 percent to Canada, 10 percent to Mexi

11 percent to Japan. The record high remains at $12.2 billion in exports, set in 

Consumer Food Exports Not Yet Back on Track

U.S. exports of foods, beverages and other consumer-oriented agricultura

ucts eased for a second year, following 12 record-setting years. The modest 4

drop left consumer food sales at $1 billion below 1997’s all-time high–but sti

billion higher than when the decade began. The collapse in Russian buying ge

blame for the 26-percent falloff in poultry meat exports. On the plus side, juic

breakfast cereals set new records, with juices benefiting from strong Asian, Eu

and North American Free Trade Agreement sales. For consumer foods overall

records were set to Canada and Mexico, and to some smaller markets, includi

China. Fiscal 1999 marked the first time that consumer foods topped bulk com

ties in export value. Consumer foods accounted for 40 percent of total U.S. ag

tural exports, up from 24 percent in 1990.

Most Major Markets Caught in Downtrend 

Most major markets contributed to the 1999 downturn. U.S. agricultural 

to Japan fell for the third straight year, while both Canada and Mexico backed 

from 1998 records and several years of growth. Weak prices and sales of bulk 

semi-processed commodities were mainly responsible, as consumer food sale

new highs in Canada and Mexico. Financial crisis pushed Russia out of the to

with a 58-percent dive despite U.S. food aid. China and Hong Kong led a drop 

exports to Asia’s Pacific Rim, but South Korea and Taiwan were notable exce

A recovering Korean economy helped turn 1998’s 32-percent plunge 

in U.S. exports into a 9-percent rebound for fiscal 1999.

Wood Product Sales Remain in a Slump

Fiscal 1999 marked a second year of weakness for exports of solid wood 

ucts. Robust domestic demand kept U.S. prices up, while housing starts in Jap

remained slow. Export value dipped below $6 billion to the lowest in the 1990

20 percent from 1997’s $7.5 billion record high. Canada finally overtook Japa

top market. Sales to Japan slumped another 4 percent, adding up to a 50-perce

since 1996 (an unusually strong year in that market). Meanwhile, exports to C
FY 1998 FY 1999 1998

Commodity —$ million— P

Feeds & fodder 1,675 1,552 

Hides & skins 1,337 1,102 

Soybean meal *1,944 1,065 

Veg. oils (excl. soy oil) *1,027 919 

Planting seeds 807 810 

Sugar, sweeteners, & beverage bases 716 689 

Live animals 655 621 

Soybean oil *882 608 

Animal fats 629 529 

Wheat flour 115 175 

Other 2,308 2,558 

Total 12,096 10,628 

*Denotes a record-high export value.

Table 7-3.

U.S. Consumer Food Exports, FY 1998-99

FY 1998 FY 1999 1998

Commodity —$ million— P

Meat, poultry, dairy 

Red meats 4,405 4,369 

Poultry meat 2,347 1,743 

Dairy products *931 887 

Eggs & products *225 184 

Fruits & vegetables

Proc. fruit/veg. *2,086 2,084 

Fresh fruit 1,853 1,843 

Fresh vegetables 1,114 1,101 

Fruit/veg. juices 684 *769 

Snack foods *1,326 1,296 

Tree nuts 1,218 1,077 

Wine & beer *785 743 

Pet foods 734 689 

Breakfast cereals & pancake mix 365 *371 

Nursery products & cut flowers *250 249 

Other 2,282 *2,406 

Total 20,605 19,810 

*Denotes a record-high export value.
108

continued to grow, gaining 5 percent to a record $1.6 billion, with strong dem

U.S. hardwoods (often for re-export as furniture back to the States). Sales to t

European Union were off 11 percent, but sales were up 10 percent to Mexico 

percent to South Korea.

Seafood Exports Show Solid Gains 

After a 3-year decline, foreign sales of U.S. fishery products increased a 

percent to $2.6 billion in fiscal 1999, recovering nearly half the value lost sinc

Although all major product categories registered increases, a recovery in salm

the largest impact. Exports of U.S. whole/eviscerated salmon climbed 43 perc

mainly due to a larger Alaskan harvest. 

Japan, the dominant market for salmon, also accounted for most of the $1

lion increase in U.S. fish egg exports. For crabs and crabmeat, record sales to 

(up 316 percent to $20 million) and Canada were key factors. Fiscal 1992 rem

decade’s high point, when U.S. seafood product exports totaled $3.3 billion.

International Trade Agreements

In the area of trade policy, FAS is an active and effective advocate for U.S

cultural exports. FAS works closely with other government agencies, includin

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), to ensure that the trade inter

U.S. producers and processors are protected. For example, FAS played an ins

tal role in ensuring that the Uruguay Round Trade Agreement, signed in 1994

lower tariffs and elimination of import bans on agricultural products in over 1

countries. The final agreement also included disciplines on market access, exp

sidies, and trade-distorting production subsidies. FAS’ broad trade policy focu

is to monitor and enforce this agreement and others, such as the North Americ

FY 1998 FY 1999 199899 change

Market —$ million— Perce

Japan 9,444 8,916 -6

Canada *7,006 6,937 -1

European Union 8,318 6,820 -18

Mexico *5,951 5,661 -5

South Korea 2,244 2,449 +9

Taiwan 1,964 2,044 +4

Hong Kong 1,557 1,259 -19

China 1,505 979 -35

Egypt 939 946 +1

Philippines 740 730 -1

Rest of world 13,974 12,263 -12

Total 53,642 49,004 -9

Data include bulk, intermediate, and consumer-oriented agricultural exports.

*Denotes a record-high export value.
Trade Agreement (NAFTA), while we begin new negotiations to further e

opportunities for American agricultural exports. These new negotiations 

Free Trade Area of the Americas and a new round of World Trade Organi

(WTO) multilateral agricultural negotiations during 2000.

The vast majority of the thousands of individual commitments made 

ing partners are being implemented faithfully and on time. To ensure that 

ments are fulfilled, FAS works with all interested parties to help identify 

violations and address them at the appropriate level. In addition to workin

USTR, FAS works closely with USDA agencies such as the Animal and P

Inspection Service and the Food Safety and Inspection Service to field a t

the technical and policy experience needed to resolve problems. This team 

U.S. export interests as it participates in the day-to-day activities of multi

nizations such as the CODEX Alimentarius Committee in the Food and A

Organization and the WTO Committees on Agriculture, and Sanitary and

Phytosanitary Standards. These groups help develop international standa

affect trade in agricultural products and monitor compliance with existing 

agreements.

FY 1998 FY 1999 1998

Commodity —$ million— P

Logs & chips 1,711 1,716 

Lumber

Hardwood 1,240 1,322 

Softwood/treated 768 786 

Panel products 1,026 918 

Other 1,264 1,226 

Total 6,009 5,968 

Table 7-6.

U.S. Seafood Product Exports, FY 1998-99

FY 1998 FY 1999 1998

Commodity —$ million— P

Salmon

Whole/eviscerated 246 353 

Canned 140 145 

Roe & urchin (fish eggs) 270 372 

Surimi (fish paste) 270 288 

Crab/crabmeat 120 151 

Other 1,125 1,272 

Total 2,172 2,581 
110

Philippines honors its WTO commitments to import pork and poultry, that Ko

opens its market for oranges, and that most countries not block imports of U.S

after karnal bunt was discovered on wheat from Arizona and New Mexico. Th

many other issues were resolved without initiating a formal WTO legal proce

rather by using bilateral consultations and regular meetings of the WTO comm

FAS has also used the WTO dispute settlement process to successfully challen

eral foreign unfair trade practices, including the European Union’s hormone b

Japan varietal testing requirements, and Canada’s dairy export subsidies. FAS 

represents U.S. agriculture in negotiating with countries seeking membership 

WTO. The United States and Taiwan signed a market access agreement that h

Taiwan lifting its import bans and allowing access for U.S. pork, poultry, and 

meats. Upon Taiwan’s accession to the WTO, Taiwan will cut tariffs and open 

rate quotas on a range of agricultural products. In November 1999, the United 

and China signed in Beijing a comprehensive bilateral trade agreement under 

China committed to opening its agricultural import market and eliminating ex

subsidies upon its accession to the WTO.

Food Assistance Programs

Within USDA, the Foreign Agricultural Service is the leader in developin

executing a number of food assistance activities such as Public Law (P.L.) 480 

Food for Progress, and Section 416(b). These programs are designed to help d

ing nations make the transition from concessional financing and donations to 

purchases. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is respo

for administering Titles II and III of P.L. 480.

P.L. 480 Title I—The objectives of the P.L. 480 Title I concessional cred

gram include providing food assistance to targeted developing countries and p

ing the development of future markets in these countries. The program promo

market development by encouraging importers in the recipient country to bec

familiar with U.S. trade practices and to establish long-term trade relationship

program is managed to promote the recipient country’s transition to commerc

by gradually reducing the concessionality of the program, eliminating ocean f

financing, and graduating countries from Title I to the more commercial CCC 

credit guarantee program. Title I funds may also be used to support the Food 

Progress (FFP) program, which is a grant program designed to assist countri

working to make the transition to more market-oriented economies. Attention 

to shifting countries from Title I/FFP grant funding to regular Title I long-term 

cessional credit terms. 

Fiscal year activities continued to focus on graduation; however, several T

programs were initiated to address particular needs such as supporting recove

efforts for Central America following the devastation of Hurricane Mitch and 

ing commodities to Russia to ensure adequate food and feed supplies followin

financial crisis. Additional program efforts also resulted in broadening the geo
Presidents African Initiative. 

In fiscal year 1999, Title I and Title I-funded Food for Progress agree

signed for 2.2 million metric tons of commodities valued at about $656.1 

Of this, about 1.4 million metric tons of commodities valued at about $50

were programmed to Russia as part of the food assistance package annou

the Secretary of Agriculture on November 6, 1998. Ocean freight financi

freight grants totaling $80.2 million were also provided to ship these com

Russia under the food assistance package.

In addition to FFP programs carried out with P.L. 480 Title I funds, t

and facilities of the Commodity Credit Corporation may also be used to s

programming. In the case of these programs, PVO’s monetize the commo

received under an agreement with CCC to generate local currencies to fu

ment projects. In fiscal year 1999, USDA continued programming in cou

beyond the republics of the former Soviet Union to include Africa, Latin 

and Asia. Programs were planned with U.S. PVO’s for projects in 21 cou

totaling about 164,000 tons of commodities with a value of about $71 mi

Under the Title II emergency and private assistance donations progr

istered by the USAID, $28 million can be provided as overseas administr

support. For fiscal year 1999, Title II activities valued at almost $950 mil

total of about 1.9 million metric tons and assisted more than 45 million b

in 57 countries and two regions (the Sahel and South Balkans). Funding f

increased slightly over the fiscal year 1998 levels, with spending on emer

gramming ($513 million) continuing to exceed that of development (non

programming ($435 million).

USAID-administered Title III activities totaled $21.7 million in fisc

and moved over 116,000 metric tons of commodities to three countries: E

Mozambique in Africa, and Haiti in Latin America/Caribbean.

The Section 416(b) program allows for the donation of surplus comm

made available through CCC stocks, to assist needy people overseas. In fi

1999, approximately 5.5 million metric tons valued at about $794 million 

programmed under Section 416(b) including over 5.0 million metric tons 

and wheat products under the President’s special food aid initiative. Thes

ties were purchased by CCC under section 5(d), its surplus removal autho

5.5 million metric tons programmed in fiscal year 1999, about 1.6 million 

donated to the U.N. World Food Programme (WFP) to be used in WFP em

operations, protracted relief and recovery operations, and development pr

Operation and project beneficiaries included refugees, the internally disp

and the hungry in poor countries and locations such as Ethiopia, Kosovo, 

North Korea. The balance of about 3.9 million metric tons was programm

government-to-government agreements and agreements with PVO’s. 
petitive position of U.S. agricultural commodities in international markets by 

tating the extension of export credit to middle-income countries that do not ha

access to adequate commercial credit. These CCC programs encourage U.S. l

(typically commercial banks) to extend credit which is used by overseas custo

pay U.S. exporters. Increasing these guarantee programs supports the involve

foreign private sector banks and private sector importers in commercial trade 

tions with the United States. 

The GSM-102 program guarantees repayments of short-term credits (90 

3 years) extended by U.S. financial institutions to eligible banks in countries t

chase U.S. farm products. For fiscal year 1999, GSM-102 allocations of abou

billion were announced to 24 countries and 11 regional groupings, including t

Andean, Baltic, Central American, Central Europe, East Africa, East Caribbea

Southeast Asia, Southeast Europe, Southern Africa, West African, and West

Caribbean regions. Under this availability, GSM-102 registrations totaled abo

billion for exports to 13 countries and 8 regions.

The GSM-103 program is designed to help developing nations make the 

tion from concessional financing to cash purchases. Guarantees issued under 

GSM-103 program can cover financing periods of more than 3 and up to 10 y

For fiscal year 1999, $377 million in intermediate credit guarantees were mad

able to 12 countries and two regions—the Central America and Southern Afri

regions. Under this availability, GSM-103 registrations totaled $44.2 million 

agricultural exports to five countries and one region. 

The Supplier Credit Guarantee Program (SCGP) provides export credit g

tees for sales financed by foreign importers rather than financial institutions. U

the program, CCC guarantees a portion of payments due from importers unde

term financing (up to 180 days) that exporters have extended directly to impo

the purchase of U.S. agricultural commodities and products. The program init

targeted only high-value and value-added products that are sold in smaller siz

transactions. However, in fiscal year 1998, bulk commodities were added and 

tional countries were programmed, which greatly increased program usage an

resulted in registrations of more than $18 million, a 21-percent increase over 

year 1997. For fiscal year 1999, allocations under the SCGP totaled $361 mill

coverage for sales to 12 countries and 8 regions, including the Andean, Baltic

Central America, Central Europe, East Africa, East Caribbean, Southeast Asia

Southeast Europe regions. Under the announced fiscal year 1999 availability, 

tions totaled $46.02 million.

The Facilities Guarantee Program was introduced in fiscal year 1998 as a 

program. This new program is designed to provide payment guarantees to fac

the financing of manufactured goods and services exported from the United S

improve or establish agriculture-related facilities in emerging markets. By sup

such facilities, USDA intends to enhance sales of U.S. agricultural commodit

products to emerging markets where the demand for them may be constricted 

112
guarantee lines for the program. For example, fiscal year 1999 is the first 

program has been made available for certain African countries. Moreover

increased its efforts to promote the program to the U.S. and overseas trad

educate them about how the program works. Although no credit guarante

ties have been finalized to date, USDA anticipates increased interest and 

once the program becomes better known and established. 

Export Assistance Programs

The Export Enhancement Program (EEP), announced by USDA on M

1985, operates under authority of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as a

the Uruguay Round Agreement Act, and the Federal Improvement and R

of 1996 (FAIR Act). The EEP permits USDA to provide bonuses to make 

commodities more competitive in the world marketplace and to offset the 

effects of unfair trade practices or subsidies. 

The FAIR Act sets maximum funding levels for the CCC to make av

the EEP each fiscal year through 2002 as follows: FY 1996, $350 million

$250 million; FY 1998, $500 million; FY 1999, $550 million; FY 2000, 

million; FY 2001, $478 million; and FY 2002, $478 million.

EEP was made operational for fiscal year 1999. Fiscal year 1999 bon

about $1.4 million were awarded for 2,446 metric tons of frozen poultry.

Dairy Export Programs

The Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP) helps exporters sell cer

dairy products at prices lower than the exporter’s cost of acquiring them. 

objective of the program is to develop export markets for dairy products w

products are not competitive because of the presence of subsidized produ

other countries. 

Section 148 of the FAIR Act focuses the DEIP on market developme

provides for full authority and funding to reach the volume or spending li

are consistent with U.S. obligations as a member of the World Trade Org

The DEIP operates on a bid bonus system similar to EEP, with cash bonu

The major markets assisted in fiscal year 1999 included Asia, the for

Union, and Latin America, with $145 million in bonuses awarded on abo

metric tons of dairy products.

Market Access Program

The Market Access Program (MAP) is authorized by Section 203 of 

Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as amended. The MAP is funded at $90 m

annually for fiscal years 1996 through 2002 and is designed to encourage 

development, maintenance, and expansion of foreign markets for U.S. ag

commodities. Since its inception, the MAP has provided cost-share funds 

approximately 800 U.S. companies, cooperatives, and trade organization

promote their products overseas. 
gram, fosters a trade promotion partnership between USDA and U.S. agricult

ducers and processors, represented by nonprofit commodity or trade associati

called cooperators. Projects generally fall into one of four categories: market

research, trade servicing, technical assistance, and consumer promotions for t

market. The cooperator program has helped support growth in U.S. agricultur

exports by enlisting private sector involvement and resources in coordinated e

promote U.S. products to foreign importers and consumers around the world.

International Cooperation

The Foreign Agricultural Service is also responsible for coordinating, sup

ing, and delivering a diversified program of international agricultural coopera

development. Its purpose is to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. agricultur

serve natural resource ecosystems, and pursue sustainable economic developm

worldwide by mobilizing the resources of USDA and its affiliates throughout 

entire U.S. agricultural community.

Food Security

Addressing the issues affecting the world’s food supply, March 1999 saw 

release of the U.S. Action Plan on Food Security. Coordinated by FAS, this re

the United States’ official response to the 1996 World Food Summit, where 18

nations committed to reducing global undernutrition by half by 2015. Based o

partnership between government and civil society, the plan provides a road m

U.S. policy to overcome hunger, undernutrition, and food insecurity, both in t

United States and abroad. 

Scientific Collaboration

Short-term exchange visits between U.S. and foreign scientists, as well a

term collaborative research, focus on minimizing threats to U.S. agriculture a

forestry, developing new technologies, establishing systems to enhance trade, 

providing access to genetic diversity essential to maintaining crops that are co

tive in the world marketplace.

Technical Assistance

Sponsored by such international donor institutions as the U.S. Agency fo

International Development (USAID), the World Bank, regional development 

specialized agencies of the United Nations, and private organizations, technic

tance programs are designed to increase income and food consumption in dev

nations, help mitigate famine and disasters, and help maintain or enhance the 

resource base. Technical assistance is provided in areas such as food processi

distribution, plant and animal protection and quarantine, soil and water conse

and forest management.

114
fall of 1998, USDA took immediate actions to save lives and offer recove

tance. FAS then coordinated long-term recovery assistance among nine U

cies to promote better environmental practices, food security, and food sa

affected region. Using resources provided by the FAS-administered 416(

Donations Program and USAID, USDA managed a small grants program 

income farmers recovering from hurricane Georges in the Dominican Re

Training

Career-related training for foreign agriculturists provides long-term 

economic development, magnifying potential because those who learn te

Working collaboratively with USDA agencies, U.S. universities, and priv

companies and organizations, FAS designs and implements study tours, a

programs, and short-term courses and training in a variety of areas such a

ness, extension education, natural resource management, policy and econ

human resource development. FAS’ Cochran Fellowship Program helps e

senior- and mid-level specialists and administrators from developing, mid

and emerging market countries to U.S. expertise, goods, and services, in 

promote broad-based development that is mutually beneficial to continue

professional, and trade relationships. 

One example of FAS’ training efforts is a regional workshop on bios

plant genetic engineering the agency co-sponsored with the Egyptian Mi

Agriculture in February 1999. Designed to provide a forum for Middle E

Northern Africa policymakers to learn about biotechnology and biosafety 

workshop educated key officials, researchers, producers, consumers, and 

about the development and regulation of genetically modified organisms–

ing focus of research and policy today. In support of the President’s Afric

FAS conducted a May 1999 workshop on meeting international sanitary/

tary standards. USDA officials worked with 37 counterparts from 17 Sub

African countries to discuss the importance of the next round of the WTO 

Africa’s role in implementing food safety and other sanitary/phytosanitar

international standards.

■ Risk Management Agency

The mission of the Risk Management Agency (RMA) is to provide ancost-effective means of managing risk for agricultural producers in o

improve the economic stability of agriculture. Crop insurance is USDA’s 

means of helping farmers survive a major crop loss. For example, in 1999

$31 billion in protection was provided on over 196 million acres through 

than1.8 million policies; this is almost double the $13.6 billion protection 

100 million acres insured in 1994. 
116

acreage planted to major U. S. crops was insured. During the 1999 crop year,

Secretary Glickman took a big step in strengthening the crop insurance progra

when $400 million was set aside to offer farmers an estimated 30-percent redu

the year’s buy-up crop insurance premiums. Since the discount increased the 

of insurance policies sold by 3 to 5 percent, the insured acreage is expected no

to increase, but coverage levels will be greater because of the increase in buy-

cies. 

Crop insurance is widely available for major commodities such as corn, w

and cotton. Coverage is also available on a growing number of fruits, nuts, an

vegetable crops. Nationally, more than 76 crops are insurable (counting all in

varieties would greatly increase the number of crops insured), although not ev

where they are grown.

To help ensure greater farmer access to this valuable risk management to

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) Board of Directors (RMA’s polic

ing panel with private sector and public representation) expanded 35 crop pro

into an additional 283 counties for the 1999 crop year. This expansion added t

national total of 28,437 county crop programs in 3,136 counties. Further, RM

continues to develop new pilot programs, such as insurance for cabbage, wate

ons, and rangeland. By increasing the number and types of insurance plans, th

program will help producers to better manage their production risks. 

Crop insurance is sold and serviced by 17 insurance companies in conjun

with a network of 15,000 agents who provide frontline information on the late

programs available to producers. The effectiveness of this partnership is evide

the fact that virtually all indemnities are paid within 30 days of a claim. More

information on RMA and its programs is available at: http://www.act.fcic.usd

Insurance Plans Available

Multiple-Peril Crop Insurance 

Multiple-Peril Crop Insurance (MPCI) policies insure producers against 

due to unavoidable causes such as drought, excessive moisture, hail, wind, fro

insects, and disease. Indemnities are paid on the difference between what was

produced and the yield guarantee. Yield guarantees are selected by the produc

and generally range from 50 to 75 percent, but up to 85 percent of a producer

actual production history for some areas and crops. The prices used to pay los

between 60 and 100 percent of the commodity price established annually by R

Group Risk Plan

The Group Risk Plan (GRP) policies use a county index as the basis for d

mining a loss. When the county yield for the insured crop, as determined by U

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), falls below the trigger level c

by the farmer, an indemnity is paid. Yield levels are available for up to 90 perc

the expected county yield. GRP protection involves less paperwork and costs 
Revenue Insurance Plans

Revenue Insurance policies include three plans: Crop Revenue Cove

Income Protection, and Revenue Assurance. Revenue policies are differe

standard MPCI policies in that they provide farmers with a measure of pr

protection in addition to covering yield loss. Two of the policies, Crop Re

Coverage and Revenue Assurance, were developed by private-sector insu

companies. The Income Protection pilot was developed by RMA. These p

guarantee a level of revenue that is determined differently by each of the 

Indemnities are paid when any combination of yield and price results in r

that is less than the revenue guarantee.

Adjusted Gross Revenue Plan

In its first year of testing in 1999, the Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR

ance plan, a nontraditional whole farm risk management tool, provides an 

safety net for multiple agricultural commodities in one insurance product

uses a producer’s historic Schedule F tax form information to calculate a 

guaranteed revenue for the insurance period. Qualifying producers can ch

75, or 80 percent coverage level, and all levels have a 75-percent paymen

Dairy Options Pilot Program (DOPP)

RMA currently operates the innovative Dairy Options Pilot Program 

help dairy producers protect their income against the risk of falling milk 

During each round of DOPP, producers in selected pilot counties receive 

the use of futures and options as price risk management tools. Within pro

lines, they may then purchase dairy put options (right to sell) through fut

registered with U.S. exchanges. When prices fall, the value of put options 

thereby protecting the value of at least a portion of the producer’s dairy p

USDA assists participating farmers by funding 80 percent of the cost of t

and by paying $30 per contract toward the commission charged by the br

Outreach

RMA is intensifying its efforts to reach beginning, small, traditional

served, and limited-resource farmers. Some highlights of these efforts inc

■ Training and providing technical assistance in risk management w

nity-based organizations, 1890 land-grant institutions and 1994 tr

colleges, through partnerships and funding of 17 cooperative agre

■ Funding development of risk management curriculums to meet th

of American Indian agricultural businesses. Instructional material 

delivered through 29 tribal colleges. 

■ Improving the risk management skills of Hmong and Hispanic far

California by funding risk management training. 
■ Partnering with the National FFA Foundation to produce risk managem

videos and teaching materials. 

■ Providing computers with current nursery program software to the Flo

Korean Nurserymen Association and local Farm Service Agency coun

offices. The software will simplify the inventory reporting requiremen

under the nursery policy.

Risk Management Education

Current farm policy increases the risk borne by producers. To help them a

the risk management skills needed to compete and win in the global marketpl

RMA is leading a risk management education initiative. This initiative leverag

ernment funds for education with the resources of public and private-sector pa

to find improved risk management strategies, develop educational curricula an

rials, and train producers in effective use of risk management tools. 

RMA facilitates local training with the help of extension specialists and p

sector partners. The initiative is a cooperative effort between RMA; USDA’s

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service and National O

of Outreach; and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. 

RMA is also helping to make information on risk management more acce

to farmers and educators by funding the National Ag Risk Education Library, 

powerful Internet resource developed by the Center for Farm Financial Manag

at the University of Minnesota: http://www.agrisk.umn.edu/

118
Farm Service Agency

Director, Public Affairs, Legislative

Liaison, and Executive Secretariat

Tade Sullivan

Rm 3615-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3865

FAX 202-720-4034

tade_sullivan@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

Public Affairs Branch Chief

Eric L. Parsons

Rm 3624-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7809

FAX 202-690- 2828

eric_parsons@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

Communications Services

Section Chief

Danniel W. Stuart

Rm 3633-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-690-0474

FAX 202-690- 2839

dann.stuart_@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

Field Services Section Head

Greg Hawkins

Rm 3621-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8768

FAX 202-690- 2828

greg_hawkins@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

FOIA Coordinator

Diane Korwin

Rm 3623-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-5534

FAX 202-690- 2828

diane_korwin@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

Farm Service Agen

Public Affairs Conta

CA

Erica Szlosek

430 G Street #4161

Davis, CA 95616-4161

530-792-5537

FAX 530-792-5555

Erica_Szlosek@wdc.fsa.usda

GA

Cynthia Valles

355 E. Hancock Avenue

Stop 107

Athens, GA 30601- 2775

706-5463177

FAX 706-546-2151

Cynthia_Valles@wdc.fsa.usd

IA

Bruce Cordes 

10500 Buena Vista Court

Des Moines, IA 50322

515-254-1540 x 602

FAX 515-254-1573

Bruce_Cordess@wdc.fsa.usd

MN

Jim Meisenheimer 

400 Agribank Building

375 Jackson Street

St Paul, MN 55115

651-602 7719

FAX 651-602-7743

Jim_Meisenheimer@wdc.fsa

MS

David Reagan

6310 I-55 North

Jackson, MS 39211

601-965 4774 x108

FAX 601-965-4184

David_Reagan@wdc.fsa.usd

OH

Mike Kauffman

200 N High Street

Room 540 Federal Building

Columbus, OH 43215

614-255-2500

FAX 614- 255-2542 

Mike_Kauffman@wdc.fsa.us
120

Kathy Lindquist

200 4th St SW

Room 308, Federal Building

Huron, SD 57350-2478

605-352-1163

FAX 605-352-1195

Kathy_Lindquist@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

WA

Scott Hallett

West 316 Boone Avenue

Rock Pointe Tower, Suite 568

Spokane, WA 99201-2350

509-323-3002

FAX 509-323-3074

Scott_Hallett@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

WI

Susan Hunter

Madison, WI 53719

6515 Watts Road

608-276-8732 x141

FAX 608-271-9425

Susan_Hunter@wdc.fsa.usda.gov

—Information on FSA can also be 

found on the FSA Home Page at

www.fsa.usda.gov

Foreign Agricultural Service

Director, Information Div.

Maureen Quinn

Rm 5074-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7115

FAX 202-720- 1727

quinn@fas.usda.gov

Deputy Director

Sally Klusaritz

Rm 5074-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3448

klusaritz@fas.usda.gov

Team Leader

Lynn Goldsbrough

Rm 5713-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3930

FAX 202-720- 3229

goldsbrough@fas.usda.gov 

Judy Goldich

Rm 5084-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-0328

FAX 202-720-1727

goldich@fas.usda.gov

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Donald Washington

Rm 5709-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3101

FAX 202-720-3229

washington@fas.usda.gov

Risk Management Age

Director of External Affairs

Pat Engel

Rm 3058-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7956

FAX 202-690-2002

Pat_Engel@WDC.USDA.GOV

Director, Regulatory

Diana Moslak

Rm 6624-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-2832

FAX 202-690-5879

Diana_Moslak@WDC.USDA.GO

Dir, Claims&Underwriting Srvc

Mike Hand

Rm 6749-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3439

FAX 202-690-2540

MHAND@WDC.USDA.GOV

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Donna Bassett

Rm 6606-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-690-5701

FAX 202-690-5890

Donna_Bassett@WDC.USDA.GO
■ Food and Nutrition Service 

Nutrition is one of USDA’s central missions. The Food and Nutrition (FNS) administers USDA’s domestic nutrition assistance programs, 

mission of reducing hunger and food insecurity by providing children an

ilies better access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition education.

USDA has elevated nutrition and nutrition education to top priorities 

programs. Rather than simply providing food, FNS also works to empow

participants with knowledge of the link between diet and health. 

At the same time, USDA is committed to ensuring that the programs 

accurately and efficiently. FNS works closely with the States to ensure th

are received only by those who are eligible, and to catch and punish peop

to abuse the programs for their own gain.

FNS works in partnership with the States in all its programs. States d

most administrative details regarding participant eligibility and distributi

tion benefits, and FNS provides funding to cover some of the States’ adm

costs.

For FY 2000, the total appropriation for the nutrition assistance prog

billion, nearly two-thirds of the entire USDA budget. 

Overall, the nutrition programs reach one out of every six people livi

America, and touch every community in the United States. Most of the p

directed at low-income people or school children. They include:

■ The Food Stamp Program

■ The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants

Children (WIC)

■ The National School Lunch Program

■ The School Breakfast Program

■ Team Nutrition

■ The Emergency Food Assistance Program

■ The Child and Adult Care Food Program

■ The Commodity Supplemental Food Program

■ The Summer Food Service Program

■ The Special Milk Program

■ The Nutrition Program for the Elderly

■ The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations

■ The WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program

■ The Nutrition Assistance Program in Puerto Rico and the Pacific 
122

The Food Stamp Program

The Food Stamp Program is the cornerstone of USDA’s nutrition assistan

grams. The program helps low-income households increase their food purcha

power and their choices for a better diet. It is the primary source of nutrition a

tance for low-income households in the United States. Initiated as a pilot prog

1961 and made permanent in 1964, the program issues monthly allotments of

coupons that are redeemable at retail food stores, or provides benefits through

Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT). 

The Food Stamp Program serves the most needy among the Nation’s pop

In Fiscal Year 1997, more than half of all food stamp participants were childre

than 90 percent of all food stamp households had incomes below the Federal 

level; and 39 percent had incomes that were half or less of the poverty level. 

Services mission area also includes the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promo

Additional information on FNS and its programs can be found on the Wo

Wide Web at www.fns.usda.gov. 

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

FNS was established August 8, 1969, and celebrated its 30th

anniversary in 1999. But many of the nutrition programs had their

origins at USDA long before FNS existed as a separate agency.

The predecessor of the modern Food Stamp Program was the Foo

Stamp Plan, which originated in 1939. The Food Distribution Progr

on Indian Reservations evolved from the Needy Family Program,

which helped hungry Americans during the Depression era. USDA

also distributed surplus food for use in school meals during the

1930’s.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

Determining eligibility: Many of USDA’s nutrition programs use hou

hold income as a guideline for program eligibility. Depending on the

program rules, household income of 100 percent, 130 percent, or 

percent of the Federal poverty level may be used to determine leve

of eligibility. As of June 30, 1999, 100 percent of the poverty guidel

is $16,700 a year for a family of four; 130 percent is $21,710 a yea

and 185 percent is $30,895 a year. Federal poverty guidelines are

established by the Office of Management and Budget and are

updated annually by the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services.
cially working poor households who may have lost benefits under other p

FNS launched its food stamp information initiative in 1999 to ensure that 

people know they are eligible and know how to get benefits.

Increasingly, paper food stamp coupons are being replaced by electr

transfer, or EBT, a computerized system in which participants use magne

cards to access their food stamp accounts at the point of sale. As of Octob

States and the District of Columbia were operating the EBT system for a

their food stamp issuance, and some were using it for other benefits prog

All other States were in some stage of EBT development. 

The 1996 welfare reform law requires all States to implement EBT s

food stamp issuance by 2002. Because it eliminates paper coupons and c

electronic record of every food stamp transaction, EBT is a useful tool in 

program delivery and in reducing certain types of food stamp fraud and t

EBT is only one component of FNS’ commitment to Food Stamp Pr

integrity. The agency works closely with the States to ensure that they iss

in the correct amounts, and only to people who are eligible. EBT has enh

ability to catch those who abuse the program, and penalties have been inc

people who are caught. In addition, FNS now has broader authority to rev

formance of food retailers who participate in the program, and to quickly 

those who fail to follow program rules.

USDA also provides educational materials to help States integrate nu

the Food Stamp Program and to help food stamp recipients make healthie

choices as they use their benefits. 

Eligibility: Food stamp eligibility and allotments are based on house

and income, assets, and other factors. A household’s gross monthly incom

exceed 130 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines, and its net income 

exceed 100 percent of the guidelines (though households with elderly or 

members are not subject to the gross income limit). Illegal aliens are not 

receive food stamp benefits. The welfare reform law of 1996 excluded m

aliens from eligibility as well, though Congress later modified those prov

restored benefits to many who were excluded under the 1996 law. The we

law also limited able-bodied adults without dependents who are working 

training to 3 months of benefits in a 36-month period.

Benefits: The level of benefits a household receives is based on its h

income. Average monthly benefits were about $72 per person in 1999. Ho

with no countable net income receive the maximum monthly allotment o

stamps—$419 for a household of four in FY 1999. The allotment is base

of the Thrifty Food Plan, a low-cost model food plan. The Food Stamp Pr

served an average of 18.2 million people each month in FY 1999. 

Funding: The total Food Stamp Program appropriation was $21.1 b

1999. 
124

The National School Lunch Program

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is a federally assisted meal 

gram operating in more than 96,000 public and nonprofit private schools and 

tial child care institutions. It provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free 

and afterschool snacks to more than 27 million children each school day.

The NSLP is usually administered by State education agencies, which op

the program through agreements with local school districts. FNS administers 

gram at the Federal level. School districts and independent schools that choos

take part in the lunch program receive cash reimbursement and donated comm

foods from USDA for each meal they serve. In return, they must serve meals 

meet Federal nutrition requirements, and they must offer free and reduced-pri

lunches to eligible children. School food authorities can also be reimbursed f

snacks served to children through age 18 in after-school educational or enrich

programs.

FNS’s Team Nutrition initiative, launched in 1994, was the first major ref

the school lunch program since it was established in 1946. Team Nutrition up

nutrition standards so that all school meals will meet the recommendations of 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Team Nutrition also provides training and 

cal support for school nutrition and food service staffs, and nutrition educatio

rials for children and families.

USDA has placed special emphasis on improving the quality of commod

foods donated to the National School Lunch Program. The Commodities

Improvement Council promotes the health of school children by improving th

tional profile of USDA commodities while maintaining USDA’s support for d

agricultural markets. Based on the council’s recommendations, USDA has red

the fat, sodium, and sugar content of commodities, and increased the variety o

fat and reduced-fat products. 

USDA has greatly increased the amount of fresh produce available to sch

and is now offering unprecedented amounts and varieties of fresh fruit and ve

bles. A cooperative project with the Department of Defense (DOD) has allow

USDA to increase the variety of produce available to schools by utilizing DO

ing and distribution system. USDA is also exploring ways to connect schools 

system that allows food stamp customers to use a plastic debit car

similar to a bank card to access their food stamp benefits. Eligible

recipients have an account established for their monthly benefits.

At the grocery checkout, they present the card, which is used to de

their food stamp account for the amount of eligible purchases. The

funds are automatically transferred to the retailer’s account, and an

electronic record is made of the transaction. No money and no food

stamps change hands.
Eligibility: Any child, regardless of family income level, can purcha

through the NSLP. Children from families with incomes at or below 130 

the Federal poverty level are eligible to receive free meals. Children from 

with incomes between 130 and 185 percent of poverty are eligible for red

meals. Children from families with incomes over 185 percent of poverty 

price, which is established by the local school food authority.

Benefits: Children receive meals free or at low cost because of USD

for the school meals programs. Most of that support comes in the form of 

bursements to schools for meals served. USDA’s per-meal reimbursemen

the contiguous United States for school year 1999-2000 were $1.98 for fr

$1.58 for reduced-price meals; and 19 cents for full-price meals. Reimbu

rates are slightly higher in Alaska and Hawaii. Schools may charge no m

cents for a reduced-price meal. They set their own prices for full-price m

they must operate their meal services on a non-profit basis.

In addition to cash reimbursements, schools are entitled to receive co

foods, called “entitlement” foods, at an annually adjusted per-meal rate (

per meal in school year 1999-2000) for each meal they serve. Schools ca

additional commodities, known as “bonus” commodities, when these are 

from surplus stocks purchased by USDA under surplus removal and price 

programs. USDA commodities make up approximately 17 percent of the 

food served by the average school food authority. The rest of the food ser

purchased locally by the school food authority.

Funding: For FY 2000, Congress appropriated $5.7 billion for the N

School Lunch Program. 

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

The value of USDA commodity foods makes up only about 17 

cent of cost of the foods that are served to children in the Natio

School Lunch Program. Nonetheless, USDA provided more th

billion pounds of food, valued at more than $700 million, to sch

school year/fiscal year 1998-99.

The School Breakfast Program

The School Breakfast Program (SBP) provides cash assistance to Sta

operate nonprofit breakfast programs in schools and residential child care 

The program operates in more than 71,000 schools and institutions, servi

average of some 7.5 million children. It is administered at the Federal lev

State education agencies administer the SBP at the State level, and local 

authorities operate it in schools.
126

poverty level are eligible for free breakfasts. Children from families with inco

between 130 and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for reduced-pric

breakfasts. Children from families with incomes over 185 percent of poverty 

full, locally established price for their breakfasts. 

Benefits: Students receive their meals free or at low cost because USDA 

ports the School Breakfast Program with cash reimbursements for meals serv

school year 1999-2000, schools in the contiguous United States received reim

ments of $1.09 for a free meal; 79 cents for a reduced-price meal; and 21 cent

full-price meal. As with the school lunch program, reimbursements are slightl

in Alaska and Hawaii. Schools may charge no more than 30 cents for a reduce

breakfast. Local schools set their own prices for full-price meals, but must op

a non-profit basis.

Funding: For FY 2000, Congress appropriated $1.4 billion for the SBP. 

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

The vast majority of children who participate in the School Breakfa

Program—about 85 percent—receive their meals free or at a reduc

price. That compares to 57 percent of children who receive free or

reduced-price meals in the National School Lunch Program. Howe

FNS promotes the benefits of healthy breakfast for all children,

regardless of income status. Teachers have long reported that thei

students are more alert and perform better in class if they eat brea

fast. FNS will initiate a series of pilot projects in school year 2000-

2001 to evaluate the link between free breakfast for all children and

improvement in academic performance.

Team Nutrition 

FNS provides nutrition education through Team Nutrition. Team Nutritio

provides schools with nutrition education materials and other support for chil

nutrition programs such as the National School Lunch and School Breakfast

Programs, and with technical support for food service professional staffs. It a

provides nutrition education materials for USDA’s other nutrition assistance

programs.

Eligibility: All children participating in or eligible to participate in the USD

Child Nutrition Programs may receive nutrition education through Team Nutrit

Professional school food service staffs can also receive training and technical su

Funding: In FY 2000, Congress appropriated $10 million for Team Nutr
(WIC) is a grant program for States, intended to improve the health of pr

partum, and breastfeeding women, and infants and children up to 5 years 

viding supplemental foods, nutrition education, and access to health care

agencies provide food directly to participants, but most States provide W

that can be used at authorized food stores for approved foods.

WIC provides each State with a grant of funds to serve its most need

population. Because of documented successes of the WIC program in im

the nutritional well-being of participants, it has received continuing polit

enabling it to expand to serve more eligible people. In FY 1999, WIC ser

average of more than 7.3 million people each month. 

Eligibility: To be eligible for WIC, an applicant must be a pregnant, 

feeding, or postpartum woman, or an infant or child under age 5, and mu

State residency requirements, meet an income standard, and be determine

health professional to be at nutritional risk. This nutrition evaluation is do

cost to the applicant.

Benefits: In most States, WIC participants receive vouchers that allo

purchase a monthly food package especially designed to supplement thei

foods provided are high in protein, calcium, iron, and vitamins A and C. W

include iron-fortified infant formula and infant cereal; iron-fortified adult 

vitamin C-rich fruit or vegetable juice; eggs, milk, and cheese; and legum

as peanut butter, dried beans, or peas. Special therapeutic formulas and fo

provided when prescribed by a physician for a specified medical conditio

The Food and Nutrition Service also encourages WIC mothers to bre

their babies whenever possible. Women who breastfeed their babies and d

receive infant formula for them receive an enhanced WIC food package t

tuna, carrots, and extra juice, cheese, and legumes.

Funding: The appropriation for the WIC program in FY 2000 is $4 

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

In 1999, WIC was recognized for excellence in customer servi

Vice President Gore’s National Partnership for Reinventing

Government. Among 30 high-impact Government programs, W

customer satisfaction rating was second only to the Head Star

gram. The American Customer Satisfaction Index is utilized to 

businesses. WIC’s score compared favorably with businesses 

for customer services, Nordstroms and Mercedes Benz.
128

The WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program 

The WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) was established in 

The program has two goals: To provide fresh, nutritious, unprepared food, suc

fruits and vegetables, from farmers’ markets to WIC participants who are at n

tional risk; and to expand consumers’ awareness and use of farmers’ markets. 

program, operated in conjunction with the regular WIC Program, is offered in 

States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and four Indian tribal organizations. 

Eligibility: Women, infants over 4 months old, and children who receive 

program benefits, or who are WIC-eligible, may purchase foods at farmers’ m

through the FMNP.

Benefits: Fresh produce can be purchased with FMNP coupons. State ag

may limit FMNP sales to specific foods that are locally grown to encourage p

pants to support the farmers in their own State.

Funding: Congress made up to $15 million available for FMNP under th

2000 WIC appropriation. 

opened in Pineville, KY, on January 15, 1974, as part of a 2-year p

project. In 1975, the WIC program was established by public law as 

permanent national health and nutrition program.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

WIC has been shown to be effective in improving the health of new

borns and infants, as well as mothers. A 1990 USDA study of WIC

and Medicaid costs in five States reported that every $1 spent on

WIC prenatal care saved up to $3.13 in Medicaid costs in the first 6

days after birth.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

FNS requires all States to take bids from or negotiate with

manufacturers for the best rebate on each can of WIC infant formu

purchased. For FY 1999, infant formula rebates totaled about $1.4

billion nationwide.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

USDA estimates that WIC serves 46 percent of babies born in the

United States.
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program 

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) is a program o

to States, administered by FNS at the Federal level. CSFP provides comm

to supplement the diets of low-income infants; children up to the age of 6

postpartum, and breastfeeding women; and persons 60 years of age and o

CSFP operates in 22 States, the District of Columbia, and two Indian 

organizations. USDA donates commodity foods to the State agencies for 

and provides funds to State and local agencies to cover certain administra

The program served an average of more than 381,000 people each month 

Eligibility: State agencies that administer CSFP may establish a resi

requirement and/or require applicants to be determined to be at nutritiona

order to be eligible for program participation. To be income eligible, wom

and children must be eligible for benefits under existing Federal, State, o

health, or welfare programs, and must not currently be receiving WIC be

Elderly persons must meet a low-income standard.

Benefits: There are six food packages for different categories of part

The food packages are not intended to provide a complete and balanced d

rather are supplements that are good sources of the nutrients often lackin

participants’ diets.

Funding: The 2000 appropriation for CSFP is $88.3 million. 

The Child and Adult Care Food Program 

The Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) provides healthy 

snacks in child care centers, family day care homes, and adult day care fa

By reimbursing participating day care operators for a portion of the c

eligible meals and snacks and providing them with USDA commodity fo

nutrition information materials, CACFP helps ensure that children and ad

care receive healthy meals. Family day care homes may be overseen by s

organizations, which also receive reimbursements from USDA for their a

tive expenses.

The program generally operates in child care centers, outside-school

care centers, family and group day care homes, and some adult day care c

Homeless shelters that serve young children may also be eligible to partic

In return for Federal support, care providers in the CACFP must serve me

meet Federal guidelines, and must offer free or reduced-price meals to el

people. Child care centers can also be reimbursed for snacks served to ch

through age 18 in after-school educational or enrichment programs.

Program has been available, WIC participants have consumed 

fresh fruits and vegetables.
130

1978, and the name was changed in 1989 to reflect the addition of an adult co

nent. CACFP is administered at the Federal level by FNS. State agencies or F

regional offices oversee the program at the local level.

In September 1999, CACFP provided meals to some 2.4 million children 

more than 64,000 adults. 

Eligibility: At child and adult day care centers, participants from familie

incomes at or below 130 percent of the Federal poverty level may qualify for 

meals; those from families with income between 130 percent and 185 percent 

poverty level may qualify for reduced-price meals; and those from families w

income above 185 percent of the poverty level pay full price. For family day 

homes, Congress instituted a two-tier system of reimbursements under the we

reform law of 1996. Under this system, day care providers located in low-inco

areas, or whose own households are low income, are reimbursed at a single ra

1 reimbursement) for meals served to enrolled children. Other providers are r

bursed at a lower rate (tier 2 reimbursement) unless they choose to have their 

soring organizations identify children who are income eligible. Meals served 

income-eligible children are reimbursed at the higher tier 1 level.

Benefits: Children and adults who attend day care facilities receive nutrit

meals and snacks. Care providers receive reimbursement for eligible meals an

snacks. Family day care sponsoring organizations may receive reimbursemen

their administrative costs.

Funding: Congress appropriated $1.7 billion for the CACFP in FY 1999

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

Congress in 1998 expanded reimbursement to provide snacks for

educational and enrichment afterschool care programs for at-risk

children through age 18. Funding for snacks in afterschool program

is provided through the National School Lunch Program and the C

and Adult Care Food Program.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

More than 170,000 family day care homes and 34,000 day care ce

ters participated in the Child and Adult Care Food Program in Fisc

Year 1999.
children during school vacations. 

SFSP was first created as part of a larger pilot program in 1968, and 

separate program in 1975. The SFSP served almost 2.3 million children a 

the summer of 1998. 

The program is administered at the Federal level by FNS. Locally, it 

by approved sponsors, which receive reimbursement from USDA for the 

serve.

Sponsors provide meals at a central site such as a school or commun

All meals are served free.

The Summer Food Service Program operates in low-income areas w

more of the children are from households with income at or below 185 pe

Federal poverty guideline. Sites that primarily serve homeless children m

pate regardless of location. Residential children’s camps also may get rei

through the SFSP for meals served to income-eligible children. 

Eligibility: Children age 18 and under, and people over age 18 who 

mined by a State educational agency to be mentally or physically handica

who participate in a school program for the mentally or physically handic

receive meals through the Summer Food Service Program. 

Benefits: At most sites, participants receive either one or two meals 

Residential camps and sites that primarily serve children from migrant ho

may be approved to serve up to three meals per day.

Sponsors are reimbursed for documented operating and administrativ

Funding: Congress appropriated $298 million for the Summer Food 

Program in FY 1999. 

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

Some 27 million children eat school lunch every day when sch

in session, and more than half of them receive their meals free 

reduced price. The Summer Food Service Program offers thos

needy children nutritious food when school is not in session. H

only about 2.3 million children currently participate in the SFSP

part because many communities do not sponsor the program.

The Special Milk Program 

The Special Milk Program (SMP) provides milk to children in schoo

care institutions that do not participate in other Federal meal service prog

program reimburses schools for the milk they serve.

Schools in the National School Lunch or School Breakfast Programs 

also participate in the SMP to provide milk to children in half-day prekin

and kindergarten programs where children do not have access to the scho

programs.
132

1960s.

Eligibility: Any child at a participating school or kindergarten program c

milk through the SMP. Children may buy milk or receive it free, depending on 

school’s choice of program options. When local officials offer free milk under 

program, any child from a family that meets income guidelines for free meals 

milk is eligible. 

Benefits: Participating schools and institutions receive reimbursement fro

Federal Government for each half-pint of milk served. They must operate thei

programs on a nonprofit basis. They agree to use the Federal reimbursement t

the selling price of milk to all children. 

Funding: Congress appropriated $17.2 million for the program in FY 20

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

In 1999, more than 128 million half-pints of milk were served throu

the Special Milk Program.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

Indian tribal organizations may select an age below 60 for defining 

“older” person for their tribes for purposes of eligibility for the Nutrit

Program for the Elderly.

Nutrition Program for the Elderly 

The Nutrition Program for the Elderly (NPE) helps provide elderly perso

nutritionally sound meals through meals-on-wheels programs or in senior citi

ters and similar settings. 

The NPE is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human S

but receives commodity foods and financial support from USDA under provis

the Older Americans Act of 1965. USDA provided reimbursement for more th

million meals a month in FY 1998.

Eligibility: Age is the only factor used in determining eligibility. People 

or older and their spouses, regardless of age, are eligible for NPE benefits. Th

no income requirement to receive meals under NPE.

Benefits: Each recipient can contribute as much as he or she wishes towa

cost of the meal, but meals are free to those who cannot make any contributio

Under NPE, USDA provides cash reimbursements and/or commodity foo

organizations that provide meals through DHHS programs. Meals served mus

specified percentage of the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA’s) in ord

qualify for cash or commodity assistance. 

Funding: Congress appropriated $140 million for NPE for 2000. 
reservations, and to Native American families living near reservations. M

Americans participate in the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reserv

(FDPIR) as an alternative to the Food Stamp Program if they do not have 

to food stores. An average of 129,000 people received food through each 

1999.

The program is administered at the Federal level by FNS in cooperat

State and tribal agencies. USDA provides food to the agencies, which are 

for program operations such as storage and distribution, eligibility certifi

nutrition education. 

The food packages distributed through FDPIR were updated in 1997 

ative effort by USDA nutritionists, tribal leaders, and health advocates. C

made the food packages easier to use, and better serve the health needs an

ences of Native Americans. USDA also provides nutrition information in 

food package, with suggestions for making the most nutritious use of the 

foods. 

Eligibility: To participate in FDPIR, the household must have low in

program requirements, have assets within specified limits, and be located 

an Indian reservation. 

Benefits: USDA donates a variety of foods to help FDPIR participan

a balanced diet. These commodities include canned meats and fish produ

bles, fruits, and juices; dried beans; peanuts or peanut butter; milk, butter

pasta, flour, or grains; adult cereals; corn syrup or honey; and vegetable o

ening. Frozen chicken and ground beef are increasingly available as tribe

store and handle these products safely, and the 1997 review of food packa

in the addition of noodles, spaghetti sauce, crackers, reduced-salt soups a

refried beans.

Through an interagency partnership with the Department of Defense 

fresh fruits and vegetables are now available to Indian tribal organization

FDPIR.

Each participant receives a monthly package that contains a variety o

FY 1999, the value of the monthly food package was about $31 per perso

Funding: Congress appropriated $75 million for FDPIR in FY 1999

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

A recipe book, Quick & Easy Commodity Recipes for the Food

Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, was released for 

by FDPIR participants in 1990. The book was developed as pa

a 5-year nutrition education plan. USDA also distributes a serie

nutrition and health fact sheets for FDPIR participants.
134

assistance to needy Americans through the distribution of USDA commoditie

TEFAP, commodities are made available to States for distribution to organiza

that provide them to low-income households for home consumption, and to o

tions that use them in congregate meal service for the needy, including the ho

Local agencies, usually food banks, shelters, and soup kitchens, are designate

States to distribute the food. 

TEFAP was first authorized in 1981 to distribute surplus commodities to 

holds. Its aim was to help reduce Federal food inventories and storage costs w

assisting the needy. The 1988 Hunger Prevention Act required the Secretary o

Agriculture not only to distribute surplus foods, but also to purchase additiona

for further distribution to needy households. Foods available vary depending 

market conditions. 

Eligibility: Each State sets its own income limits for household eligibilit

receive food for home use. States can adjust the income criteria based on the l

of need in order to ensure that assistance is provided only to those most in nee

No income test is applied to people who receive meals at soup kitchens a

congregate feeding sites that make use of TEFAP foods.

Benefits: TEFAP has provided many billions of pounds of food since its 

ning. More than 1 billion pounds, valued at $846 million, were distributed at t

gram’s height in 1987. In 1999, more than 361 million pounds of food, valued 

more than $225 million, was distributed.

Funding: Congress appropriated $143 million for TEFAP in FY 2000. 

The Nutrition Assistance Programs in Puerto Rico, 

American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Norther

Mariana Islands

The Food Stamp Program in Puerto Rico was replaced in 1982 by a block 

program. American Samoa and the Northern Marianas in the Pacific also prov

benefits under block grants. Eligibility: The territories determine eligibility an

ments for their programs based on household size, income, assets, and other f

Benefits: The territories provide cash and coupons to participants rather t

food stamps or food distribution. The grant can also be used for administrativ

expenses or for special projects related to food production and distribution. 

Funding: The appropriation for the NAP in Puerto Rico for FY 2000 wa

billion. For the Pacific Islands, the appropriation was $10 million. 

USDA Disaster Assistance 

FNS is the primary agency responsible for providing Federal food assista

response to domestic disasters such as fires, floods, storms, and earthquakes. F

provides assistance through the Food Distribution Program and the Disaster F

Stamp Program.
agencies. All States have stocks of USDA food on hand for use in their co

programs for schools or needy people. These stocks can be released imm

use in a disaster situation. 

Upon request from a State, FNS will procure additional food to meet 

people affected by a disaster. Nearby States may be asked to release their 

USDA food to help feed disaster victims. State agencies then distribute th

emergency shelters and other mass feeding sites operated by disaster reli

such as the American Red Cross. 

The State may also request that food be made available for househol

tion, if commercial channels of food supply are not available because of t

Disaster Food Stamp Program

When commercial channels of food supply have been restored follow

ter, a State may request approval from the Secretary of Agriculture to ope

Disaster Food Stamp Program. A Disaster Food Stamp Program may also 

mented following a Presidential disaster declaration under the Robert T. S

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.

If approval is granted, FNS provides on-site guidance for establishin

ating the disaster program. FNS ensures that an adequate supply of food 

coupons or EBT benefits are available. State and local officials are respon

determining the eligibility of households to receive disaster food stamps, 

ing the benefits.

■ Nutrition Program Fact:

In fiscal year 1999, FNS provided approximately $13.2 million 

of food to victims of natural disasters.

■ Communications and Governmental Affair

I

n 1999, the Office of Consumer Affairs merged with Public and Govern

Affairs to provide more coordinated support to FNS, consumer groups

program stakeholders. Communications and Governmental Affairs (CGA

the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services on cons

constituent issues and concerns, as well as governmental and public affai

CGA arranges periodic meetings, briefings, and roundtables on USD

policy for the public, consumer representatives, and program stakeholder

public access to a wide range of USDA and FNS documents such as spee

tory proposals, and studies, through the Internet and other electronic med

responds to consumer requests for assistance and information on USDA p

procedures.
136

The CGA director reports to the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and

Consumer Services, and receives managerial and administrative support from 

■ Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion

The Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion was established in Decembto provide direction and coordination for USDA’s nutrition research and p

activities. The Center’s mission is to enhance the nutritional status of America

linking scientific research to the nutritional needs of the American consumer.

Nutrition research is translated into information and materials for nutrition ed

and policy makers, health professionals, private companies, and consumers to

increase public knowledge and understanding of the importance of nutrition a

to improve diet quality. 

The Center is best known for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, The 

Guide Pyramid, The Food Guide Pyramid for Young Children, The Healthy Ea

Index, and Expenditures on Children by Families. These and other products d

oped by the Center are available at the Center’s web site at www.usda.gov/cnp

The Center is an independent resource in USDA which reports to the Und

Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services and works cooperative

other parts of the Department to provide strategic planning and coordination f

cation and nutrition policy. The Center receives administrative support from F

funding for FY 1999 is $2.5 million.

tance programs that FNS operates must do so through the approp

ate State or local agency. In general, applicants for the largest

programs should contact the following:

■ Food Stamp Program: Contact the State welfare agency. Food

stamp offices may be listed in the telephone book under “food

stamps,” “social services,” “human services,” or some similar term

■ National School Lunch or School Breakfast Program free and

reduced-price meals: Contact the neighborhood school or local

school district.

■ WIC program: Contact State or local public health offices.

For programs not listed above, State and local welfare agencies,

health departments, or education agencies can provide information

about what programs are available and how and where to apply.

Local Congressional representatives’ offices may also be able to p

vide assistance in contacting the appropriate agency.
Me

D

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture/U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Vegetable 

Group 

3-5 SERVINGS

Milk, Yogurt,

& Cheese

Group 

2-3 SERVINGS

Fat (naturally occur

and added)

These symbols show 

added sugars in foods

Fats, Oils, & Sweets KEY

USE SPARINGLY
138

Bread, Cereal, Rice, and Pasta 

Vegetable 

Fruit 

Milk, Yogurt, and Cheese 

1 slice of bread 1 ounce of readyto-eat cereal

1/2 cup of cooked

cereal, rice, or

pasta

1 medium apple,

banana, orange

1/2 cup of

chopped, cooked,

or canned fruit

3/4 cup of

fruit juice

1 cup of milk or

yogurt

1-1/2 ounces of 

natural cheese

2 ounces of 

process cheese

2-3 ounces of

cooked lean meat,

poultry, or fish

1/2 cup of cooked dry beans or 1 egg

counts as 1 ounce of lean meat.

2 tablespoons of peanut butter or 1/3 cup of

nuts count as 1 ounce of meat.

1 cup of raw

leafy vegetables

1/2 cup of other

vegetables, cooked

or chopped raw

3/4 cup of

vegetable juice

Meat, Poultry, Fish, Dry Beans, Eggs, and Nuts 
Eat a

variety of

foods

Choose

a diet

with plenty of

grain products,

vegetables,

and fruits

Choose a 

diet low

in fat,

saturated fat,

and cholesterol

If you drink

alcoholic beverages,

do so in

moderation

Balance

the food you eat with 

physical activitymaintain or improve your 

weight

Choose a

diet moderate

in salt and

sodium

Choose a

diet moderate

in sugars

Dietary Guidelines

for Americans

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
140

Food and Nutrition Service

Director, Office of Communications and

Governmental Affairs

Joyce Willis

3101 Park Center Dr.,#805PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2281

FAX 703-305-2312

joyce.willis@fns.usda.gov

Deputy Director, Office of

Communications and Governmental

Affairs

Mike Haga

3101 Park Center Dr., #926PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2039

mike.haga@fns.usda.gov

Director, Governmental Affairs

Frank Ippolito

3101 Park Center Dr., #806PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2010

FAX 703-305-2464

frank.ippolito@fns.usda.gov

Director, Public Information

Jean Daniel

3101 Park Center Dr.,#819PC 

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2286

FAX 703-305-1117

jean.daniel@fns.usda.gov

Team Leader, Publishing/AV Branch

Chris Kocsis

3101 Park Center Dr.,#814PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2286

FAX 703-305-1117

chris.kocsis@fns.usda.gov

Team Leader, News Branch

3101 Park Center Dr.,#815PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2286

FAX 703-305-1117

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Sara Bradshaw

3101 Park Center Dr.,#308PC

Alexandria, VA 22302

703-305-2244

FAX 703-305-2921

sara.bradshaw@fns.usda.gov

FNS Regional Public Informatio

Offices

Northeast Reg. PA Director

Charles De Julius

10 Causeway Street

Boston, MA 02222-1068

617-565-6395

FAX 617-565-6472

charles.dejulius@fns.usda.gov

Mid-Atlantic Reg. PA Director

Margarita Maisterrena

Mercer Corp. Park, 300 Corporate 

Robbinsville, NJ 08691-1598

609-259-5091

FAX 609-259-5147

margarita.maisterrena.@fns.usda.

Southeast Reg. Public Affairs

Karen Dean

61 Forsyth St.,SW,Suite 112

Atlanta, GA 30303

404-562-1812

FAX 404-527-4502

karen.dean@fns.usda.gov

Midwest Reg. PA Director

Lawrence Rudmann

77 W. Jackson Blvd., 20th Flr

Chicago, IL 60604

312-353-1044

FAX 312-353-0171

lawrence.rudmann@fns.usda.gov

Mtn. Plains Reg. PA Director

Craig Forman

1244 Speer Boulevard, Rm903

Denver, CO 80204

303-844-0312

FAX 303-844-6203

craig.forman@fns.usda.gov
y 

1100 Commerce Street,Rm5C30

Dallas, TX 75242

214-290-9802

FAX 214-767-6249

judy.barron@fns.usda.gov

Western Reg. PA Director

Cordelia Morris

550 Kearny Street, Rm 400

San Francisco, CA 94108

415-705-1311

FAX 415-705-1364

cordelia.morris@fns.usda.gov

and Promotion

Information Director

John Webster

Suite 200 North Lobby,

1120 20th St., NW

Washington, DC 20036

202-418-2312

FAX 202-208-2322

john.webster@usda.gov
142

y

■ Food Safety and Inspection Service

The Office of Food Safety oversees the Food Safety and Inspection Serviceagency within USDA responsible for ensuring the safety, wholesomeness

correct labeling and packaging of meat, poultry, and egg products. FSIS opera

under the authority of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products

Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act. FSIS sets standards for f

safety and inspects and regulates all raw and processed meat and poultry prod

and egg products sold in interstate commerce, including imported products. F

working on a strategy for change to reduce the incidence of foodborne illness 

able to meat, poultry, and egg products.

In FY 1998, FSIS inspected over 7.8 billion poultry and more than 131.9 

head of livestock. Continuous inspection of 73 U.S. egg products plants was p

by 102 inspectors who inspected 2.164 billion pounds of egg products.

The activities of FSIS include:

■ Inspecting poultry and livestock, as well as processed products made f

them,

■ Inspection of all liquid, frozen, and dried egg products,

■ Setting standards for plant facilities, product contents, processing proc

packaging and labeling, and microbial and chemical contamination,

■ Analyzing products for microbiological and chemical adulterants,

■ Conducting risk assessments, as well as epidemiologic and other scien

studies, to estimate human health outcomes associated with the consu

of meat, poultry, and egg products. These risk assessments and studies 

vide science-based information for risk management and communicat

■ Educating consumers about foodborne illness by way of publications, 

tional campaigns, and a toll-free, nationwide Meat and Poultry Hotlin

FSIS inspectors check animals before and after slaughter, preventing dise

animals from entering the food supply and examining carcasses for visible de

that can affect safety and quality. Inspectors also test for the presence of drug 

chemical residues that violate Federal law. Over the last 20 years, FSIS has m

nificant progress in reducing the violation rate for drug residues. 

More than 7,500 FSIS inspectors carry out the inspection laws in o

6,400 privately owned meat, poultry, and other slaughtering or pro

cessing plants in the United States and U.S. Territories.
In addition, about 250,000 different processed meat and poultry prod

under FSIS inspection. These include hams, sausages, soups, stews, pizza

dinners, and products containing 2 percent or more cooked poultry or at l

cent raw meat. In addition to inspecting these products during processing

uates and sets standards for food ingredients, additives, and compounds u

prepare and package meat and poultry products.

As part of the inspection process, FSIS inspectors test for the presen

pathogens and toxins such as Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, and

Staphylococcal enterotoxin in ready-to- eat and other processed products

pathogens are permitted in such products.

FSIS also tests for pathogens in some raw products. In 1994, USDA 

E.coli O157:H7 an adulterant in raw ground beef and established a monit

gram for the pathogen in raw ground beef. As part of the Pathogen Reduc

Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems final rule in July 

for the first time set pathogen reduction performance standards for Salmo

slaughter plants and plants producing raw ground products must meet. Th

also requires meat and poultry slaughter plants to conduct microbial testi

generic E.coli to verify the adequacy of their process controls for the prev

fecal contamination.

Imported meat and poultry are also subject to FSIS scrutiny. The age

and monitors the foreign inspection systems to ensure they are equivalen

system before those countries are allowed to export. When the products r

United States, products are reinspected at 155 active import locations by 

inspection personnel.

More than 2.8 billion pounds of meat and poultry passed inspe

for entry in the United States from 32 countries during 1998.

Swine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Other livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7,8

Egg products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2,
144

FSIS issued its landmark rule, Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and 

Control Point (HACCP) Systems on July 25, 1996. The rule addresses the ser

problem of foodborne illness in the United States associated with meat and po

products by focusing more attention on the prevention and reduction of micro

pathogens on raw products that can cause illness. It also clarifies the respectiv

of government and industry in food safety. Industry is accountable for produc

food. Government is responsible for setting appropriate food safety standards

taining vigorous oversight to ensure those standards are met, and operating a 

enforcement program to, among other things, deal with plants that do not mee

latory standards.

The Pathogen Reduction and HACCP rule: (1) requires all meat and poul

plants to develop and implement written standard operating procedures for sa

(SSOP’s), (2) requires meat and poultry slaughter plants to conduct microbial 

for generic E. coli to verify the adequacy of their process controls for the prev

of fecal contamination, (3) requires all meat and poultry plants to develop and 

ment a system of preventive controls, known as HACCP, to improve the safety 

their products, and (4) sets pathogen reduction performance standards for Sal

that slaughter plants and plants producing raw ground products must meet.

The Pathogen Reduction and HACCP rule applies to over 6,400 federally

inspected and 2,400 State-inspected slaughter and processing plants in the Un

States. Countries that export meat and poultry products to the United States m

meet the requirements of the final rule. Egg products are not covered by the fi

but FSIS has developed a strategy that will include HACCP to improve the sa

eggs and egg products.

Implementation of the new science-based, prevention-oriented food safet

tem began on January 27, 1997, and will be completed by January 25, 2000. O

January 27, 1997, all plants, regardless of size, were required to have in place 

SSOP’s, and slaughter plants were required to begin testing for generic E. col

January 26, 1998, large plants, those with 500 or more employees, were requi

have HACCP systems in place and meet the performance standards for Salmo

Small plants, defined as having 10 or more but fewer than 500 employees, we

required to implement the Pathogen Reduction and HACCP rule by January 2

Very small plants, defined as having less than 10 employees or less than $2.5 

in sales, must meet the requirements on January 25, 2000.

Implementation in large and small plants has been smooth. Large plants ha

percent compliance rate with the HACCP requirements for 1998. The new prev

oriented meat and poultry inspection system is showing positive results. New da

the first year of testing in large plants show that the prevalence of Salmonella in 

ers, swine, ground beef, and ground turkey was substantially lower after HACC

implementation. For these four product classes combined, 88 percent of large p

with completed sample sets are meeting the Salmonella standard.

Data on the prevalence of Salmonella in small plants for the first 6 month

be available soon. 
Table 9-2.

Prevalence of Salmonella in meat and poultry products: Pos

implementation results from large plants—January 26, 1998

January 25, 1999.*

Class of Product Salmonella Post-HACCP implem

Performance Salmonella Preva

Standard (%)** (%, n=no. sampl

Broilers 20.0% 10.9% (n=569

Swine 8.7% 6.5% (n=153

Ground Beef 7.5% 4.8% (n=118

Ground Turkey 49.9% 36.4% (n=748

*Reflects testing results from products with 10 or more complete sample sets.

**9 Code of Federal Regulations, paragraphs 310.25(b) and 381.94 (b)

Technical Service Center

To prepare the agency to implement its new food safety strategy, inc

Pathogen Reduction and HACCP final rule, FSIS launched a major reorg

part of that reorganization, in May 1997, the Technical Service Center (T

established in Omaha, NE, to provide technical guidance to the agency’s 

plant owners and operators, State and foreign officials, industry represent

others about meat, poultry, and egg products. The goal was to concentrate 

location the technical expertise previously scattered in numerous headqu

field offices.

On January 20, 1998, the TSC began operating a toll-free HACCP H

order to provide technical assistance and guidance to meat and poultry pl

HACCP implementation began. The Hotline is staffed by a team of techn

trained to address HACCP technical and implementation questions and c

TSC staffers respond to telephone, electronic mail, and FAX inquiries. T

Hotline number is: 1-800-233- 3935, Press 2 to connect to HACCP H

more information, visit the TSC web site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ofo

Food Safety From Farm to Table

Ensuring food safety is the first priority of the Office of Food Safety 

As industry complies with the new HACCP and pathogen reduction requ

over a 3-year period, FSIS is moving to a position to more effectively pro

sumers from unsafe meat and poultry. First, as effective implementation o

within plants, inspection resources can be focused more directly on food 

cerns. Second, FSIS will be able to expand its efforts beyond the four wa

ter and processing plants to other parts of the farm-to-table food safety ch

many authorities and responsibilities at each link. The agency is working 

tively with other agencies, producers, and various organizations to minim

throughout the farm-to-table continuum and thereby reduce foodborne ill
146

USDAs food safety mission is to work with other Federal agencies with food 

responsibilities to ensure that efforts are coordinated for the food-animal prod

community, and to foster collaborative opportunities and initiatives for public

investments in APFSP risk reduction activities and strategies. The APFSP pro

leadership and assistance to foster research needed to develop voluntary scien

based good production and verification programs for animal production that w

reduce chemical, physical, and microbial risk from entering the food chain, su

FSIS public health and commodity food safety initiatives, and is the liaison to 

mal production community. 

For more information on the APFSP: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/ap/def

HACCP-Based Inspection Models Project

As FSIS proceeds with HACCP implementation, the agency is also conti

its HACCP-based inspection models project. FSIS is developing new inspecti

els for slaughter plants that slaughter young, generally healthy, uniform anim

Baseline organoleptic and microbial data are currently being collected to docu

the accomplishments of the current inspection system. Data will also be colle

when the new slaughter models, along with modified plant HACCP and proce

trols, are tested in order to provide a before-and-after picture. FSIS will coope

very closely with the States on this project to achieve the agency’s goal of est

ing one fully integrated system that utilizes all available resources to improve 

safety.

Workforce of the Future

As FSIS implements its food safety strategy, the agency is working to en

workforce is qualified to function in a HACCP-based inspection system. The 

force of the future will be more versatile and better trained. FSIS has decided 

duce and use the professional series of Consumer Safety Officer (CSO) as a m

occupation in our workforce. Consumer safety officers will possess the neede

tific qualifications for employees at the field level. The conversion of the majo

of the agency’s workforce from inspectors to CSO’s will be accomplished ove

FSIS is also in the process of strengthening the role of veterinarians in th

agency. FSIS believes its veterinary medical officers are underutilized and wa

make better use of the veterinarians’ skills in epidemiology, microbiology, tox

ogy, and other scientific areas throughout the regulated food production and d

tion process.

Regulatory Reform

FSIS continues to make progress on regulatory reform. This initiative wa

in 1995 to improve food safety, allow a more productive use of Federal resour

eliminate unnecessary burdens, and expand consumer choice in the marketpla

direction in which the agency is headed is a shift away from “command and c
duction of cooked beef products, uncured meat patties, and certain poultr

Additional performance standards will be issued in the future. 

In order to eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens, FSIS eliminate

requirements for prior approval of blueprints, equipment, and certain par

control programs. The proposed rule on the irradiation of meat and meat 

was published in the Federal Register on February 24, 1999, is an examp

lation that will improve food safety and allow companies to innovate. 

Emerging Issues

Over the past several years, FSIS has enhanced the public health foc

safety program, helping the agency address emerging and re-emerging is

on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Cam

is the number one cause of sporadic cases of foodborne illness. FSIS has 

ing program for all classes of raw chicken carcasses to determine Campy

prevalence, and in January 1999 began a 1-year baseline data collection i

chickens to update a previous baseline study. The information from the b

will be used to establish performance standards for Campylobacter.

FSIS announced a strategy for controlling Listeria monocytogenes in 

eat meat and poultry products in May 1999. First, the agency is requiring 

reassess their HACCP plans to adequately address Listeria. Second, FSIS 

ing guidance to the industry on practices that have been shown to prevent 

Third, FSIS also announced four longer term initiatives on Listeria mono

For more information on the Listeria strategy, visit the FSIS web site at:

http://www.fsis.usda.gov, and access “Listeria.”

President’s Council on Food Safety

In late August 1998, President Clinton signed an Executive Order es

the President’s Council on Food Safety. The Council was established to p

more coordinated approach to food safety in this country. The primary fu

the Council are: to develop a comprehensive strategic Federal food safety 

advise agencies of priority areas for investment in food safety, ensuring t

agencies annually develop coordinated food safety budgets; and oversee 

established Joint Institute for Food Safety Research, ensuring that it addr

highest priority research needs. The Secretaries of Agriculture and of He

Human Services and the Assistant to the President for Science and

Technology/Director of the Office of Science and Technology serve as Jo

the Council. The President’s Council is the next step toward a goal of ens

there is a seamless, science-based food safety system in this country.

For more information on the President’s Council on Food Safety and 

President’s Food Safety Initiative, visit the Council’s web site at: http://w

safety.gov, and access “President’s Council on Food Safety.”
148

Through the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet

the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the CDC, in collaboration with 

and local health departments at eight locations or sites across the country, are 

able to track the incidence of foodborne illness. They can also monitor the eff

ness of food safety programs or control measures, such as USDA’s Pathogen

Reduction/HACCP rule, in reducing foodborne illness. FoodNet does not rep

rather augments, the many longstanding activities of the Federal and State age

that are used to identify, control, and prevent foodborne disease hazards. USD

conjunction with the other Federal and State agencies, submits an annual repo

Congress on FoodNet activities. For more information on FoodNet or for cop

the report, visit the FoodNet web site at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/foo

PulseNet is a national computer network of public health laboratories tha

to rapidly identify and stop episodes of foodborne illness. The laboratories pe

DNA “fingerprinting” on bacteria that may be foodborne, and the network per

rapid comparison of these “fingerprint” patterns through an electronic databas

CDC. PulseNet is an early warning system that links seemingly sporadic hum

nesses together; as a result, more outbreaks can be recognized, especially tho

involve many States. Investigation of these outbreaks should result in identific

hazards and implementation of new measures to increase the safety of the foo

ply. For more information, visit the PulseNet web site at: http://www.cdc.gov/

dod/dbmd/pulsenet/pulsenet.htm

International Food Safety

In today’s global marketplace, the food consumers eat is likely to come f

number of different countries. Consumers must have confidence in the safety 

food, whether it is produced domestically or imported. The Codex Alimentari

Commission (Codex) is the food standards program jointly supported by the F

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health

Organization. Codex was established to help protect the health of consumers 

facilitate trade through the establishment for international food standards, cod

practice, and other guidelines. There are many Codex committees that set stan

for a variety of commodities and that address a number of general issues. The 

Codex, along with national food safety agencies, is important to maintaining 

sumer confidence in the safety of the food supply.

Currently, there are more than 160 member countries in Codex Alimentar

the United States, officials from USDA, the FDA, and the U.S. Environmenta

Protection Agency (EPA) participate in Codex activities. The U.S. Manager fo

Codex reports to the Under Secretary for Food Safety in USDA. For more inf

tion on Codex, visit the FSIS web site: http://www.fsis.usda.gov, and access “

Codex Office.”

In December 1994, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement, commonl

known as the SPS Agreement, was ratified by the United States. This agreeme

changed international law in that signatory countries can now use either the sa

equivalent sanitary measures to meet the level of protection established by an 
prior to December 1994. U.S. meat and poultry inspection laws and regul

amended to comply with the requirements of the SPS Agreement. FSIS h

oped a process for evaluating whether exporting countries have systems a

in place that are equivalent to the U.S. system. The agency is also workin

the Codex’s Committees on Food Import and Export Inspection and Cert

Systems to develop international guidelines on determining equivalence t

tect the public health and facilitate trade.

Food Safety and Consumer Education

FSIS conducts an extensive outreach program of consumer education 

information needs for basic safe food handling advice to avoid foodborne 

Information is disbursed to the media, information multipliers, and consu

through the FSIS web site, printed materials, videos, personal contact via 

Meat and Poultry Hotline, and presentations by FSIS representatives.

The agency’s consumer education programs focus on providing key 

materials to the general public and special groups who face increased risk

foodborne illness—the very young, the elderly, people who have chronic 

and people with compromised immune systems. These materials are base

est scientific advice in education and market research concerning foodbo

Educational materials include a wide variety of specific safe food handlin

E. coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes and other pathogens, food safe

tion for seniors and children, and The Food Safety Educator—a free quar

newsletter available in print or on the FSIS web site. The Food Safety Ed

Office also produces news features, public service announcements, and jo

safety projects with other government agencies and food associations.

See “For More Information.”

Partnership for Food Safety Education

The Partnership for Food Safety Education is a national organization 

to educating consumers about the importance of food safety. USDA serve

Government liaison to the partnership, along with the U.S. Department o

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the EPA.

The partnership was formed in 1997 in response to the President’s N

Safety Initiative and an independent panel report calling for a public-priv

ship of industry, government, and consumer groups to educate the public 

food handling to reduce foodborne illness.

While the United States has one of the safest food supplies in the wo

ing foodborne illness remains a major public health challenge. The partne

oped the Fight BAC!TM public education campaign in conjunction with th

National Food Safety Initiative to simplify and provide useful informatio

handling of all foods.
150

Fight BAC!TM Campaign

Fight BAC!TM is a far-reaching, ambitious and consumer-friendly public 

tion campaign focused on safe food handling. The Fight BAC!TM campaign g

educate consumers on the four simple steps they can take to fight foodborne b

and reduce their risk of foodborne illness.

BAC!, the campaign’s spokescharacter, is the invisible enemy who tries h

to spread contamination wherever he goes. By giving foodborne bacteria a pe

ity, BAC! makes the learning process more meaningful and memorable for co

of all ages.

This product was prepared from inspected and passed meat and/

or poultry. Some food products may contain bacteria that could 

cause illness if the product is mishandled or cooked improperly. 

For your protection, follow these safe handling instructions.

Keep refrigerated or frozen.

Thaw in refrigerator or microwave.

Keep raw meat and poultry separate from other foods.

Wash working surfaces (including cutting boards), 

utensils, and hands after touching raw meat or poultry.

Cook thoroughly.

Keep hot foods hot. Refrigerate leftovers

immediately or discard.
■ Cleanwash hands and surfaces often;

■ Separate—don’t cross-contaminate;

■ Cook—cook to proper temperatures; and

■ Chill—refrigerate promptly.

To date, the Partnership for Food Safety Education has:

■ built a network of partners—comprised of more than 500 nationa

local organizations from the public health, government, consumer

try sectors—who support the Fight BAC!TM campaign and distrib

tional materials;

■ produced an animated television public service announcement (P

ing the BAC! character, which aired on more than 100 television 

reaching more than 310 million viewers in the early stages of the 

The PSA has been translated into other languages, including Span

Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese;

■ created and distributed a Fight BAC!TM brochure in both English 

outlining the basics of fighting foodborne bacteria;

■ developed a web site (http://www.fightbac.org) that has generated 

hits from the United States and 50 other countries;

■ mobilized hundreds of supermarkets across the country to particip

Fight BAC!TM campaign by featuring the logo and consumer tips 

signs, and grocery bags; and

■ designed an elementary school program, which educates through 

ment using BAC! puppets, games, and songs.

■ designed and distributed over 10,000 school-based programs for 4

educators that include a video, teachers guide, classroom posters, 

catcher game.

USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline

Consumers have been calling USDA’s toll-free Meat and Poultry Ho

answers to their food safety questions since 1985. The Hotline, part of FS

Safety Education Staff, is staffed by home economists, registered dietitia

technologists with expertise in food safety. 

Consumers are the primary users of the Meat and Poultry Hotline, bu

means the only ones. Hotline specialists frequently advise and consult wi

fessionals in government, academia, and industry. The Hotline responds t

of media calls each year and is responsible for bringing food safety infor

millions of consumers through these media outlets. To further assist repo

ers, educators, and other information multipliers, the Hotline develops an

cally mails educational materials to several thousand newspaper and mag

and health editors and some consumer affairs professionals.

The Hotline received 109,804 calls between January 1 and Decembe

Many were basic food handling questions, often related to safe preparatio

meals. Other questions reflected concern for the overall safety of the food 

covering such topics as meat inspection reform, E. coli O157:H7 testing, 
Its nationwide service area enables the Meat and Poultry Hotline to serve 

early warning system, detecting possible public health threats. Data collected 

Hotline helps FSIS discern gaps in consumer knowledge. In essence, Hotline 

serve as a focus group. Analysis of caller questions and concerns allows FSIS 

effective educational campaigns.

152

What To Do If You Have a Problem With Food Products

■ FOR HELP WITH MEAT, POULTRY, AND EGG PRODUCTS:

Call the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-800-535-45

(202-720-3333 in the Washington, DC, area; TTY, 1-800-256-7072

■ FOR HELP WITH RESTAURANT FOOD PROBLEMS:

Call the Health Department in your city, county, or State.

■ FOR HELP WITH NONMEAT FOOD PRODUCTS:

Call or write the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Check your lo

phone book under U.S. Government, Health and Human Services, to find a

FDA office in your area. The FDA’s Food and Information & Seafood Hotl

telephone number is 1-800-332-4010 ( or 202-205-4314 in the Washington

DC, area).
Food Safety and Inspection

Service

USDA’s Meat and Poultry Hotline may

be reached by calling: 1-800-535-4555

(voice)

202-720-3333 (Washington, DC area),

or 1-800-256-7072 (TTY).

Callers may speak with a food safety

specialist from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

weekdays, Eastern Time. Recorded

messages are available at all times.

FSIS. web site: http://www.fsis.usda.gov

Director, Congressional and 

Public Affairs

Linda Swacina

Rm 1175-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3897

FAX 202-720-5704

linda.swacina @usda.gov

Deputy Director, Congressional and

Public Affairs

Christopher Church

Rm 1175-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-9113

FAX 202-720- 5704

christopher.church@usda.gov

Director, Food Safety Education 

Susan Conley

Rm 2932-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7943

FAX 202-720-1843

susan.conley@usda.gov

Deputy Director, Food Safety Education

Sandy Facinoli

Rm 2932-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-7943

FAX 202-720-1843

sandy.facinoli@usda.gov

Media Staff

Elizabeth Gaston

Rm 1175-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-9113

FAX 202-720-5704

elizabeth.gaston@usda.gov

Carol Blake

Rm 1175-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-9113

FAX 202-720-5704

carol.blake@usda.gov

Constituent Affairs Staff

Barbara O’Brien

Rm. 1175-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8594

FAX 202-720-5704

barbara.o’brien@usda.gov

Manager, Meat and Poultry 

Bessie Berry

Rm 2925-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-5604

FAX 202-690-2859

bessie.berry@usda.gov

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Cheryl Hicks

Rm 3134-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-2109

FAX 202-690-3023

cheryl.hicks@usda.gov
154

■ Forest Service

Mission

The Forest Service mission is “to sustain the health, productivity, and div

the land to meet the needs of present and future generations.” “Caring for the 

and Serving People” expresses the spirit of the mission. The mission is furthe

expressed in the Forest Service land ethic: “Promote the sustainability of ecos

by ensuring their health, diversity, and productivity,” which is coupled with th

service ethic: “Work collaboratively and use appropriate scientific informatio

caring for the land and serving people.”

These land and service ethics are applied by the Forest Service through e

tem management. Ecosystem management is the integration of ecological, ec

and social factors in order to maintain and enhance the quality of the environm

meet current and future needs.

The three strategic goals of the Forest Service are to: (1) ensure sustainab

ecosystems, (2) provide multiple benefits for people within the capabilities of

ecosystems, and (3) ensure organizational effectiveness.

In March 1998, the Forest Service Chief released the Forest Service Natu

Resource Agenda. The agenda identifies four key areas of national focus. The

■ Watershed health and restoration 

■ National sustainable forest ecosystem management 

■ Forest roads management 

■ Recreation enhancement 

Implementation of the agenda will help bring people together and help th

ways to live within the limits of the land. This in turn will ensure that future g

tions will forever be endowed with the rich natural bounty of our Nation.

Principal Laws

The Forest Service administers the lands and resources of the National F

System (NFS) under the Organic Administration Act of 1897, the Multiple U

Sustained Yield Act of 1960, and the National Forest Management Act of 197

The agency also conducts research, provides assistance to State and priva

landowners, assesses the Nation’s natural resources, and provides internation

tance and scientific exchanges. These activities are carried out under the Fore

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, the Renewable Resou

Extension Act of 1978, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Rese
Organizational Structure

The Chief, the top administrative official of the Forest Service, repor

Secretary of Agriculture through the Under Secretary for Natural Resour

Environment. The Forest Service typically is viewed as consisting of thre

components: (1) the National Forest System (NFS), (2) State and Private 

(S&PF), and (3) Research and Development (R&D). However, the agenc

many other programs, such as International Programs and Job Corps Civ

Conservation Centers. The NFS is organized into a Deputy Area within th

Washington Office, 9 regional offices, 155 national forests managed by 1

sors’ offices, and approximately 570 ranger districts and national grasslan

The Forest Service manages the 191.6-million-acre NFS and suppor

use and sustained yield of renewable resources such as water, livestock fo

wildlife and fish, wood, and recreation; and integration of mineral resour

and visual quality. The agency also mitigates, when appropriate and in a 

manner, wildfires, epidemics of disease and insects, erosion, floods, wate

degradation, and air pollution. 

The NFS provides many recreational activities for the public. In 199

more than 800 million recreation experiences—43 percent of the outdoor 

use on public lands—including 60 percent of the Nation’s skiing and sign

centages of hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, and driving for pleasure. N

4,385 miles of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System; 412 units of the Natio

Wilderness Preservation System, 133,000 miles of trails; more than 250,0

sites; and over 18,000 campgrounds, picnic areas, and visitor facilities.

The National Forests and Grasslands contribute $134 billion to the g

domestic product.

The Forest Service administers many S&PF programs to provide tec

financial conservation assistance to State and private nonindustrial forest 

programs serve as a link among many public and private organizations, a

to promote the best use and conservation of America’s natural resources o

lands. Wildland fire protection on private and public lands, Smokey Bear

health protection, and natural resource education are examples of S&PF p

S&PF is organized into a Deputy Area within the Washington Office; it h

in Radnor, PA, to work with States and landowners in the Northeastern U

and has programs delivered from most NFS offices.

The R&D program is organized into a Deputy Area within the Washi

Office, including four program staffs and six geographically dispersed re

stations. R&D also includes the Forest Product Laboratory in Madison, W

conducts and sponsors basic and applied research that generates credible

knowledge and new technologies that are used to sustain the health, prod

and diversity of the Nation’s forests and rangelands to meet the needs of 

and future generations. The R&D effort is focused on four broad themes: 

management and protection of the vegetation on the Nation’s forest and r
156

diversity of the water, wildlife, and fish resources; (3) assess the extent, health

ductivity, and sustainability of forest and rangeland ecosystems; and (4) asses

condition, trends, and capabilities of forest and rangeland resources and provi

conservation technologies that improve their use and reuse. 

International Program activities supported by the Forest Service, includin

programs at the International Institute of Tropical Forestry in Puerto Rico, pro

sustainable development and global environmental stability. The director of

International Programs reports directly to the Chief.

The Office of Communication, Civil Rights Program, Reinvention Progra

Law Enforcement and Investigations Program also report directly to the Chief

The Forest Service has received tentative approval from the Secretary to 

nize the Operations area of the Washington Office into three areas: Financial

Management, Business Operations, and Programs and Legislation. The Finan

Management area is led by the Chief Financial Officer to ensure proper alloca

funds, tracking, control, and reporting of expenditure of funds. The Business

Operations Deputy Chief manages the human resource, information resource 

agement, and procurement programs. The Programs and Legislation Deputy C

manages the development of the agency’s budget and coordinates legislative a

As part of the Business Operations area and through agreement with the

Department of Labor, the Forest Service operates 18 Job Corps Civilian Cons

Centers on Forest Service lands. This is the only Federal residential education

ing program for the Nation’s disadvantaged youth. Over 9,300 students enroll 

Forest Service centers each year.

Reinvention

Creating a Forest Service that works better and costs less—that’s what Fo

Service reinvention is all about. As one of 30 Federal agencies designated by 

National Partnership for Reinventing Government as a “High Impact Agency,

dedicated to delivering first-rate customer service, cutting red tape to do its jo

efficiently, and working with its partners—both in and out of government—to 

best job of caring for the land. Some recent highlights:

■ With the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service is creating o

natural resource centers to better serve mutual customers, and sharing 

nel and resources to enable both agencies to do their jobs better. In jus

locations, this partnership is delivering better service and better resour

stewardship while saving more than $1 million a year. In 1999, this ef

expand agency-wide. 

■ In the Pacific Southwest Region and Research Station, the Forest Serv

began an experiment to let employees create internal enterprise teams 

will allow them to bring their entrepreneurial spirit and creativity to be

all facets of their work. Over time, this will help us import the best pra

of the business world and the efficiency of the free market place to rai

level of performance of the Forest Service in achieving its public secto

mission.
Mt. 

Baker

Olympic

Snoqualmie

WASHINGTON

Gifford 

Pinchot

Mt. Hood

Crooked 

River

Umatilla

Umatilla

Coeur

D’Alene

Wenatchee

Okanogan

Kootenai Kaniksu Colville

Flathead

St. Joe

Clearwater

Lolo Lewis and Clark

Helena Missoula

Bitterroot

Salmon Payette

Lewis and Clark

Gallatin

Deerlodge

Beaverhead Custer Custer

Custer

Cedar River

Little River

Sheyenne

Grand River

Ford Apache Black Hills

Buffalo Gap

Samuel R. McKelvie

Nebraska

Pawnee

Comanche Rio Grande San Isabel

San Isabel

Pike

Arapaho

Denver

Roosevelt

Fort Collins Routl

White 

River

Grand 

Mesa

Gunnison

Nebraska

Cimarron

Black Kettle

Lyndon B Johnson

Caddo

Quachita

St. Francis

Kisatchie

Ozark

Ozark

Sabine

Angelina

Sam Houston

Davy Crockett

Kisatchie

Homochitto

New Orleans

Desoto

Bienville

Delta

Tombigbee

William B. 

Bankhead

Holly

Springs

Talladega

Tuskegee

Conecuth

Apalachicola Osceola

Ocala

Atlanta

Chattahoochee

Oconee

Francis 

Marion

Sumter

Sumter

Cherokee

Cherokee

Naptahala

Asheville

Pisgah

Jefferson

George Washington

Washington

Broomall

Green Mountain

White Mountain

Allegheny

Manistee

Hiawatha

Nicolet

Madison Milwaukee

Chequamegon

Superior

Chippewa

St. Paul

Ottawa

Huron

Monongahela Wayne

Daniel Boone

Hoosier

Shawnee

Mark Twain

Mark Twain

Uwharrie

Croatan

Lake

McClellan

Rita Blanca

Mazperce

Wallowa

Whitman

Malheur

Pacific

Northwest

Region

Intermountain 

Region

Southwestern

Region

Pacific

Southwest

Region

Northern Region

Rocky Mountain Region Eastern Region

Southern Region

Ochoco

Deschutes

Fremont

Winema

Klamath

Shasta 

Lassen

Trinity

Plumas

Tahoe Mendocino

Eldorado

Stanislaus

Toiyabe

Toiyabe

Toiyabe

Modac

Modac

Humboldt

Humboldt

Wasatch

Wasatch

Bridger

Teton

Shoshono

Shoshono

Big Horn

Medicine Bow

Medicine 

Bow

Thunder Basin

Ogden

Cache

Curlaw

Sawtooth

Sawtooth

Boise

Chalis

Caribou

Targhee

Fishlake

Dixie

Dixie

KaibabKaibab

Coconino

Sitgreaves

Apache

Coronado

Tonto

Gila

Cibola

Cibola

Cibola

Sante Fe

Sante Fe

Lincoln

Carson

Carson

Kiowa

Albuquerque

Prescott

Manti-La-Sal

Manti-La-Sal

Manti-La-Sal

Ashley

Ashley Uinta

Humboldt San Francisco

Berkeley

Sierra

Sequoia Inyo Los Padres

Los Padres

Angeles

San

Bernadino

Cleveland

NEVADA IDAHO

UTAH

NORTH DAKOTA

MONTANA

SOUTH DAKOTA

NEBRASKA

OKLAHOMA

KANSAS

MISSOURI

MINNESOTA

WISCONSIN

ILLINOIS

INDIANA

OHIO

MICHIGAN

WEST VIRGINIA

VIRGINIA

NORTH CAROLINA

KENTUCKY

TENNESSEE

MARYLAND PENNSYLVANIA

NEW YORK

VERMONT

NEW HAMPHIRE

MAINE 

MASSACHUSETTS 

CONNECTICUTT

RHODE ISLAND

NEW JERSEY 

DELEWARE

SOUTH CAROLINA

ARKANSAL

MISSISSIPPI

LOUISIANA

ALABAMA

GEORGIA

FLORIDA

TEXAS

WYOMING

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

ARIZONA

CALIFORNIA

Six 

Rivers

Rogue

River

Siskiyou

Umpqua

Sluslaw

Williamette

OREGON

Portland

Uncompahgre

San Juan

★

▲

Alaska Region

ALASKA
158

to eaabout outdooeceatooppotutes oaedeapubc a

This new one-stop source lets customers discover for themselves the trem

recreation options in “America’s Great Outdoors” and to plan their vacations 

Try it out at www.recreation.gov and see for yourself what reinvention at the F

Service can do for you. 

National Forest System—Conservation and Multiple Use

Lands

Lands-related activities include exchanging lands to protect and enhance 

National Forest System, preventing encumbrances, protecting boundaries and

records, granting appropriate rights to others, and administering rights grante

retained by other agencies, governments, and landowners.

Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants

In 1996, wildlife and fish recreation expenditures tied to national forests 

$6.8 billion in association with 125.7 million visitor days of hunting, fishing, 

wildlife/fish-associated viewing. Anglers spent $2.7 billion (46.8 million visit

days), wildlife/fish viewers spent $2.1 billion (52 million activity days), and h

spent $2.0 billion (27 million activity days) in pursuit of their pastimes. This $

billion in direct spending translates to a total of $20 billion in local economic 

and 226,000 jobs. Specific examples include:

■ Commercial salmon harvested from the Tongass National Forest avera

million pounds per year, with an average annual earnings of $66 millio

Meanwhile, sportfishing numbers in Southeast Alaska increased by 62 

from 1984 to 1993, a significant revenue source for local economies. 

■ In 1997, nearly 183,000 people joined in “Celebrating Wildflower” ev

national forests. 

■ The Forest Service and its partners held 3,985 aquatic education event

1997 that landed 274,000 people. Events included National Fishing W

Pathways to Fishing clinics, and classroom talks. 
rangeland, under all ownerships.

■ The entire Nation has 736.7 million acres of forest land area

including rangeland, under all ownerships; the owners/man

of this forest land are as follows:

Federal Government: 249.1 million acres

Forest Service: 139.9 million acres 

Bureau of Land Management: 36.6 million acres

National Park Service, Department of Defense, Departm

Energy, & other Federal: 72.6 million acres 

Non-Federal total: 487.5 million acres 

State: 54.7 million acres 

9.9 million private landowners: 422.3 million acres

County and municipal: 10.5 million acres

■ There are 191.8 million acres of national forest system land

8.3 percent of the United States’ land area, or about the siz

Texas. The Forest Service manages:

National Grasslands: 3.9 million acres 

National Primitive Areas: 173,762 acres 

National Scenic-Research Areas: 6,630 acres 

National Wild & Scenic Rivers: 4,385 miles—95 rivers 

National Recreation Areas: 2.7 million acres 

National Game Refuges and Wildlife Preserves: 1.2 million 

National Monument Areas: 3.3 million acres 

National Historic Areas: 6,540 acres 

Congressionally Designated Wilderness: 34.7 million acr

■ There are 88 wilderness areas designated Class 1 for air q

protection totaling 15 million acres.

■ The value of the water from national forest lands is over $3 

per year.

■ Approximately 14 percent of the Nation’s water supply (abo

acre-feet annually) comes from national forest lands.

■ The Forest Service manages 155 national forests for multiple 

Miles of property boundary line: 249,000

Number of property corners: approximately 1 million

■ The national forest trail system is the largest in the Nation, 

133,000 miles of trails for hiking, riding, cross-country skiing

snowmobiling, bicycling, and snowshoeing.

■ The Forest Service provides more recreation than any othe

Federal agency. Visitors to national forests are attracted by:

5,800 campgrounds and picnic areas 

328 swimming developments 

1,222 boating sites 

250 winter sports sites, including 135 downhill ski areas 

■ If all these sites were fully occupied at the same time, they 

accommodate 1.8 million people.

■ Minerals found on Forest Service lands provide more than $

billion in private sector revenue.
160

Partnerships

In 1997, over $13 million in Federal funds was matched by partners’ con

tions, for a total of $37 million to accomplish partnership projects on wildlife

and threatened, endangered, and sensitive species on the national forests and g

lands. Specific partnership examples include:

■ Quail will have terrific feasting grounds as a result of a partner project

designed to benefit bobwhite. Legumes flourish on the freshly mowed

fertilized, and seeded 35-acre opening within the Tombigbee National 

Mississippi. Other seed-eating birds will find both food and cover plen

too. 

hours of recreation use)

■ Lands burned by wildfire: 530,000 acres

■ Insect and disease suppression: 1.7 million acres

■ Watershed improvements: 38,497 acres

■ Terrestrial acres restored or enhanced for wildlife: 638,663

■ Aquatic acres restored or enhanced for fisheries: 13,194

■ Stream miles restored or enhanced for fisheries: 2,740

■ Reforestation: 322,000 acres

■ Livestock grazing: 9.3 million animal head months

■ Grazing allotments administered: 8,808

■ Timber sold: 3.7 billion board feet, enough to build over 300,000

homes

■ Timber harvested: 3.3 billion board feet

■ Road system: 377,800 miles 

Key Facts About Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants

■ The National Forest System includes 2.3 million acres of fishabl

lakes, ponds, and reservoirs and more than 197,000 miles of

perennial streams.

■ National forests and grasslands support habitats for more than

3,000 species of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish

as well as some 10,000 plant species.

■ The national forests and grasslands also provide:

—80 percent of the elk, mountain goat, and bighorn sheep

habitat in the lower 48 States,

—28 million acres of wild turkey habitat,

—5.4 million acres of wetland habitat,

—Habitat for 250 species of neotropical migratory birds, and

—More than 280 species of threatened or endangered plants

fish, or wildlife.
Natoaoest, Wscos. Now, oest aageet decsos c

include the needs of birds. 

■ High school students are making a difference in the recovery of th

gered slender-petalled mustard. Their hard work counting and me

plants on the San Bernardino National Forest, California, contribu

year monitoring effort that identifies precipitation as a primary fa

encing population size. As a result, managers understand that mai

good habitat and seedbank resources is key to recovery of this spe

■ The lake sturgeon is a large, primitive fish that was once abundan

Lakes. Today it is a sensitive species on the Superior National For

Minnesota. Netting and electrofishing surveys conducted in the S

River drainage in 1997 yielded only one fish. Managers are hopef

removal of a logjam that blocks migration of sturgeon into availab

will increase the number of sturgeon utilizing the river. 

■ A riparian tree-planting project along Sand Fork on the Wayne Na

Forest, Ohio, gave Federal prison inmates a chance to improve th

and wildlife. Along with Boy Scout Troop 115, they planted seed

bilize stream banks and channels. 

Water, Soil, and Air

Water flowing from the national forests is among the coolest and cle

country. About 14 percent of the surface water supply in the United State

National Forest System (NFS) watersheds. The goals of the Forest Servic

shed, soil, and air management programs are to (1) manage watersheds to 

improve watershed conditions to sustain forestland and rangeland health 

uses; (2) sustain soil productivity, (3) protect 88 Class I wilderness areas 

lution, and (4) evaluate Forest Service activities and their effect of air qua

watershed and soil condition. 

The task of mapping all soils within NFS, with the cooperation of U

Natural Resources Conservation Service, is about 50 percent complete. In 

the Forest Service completed 3,888,497 acres of land to improve water an

resources. Other significant ongoing activities include watershed invento

ses to better understand the capability of the watershed to sustain forestla

and rangeland health; participating in water right adjudications; restoring 

watershed conditions on abandoned mines located on national forests; m

determine air pollution impacts on visibility, water, and soil chemistry in 

areas; and collaborating on watershed health studies.

Rangeland

NFS rangeland is managed to conserve the land and its vegetation w

ing food for both livestock and wildlife. Under multiple-use concepts, gr

also serve as watersheds, wildlife habitat, and recreation sites. Grazing pr
162

granted on national forests and grasslands through paid permits; permittees co

with the Forest Service in range improvement projects.

NEPA decisions were made on allotments across the country in accordan

the Rescissions Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-19). The first 3-year time block 

15-year Rescissions Act schedule, 1996 through 1999, ended with approxima

one-third of all the livestock grazing allotments that needed environmental an

being analyzed on schedule. Implementation of improved management was u

taken on these allotments. Monitoring both implementation and effectiveness 

management actions has been undertaken and will continue into the future. 

The noxious weed management program was a success in FY 1998 with 

acres treated than in previous years. This was accomplished by the Forest Ser

cooperation with the States, counties, and cities working together to prevent t

spread of noxious weeds, treat existing infestations, and educate citizens abou

ious weed problems. 

produce an average 280 million acre-feet of water annually.

■ There are 3,336 municipalities, serving 60 million people, which

get their tap water from NFS lands.

■ 173 trillion gallons of water is supplied by NFS municipal watersheds annually.

■ About 600 remote weather data collection platforms are used in

agricultural, fire, weather, and streamflow forecasting.

Key Facts About Rangeland1

■ In FY 1998, the Forest Service administered 8,783 grazing

allotments.

■ Permitted livestock grazing totaled to 9.3 million animal head

months. (A head month is 1 month’s occupancy by an adult

animal.)

■ By the end of 1998, 2,007 allotments under went environmental

analyses in the first Recissions Act 3-year time block.

Management decisions were made on them which is resulting in

improved rangeland vegetation.

■ In FY 1998, 117,812 acres of rangelands were treated to contro

noxious weeds infestations.

■ Forage improvement took place on 36,808 acres of rangelands.

■ In FY 1998, 1,752 structural improvements were constructed on

NFS rangelands to implement management changes prescribed 

recent decisions. 1Rangeland improvements were accomplished with appropriated dollars, Range

Betterment Funds, Trust Funds, Challenge Cost agreements, permit holder coopera

and other private cooperation.
application of geologic principles on National Forest System lands, inclu

opment of private minerals underlying these lands. Ecosystems are prote

requiring appropriate design, mitigation, and reclamation measures, and 

ing and inspecting operations to ensure compliance. Reclaiming abandon

Forest Service land restores deteriorated ecosystems, and the Forest Serv

reclaimed 38,000 abandoned mines. 

Exploration, development, and production of energy and minerals fr

Forest System lands contribute to economic growth, provide employmen

communities, and raise revenues that are shared with the States. The ener

erals component of the program is directed at obtaining these benefits wh

operations are conducted in an environmentally sound manner. In terms o

tude of the energy and minerals program, there are approximately 5.4 mi

leased for oil and gas, over 150,000 mining claims, about 7,000 mineral m

and quarries, over 2,000 new operations proposed each year, and more th

operations to monitor and inspect. The largest coal mine in the United St

NFS lands, and much of the Nation’s phosphate and lead production com

NFS lands. The value of all energy and mineral production exceeds $2 bi

year. Annual revenues are about $150 million, 25-50 percent of which is 

the States where production occurs.

The geology and paleontology components of the program provide b

tific information about the Earth’s materials and processes. Forest Servic

and paleontologists identify and interpret geologic and paleontological co

and hazards for land management decisionmaking and cost-effective proj

inventory and evaluate sites with geologic and paleontological resources 

groundwater, fossils, and caves for appropriate management; and interpre

ing significance for scientific, educational, or recreational use. The interp

the legacy of all people, and the Forest Service recognizes its responsibil

age that part of the fossil record occurring on NFS lands as a public legac

generations. Fossils are nonrenewable resources and their value may be g

diminished or lost entirely in the absence of proper management.

The USDA Forest Service recognizes multiple-use values for fossil r

that include: legacy value for present and future generations, scientific va

tional and interpretive values, and recreational and aesthetic values.

Forest Vegetation Management

Approximately 73 percent of the 192 million acres of national forest

ered forested. Of the forested land, 29 percent is identified as suited for ti

duction and less than 1 percent is subject to some form of timber harvest 

any given year. Of the remaining 71 percent identified as not suited for tim

duction, some is protected from harvest but otherwise, salvage or harvest 

to make other multiple-use values may occur. 

In most cases, forested ecosystems on the national forests are in a he

tioning condition due to past active management and environmental prote

sures. These forests provide highly diverse and often unique resources, o
164

and experiences for the public. In some cases, ecosystems are not functioning 

way that can be sustained without unacceptable risk of losses to wildfire, inse

diseases. It is important that the agency assess each ecological situation at the 

level, establish management objectives based on ecological, social, and econo

information, and utilize the best tools available to achieve established vegetat

objectives.

The removal of woody biomass through the Forest Service’s timber sale 

program is an essential component of national forest management. Restoratio

and maintenance of healthy forests is the best way to sustain the production o

■ 7 million acres where there is a possibility for coal leasing 

(95 billion tons)

■ 45 million acres where there is a possibility for oil and gas leasin

5.4 million acres leased

■ About 7,000 sand, gravel, and stone pits and quarries

■ Approximately 2,000 new operations requiring review each year

■ Over 20,000 existing operations requiring monitoring

■ 55 percent of the Nation’s production of lead

■ One of the world’s largest molybdenum deposits (Tongass

National Forest, AK).

■ Many of the Nation’s 100,000 rock hounds, recreational mineral

collectors, students, and geologic organizations use the nationa

forests for education and recreational purposes.

■ Noncommercial panning for gold is an activity that is rapidly

increasing.

■ The Forest Service manages fossil and geologic sites of interes

as resources for present and future generations, scientific,

education, interpretive, recreational, and aesthetic values.

■ The most complete Champsosaurus skeleton in the world 

(55 million years old) came off national grasslands and is on

display at FS headquarters.

■ FS has partnerships with communities, States, and universities 

managing the paleontological resource.

The following resources are produced annually on NFS lands:

■ 10 million barrels of oil

■ 250 billion cubic feet of gas

■ 115 million tons of coal

■ 500 million pounds of lead

■ 200 million pounds of copper

■ 11 million ounces of gold

■ 20 million tons of sand and gravel 
ber sales generate some financial return, they may be the least net cost m

implementing desired vegetation management treatments.

The Forest Service is strongly committed to managing NFS lands in 

cally sensitive manner. One of the agency’s top priorities is to maintain a

the health and vigor of forest ecosystems for the enjoyment of current an

erations. The Forest Service operates Federal timber sales under some of 

substantial and effective environmental protection policies in the world. T

is taking an active role in managing vegetation to help achieve the compl

lated objectives of resource use and environmental protection.

Stewardship Demonstration Projects

Experience has shown that the agency’s traditional tools for managin

tion—i.e., the standard timber sale and service contracts—are oftentimes 

suited to addressing many of today’s most pressing vegetative manageme

to implementing truly integrated resource management projects. The stan

sale contract was designed to dispose of commercially valuable timber, b

today’s most important treatment needs—e.g., reducing excessive fuel lo

often involve managing wood of little or no commercial value. The stand

contract can be a flexible and powerful tool, but funding frequently limits 

of work that can be accomplished in this manner.

Recognizing the problems associated with its traditional vegetative m

tools, in Section 347 of the Fiscal Year 1999 Department of the Interior a

Agencies Appropriation Act (Public Law 105-277), Congress gave the Fo

the authority to test an array of new processes and procedures through a s

stewardship contracting end-results demonstration projects. Under the ter

legislation, the projects that are undertaken are to address one or more of 

ing resource management objectives: road and trail maintenance or oblite

restore or maintain water quality; soil productivity, habitat for wildlife an

or other resource values; prescribed fires to improve the composition, stru

dition, and health of stands or improve wildlife habitat; noncommercial c

removing of trees or other activities to promote healthy forest stands, red

ards, or achieve other noncommercial objectives; watershed restoration a

nance; restoration and maintenance of wildlife and fish habitat; and contr

noxious weeds and reestablishing native plant species. 

The new processes and procedures the agency may test include the f

award of contracts on the basis of best value, service contracts of up to 10 

duration, exchange of goods for services, retention of receipts, offer of sa

over $10,000 without advertisement, designation of timber to be cut by d

and use of State foresters as Federal agents in helping to prepare and adm

national forest timber sales.
166

Accomplishments:

■ 3.42 BBF (billion board feet) of timber offered for sale in FY 199

■ 2.96 BBF of timber sold and awarded in FY 1998.

■ 3.30 BBF of timber harvested in FY 1998.

■ 51 percent for timber commodity purposes.

■ 43 percent for forest stewardship purposes.

■ 6 percent for personal use purposes.

■ 525,755 acres subject to some type of harvesting operation in 

FY 1998.

■ 292,902 acres naturally or artificially regenerated in FY 1998

■ 300,202 acres of timber stand improvement treatments in FY

1998.

■ 27 MMBF (million board feet) of free use firewood provided in 

FY 1997.

■ 249,714 Christmas trees sold in FY 1997.

■ $3.0 in special forest products sold in FY 1998.

■ 221,200 families assisted through personal use sales in FY 199

■ 2,322 miles of existing forest roads reconstructed in FY 1998.

■ 200 miles of new forest roads built in FY 1998.

Economic Impacts:

■ 55,535 local community jobs in FY 1997.

■ $2.0 billion in regional income in FY 1997.

■ $309 million in Federal income tax receipts in FY 1997.

■ $220 million in receipt-share payments returned to States and

counties in FY 1997.

■ $345 million is estimated Net Present Value of long-term benefi

and costs of program in FY 1997.

Contributions to Other Resource Programs:

■ 208,400 acres of wildlife habitat restored/enhanced in FY 1998.

■ 17,955 wildlife habitat improvement structures built in FY 1998.

■ 344 miles of fish habitat restored/enhanced in FY 1998.

■ 8,600 acres of range forage improvements in FY 1998.

■ 169 forage improvement structures built in FY 1998.

■ 18,200 acres of soil and water resource improvements in FY 19

■ 15,500 acres of fuels management in FY 1998.
ditional recreation opportunities such as archaeological excavation, histo

restoration, and wilderness surveys. These experiences foster environmen

ship while providing the public with unusual, educational experiences. 

Passport in Time has over 13,000 volunteers contributing over $5.2 m

of time and effort to preserve our Nation’s history by restoring historic st

bilizing National Register eligible sites, evaluating sites for inclusion in t

Register of Historic Places, working on projects in wilderness, and devel

itage interpretive sites. Every activity is aimed at making our Nation’s un

accessible to the public and preserving it for future generations. 

State and Private Forestry—Providing Assistance to

Nonindustrial Private Landowners

The State and Private Forestry programs represent important tools fo

toring, management, protection, and better use of America’s forests, with 

on non-Federal forest land stewardship. These programs connect forestry 

managers—whether small, urban woodlot owners, tribal foresters, State a

Federal—in efficient, nonregulatory ways. Through a coordinated effort i

ment, protection, and better use, the programs of State and Private Forest

itate sound forestry across ownerships on a landscape scale. 

About 70 percent of America’s forests are in State and private owner

percent of the wood fiber potential comes from these lands. These lands a

cal to watershed conditions, fish and wildlife habitat, and the aesthetic qu

Nation’s landscape; and they represent one of the best sources of carbon 

tion. Since these non-Federal forests represent most of the forests in our c

keeping these lands healthy, productive, and sustainable in the rural and u

on a cumulative basis is especially important to the Nation. With increasi

tation and development pressure, the unique Federal role in maintaining t

functions of these lands across ownership divisions has never been greate

important.

Through a partnership role of technical advice and focused financial 

the program leverages Federal resources to help produce a variety of fore

goods and services— including recreation, wildlife and fish, biological d

timber—to help meet domestic and international needs.

Forest Health Protection

The Forest Service provides technical and financial assistance to Fed

cies, tribal governments, States, and (through State foresters) to private la

In 1997, with the assistance of State foresters and others, the Forest Servi

ducted insect and disease detection surveys on 203 million acres of NFS, 

Federal land, and tribal lands, and 552 million acres of State and private l

addition, the Forest Service and State foresters participate in a forest heal

ing program. With USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 

Service works to protect the Nation’s forests from exotic insects, disease

The Forest Service provides technical assistance in the safe and effective 
168

also evaluates and applies new, more efficient and environmentally sensitive t

nologies for forest health protection. 

Cooperative Forestry—Providing Assistance to Nonindustrial Private

Landowners and Community and Urban Areas

Cooperative Forestry (CF), in partnership with State forestry and other no

Federal forestry interests, provides for multidirectional links between Federal 

programs and objectives and the non-Federal forestry sector. CF connects ide

people to resources and one another so they can better care for forests to susta

communities. Since the 1990 Farm Bill, all programs have strategic plans in p

guide nationwide delivery. CF has three major goals:

■ Ensure sustainable ecosystems 

■ Provide multiple benefits for people within the capabilities of ecosyste

■ Ensure organizational effectiveness 

The Forest Stewardship Program provides technical assistance to nonindu

private forest landowners interested in managing their forests for multiple res

More than two-thirds of the Nation’s forests are non-Federal, owned by 9.9 m

nonindustrial private forest land owners. Since 1990, over 133,400 landowner

enrolled in the program, and stewardship plans have been prepared on more th

million acres of nonindustrial private forests. 

The Stewardship Incentives Program provides cost share assistance to lan

ers implementing Forest Stewardship Landowner Plans. This program is man

cooperation with State forestry agencies and USDA’s Farm Service Agency to 

vide assistance on more than 250,000 acres annually. This includes approxim

50,000 acres of tree planting annually. Since 1990, Stewardship Incentives Pr

practices have been implemented on 1.5 million acres, including approximate

200,000 acres of tree planting.

The Forest Legacy Program is designed to effectively protect and conserv

ronmentally important forest areas that are threatened by conversion to nonfo

uses. These lands can be protected through conservation easements and other 

nisms. This program is based on the concept of “willing seller and willing buy

is completely nonregulatory in its approach. No eminent domain authority or 

condemnation is authorized. To date, 15 States have completed an Assessmen

Need, which is the formal document that allows for entry into the Forest Lega

Program. Program partners include The Trust for Public Lands, State governm

and local land trusts. Since 1993, almost 62,000 acres in eight States have bee

tected from development. These lands have a value of more than $25 million 

have been protected with about $18 million of Federal funds. States with lega

include Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Yo

Vermont, and Washington.

Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF) is a key part of the agency’s int

urban forest resources management; it helps people better manage the natural

resources where 80 percent of America lives. Through the National Tree Trus
support for ongoing, critical developments in urban ecosystem managem

improvements in urban forest policy, planning, assessment, tree planting, 

standards, education, budgets, and financial management. Education acti

include support for the Treeture environmental education program throug

ship with the International Society of Arboriculture, the National Tree Tr

American Forests. To assist with building local community forest manag

bilities, technical and financial assistance is currently provided to more th

communities annually. 

Grants made available through Federal funding from U&CF totaled 

$9.9 million in 1997 to support a full range of program development activ

the national to the local level. Matching grants generate more than $49.1 

private donations of cash, goods, and services for all activities supporting 

ing, care, and protection, approximately a 5:1 ratio of private to Federal fi

urban and community forestry activities. 

Economic Action Programs

A collection of long- and short-term programs together make up a st

all effort to help communities and businesses that depend on natural reso

sue self-sufficiency and sustainability. Through Economic Action Progra

Forest Service provides technical and financial assistance to more than 3,

communities and businesses that are adversely affected by change in avai

natural resources or in natural resource policy. Of the total number assist

than 130 were tribal and minority communities.

Rural Community Assistance

The Forest Service implements the national strategy on rural develop

coordination with USDA’s Rural Development mission area and other St

Federal agencies. The goal is to strengthen rural communities by helping 

sify and expand their economies through the wise use of natural resource

1997, the Forest Service initiated an outcomes measurement process for r

munity capacity building; over 150 communities have established indicat

measures to determine progress. 

Economic Recovery is a long-term program that targets areas with a

nomic problems associated with changes in Federal land management po

natural resource decisions. The purpose of the effort is to assist eligible n

dependent areas to diversify by developing new or different economic ac

FY 1997, over 600 eligible communities received technical and financial 

training, and education to help them diversify their forest-based economi

communities over 530 are taking action based on locally led strategic pla

Rural Development is a long-term program that provides technical a

assistance to help strengthen, diversify, and expand local economies, espe

experiencing long-term or persistent economic problems. Rural Developm

grant program that provides technical assistance and matching funds for 
170

A shortterm emphasis is the Pacific Northwest Assistance effort, which 

the diversification of local economies experiencing reductions in Federal timb

vest levels. This effort provides technical and financial assistance to over 900 

munities. It is part of a larger, multi-agency effort to target resources to rural a

facing acute economic problems. Over 90 percent of these Forest Service fun

granted directly to the communities, counties, and tribes for community-ident

projects to meet local needs. About 7.5 percent of the funds goes into agency 

cal assistance. In addition, for every dollar of Forest Service funding, over $2 

aged from partners.

The Forest Products Conservation and Recycling Program continually pr

cadre of Federal forest products technology transfer specialists trained in logg

sawmilling, drying, processing, marketing, engineering, and wood technology

assistance directly affects communities and businesses that foster conservatio

ecosystem health through proper utilization of forest products. In FY 1997, ov

1,100 technical assists were provided and over 90 workshop presentations ma

leading directly and indirectly to over 100 jobs being created or retained. This 

supported by regional and State specialists as well as a Technology Marketing 

the Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, WI.

The Wood in Transportation Program improves rural transportation netw

demonstrates the commercial potential of using wood from undervalued tree 

for bridges and other transportation structures in rural communities. This dem

tion program has built market value for these species, which in turn stimulate

nomic return and value for protecting the forest and its ecosystems. In FY 199

structures were funded, leveraging over $772,000, with nearly a 2:1 ratio of p

Forest Service funding. More than 57,000 pieces of technical information wer

requested and disseminated to local and State officials responsible for transpo

infrastructure.

Natural Resource Conservation Education

The Forest Service supports a lifelong learning process that promotes the 

standing of ecosystems and natural resources—their relationships, conservati

management, and values to society. Our large partnership base assists the Nat

Resource Conservation Education (NRCE) program in about 200 projects acr

country each year, reaching about 2.4 million young people and more than 11

teachers. More than 40 separate program efforts are coordinated. They includ

Project Learning Tree, which reaches 400,000 teachers. The Forest Service bu

leveraged through a variety of organizations and groups to reach a 3.8:1 ratio 

vate to agency funds.

Smokey Bear: Smokey Bear has been spreading the forest fire preventio

sage for 54 years. The Forest Service began a fire prevention program during 

War II, and in 1944, a bear was introduced as the program symbol. Smokey is 

the most recognized symbols of fire prevention worldwide. Educational progr

using Smokey Bear are delivered to people of all age groups and backgrounds
Smokey suit that is used for a wide variety of fire

prevention purposes, from school programs to

parades. There is a Smokey Bear hot air balloon that

is displayed at events across the Nation.

Woodsy Owl: Woodsy Owl is a colorful and

fanciful character designed to be especially appealing

to young children. Woodsy is recognized by over 83

percent of all American households and is America’s

leading symbol for environmental improvement.

Woodsy’s appearance and message have recently

been redesigned and revitalized. He now sports a

backpack, hiking shoes, and field pants. His new

slogan builds on his previous message: “Lend a

hand—care for the land!” The Woodsy Owl campaign

was officially launched by the Forest Service on

September 15, 1971. In June 1974, Congress enacted

a law establishing “Woodsy Owl”—with his slogan,

“Give a hoot! Don’t pollute!”—as a “symbol for a

public service campaign to promote wise use of the

environment and programs that foster maintenance

and improvement of environmental quality.”

Wildland Fire Management

The Wildland Fire Management program protects

life, property, and natural resources on the 191.6

million acres of NFS lands. An additional 20 million

acres of adjacent State and private lands are also

protected through fee or reciprocal protection agreements. Wildland fire activities are conducted with the

highest regard for public and firefighter safety.

Preparedness provides the basic fire organization

and the capability to prevent forest fires and take

prompt, effective initial attack suppression action on wildfires.

In FY 1997, 1.1 million acres of NFS lands received Hazardous Fuel 

to reduce the amount of hazardous fuels (combustible carbon from trees, 

growth, etc.). This was a 120-percent increase over the 1987-1996 averag

million acres. Fuel treatment benefits the health of the forest and can redu

danger of catastrophic wildfire.

Suppression Operations provide for the suppression of wildfires on o

ing NFS lands or other lands under fire protection agreement.

In 1997, over 7,800 fires burned approximately 129,000 acres of NF

protected lands. The annual average is approximately 11,500 fires burnin

634,000 acres.

Smokey Bear

Woodsy Owl
assistance to State and volunteer fire departments to aid in the protection of ov

billion acres of State and private lands. 

The State Fire Assistance component of this program protects natural res

from fire on State and private lands. This is done through fire prevention effor

ing and equipping fire organizations, and aggressive initial attack to keep wild

fire ignitions small. Federal funds are cost-shared with State and local funds a

augment State protection needs. State and local fire organizations, capable of 

and efficiently extinguishing wildland and wildland/urban interface fires, redu

to public safety, prevent resource loss, and help contain costs of fire suppressi

The Volunteer Fire Assistance component of the CFP improves the ability 

America’s 26,000 rural fire departments to protect lives, property, and natural

resources in rural and wildland/urban interface areas. The focus of the Federa

tance is to provide adequate fire and personal safety equipment, provide traini

to organize new fire departments in unprotected communities.

Federal Excess Personnel Property is acquired by the Forest Service and 

to State forestry agencies and their cooperators, rural fire departments, for wil

and rural community fire protection. In 1997, 11,271 excess property items va

$128,008,876 were acquired and placed in service in the United States. In the 

years, this program has saved taxpayers of the United States over $1 billion.

Research and Development

Forests are critical to the global environment and the global economy. Th

the source of food, raw material, shelter, and income for millions, and they pr

sanctuary for people and habitat for wildlife. Forests filter and protect water s

and absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Agency research and develop

activities are conducted in areas requiring urgent policy and management acti

including studies related to watershed health and restoration, sustainable fore

agement, economic and social values, and forest health.

Since its establishment in 1976, Forest Service Research and Developme

become the world’s single largest source of natural resource information. It in

■ About 550 scientists working on the productivity, health, and diversity 

temperate, boreal, and tropical forests; 

■ Six regional experiment stations and one national Forest Products Lab

comprising 63 research lab locations, many collocated with universitie

■ Eighty-three experimental forests and ranges and 370 research natural 

devoted to long- term research; 

■ An extensive portfolio of long-term research data bases, some more th

years old; and 

■ Gateways for collaborative research in the Tropics, through the Intern

Institute of Tropical Forestry in Puerto Rico and the Institute of Pacifi

Islands Forestry in Hawaii. 

172
pubc tougoe ta,600 pubcatos peyeaad ay p

at symposia and workshops,

■ Collaboration with university, industry, and other scientists; nong

organizations; managers; and policymakers for work that transcen

ties of any single organization,

■ More than $17 million per year in domestic grants, cooperative ag

and contracts for research partnerships, and 

■ Key data bases for enhancing forest health, productivity, and cons

including an extensive portfolio of long-term research data bases 

more than 60 years old. 

The Forest Service provides scientific and technological information 

the Nation’s forests and associated ecosystems. This includes studies in v

management, watersheds, fisheries, wildlife, forest products and recyclin

and diseases, economics, forest and rangeland ecology, silviculture, fire e

prevention, ecosystem functioning, and recreation.

Priority research items include:

■ Forest inventories, which were conducted on 47 million acres of f

across all ownerships in 1998, with status and trends reported in 9

reports. In 1998 forest inventory and analysis is planned for 25 St

est health monitoring in 32 States. 

■ Recycling and wood use, to solve technical problems that hinder 

recycling and to develop new products from agricultural and woo

byproducts. 

■ Research to support the sustainable management of forests, includ

tion of how climate interacts with pollution, drought, and forest h

■ Large-scale ecosystem studies that support the conservation and r

watersheds, for example protecting watersheds, riparian zones, an

diversity in the Rio Grande Basin and the Upper Columbia River 

■ Research to provide habitat management information and guides 

than 70 threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, and to help 

impacts of forest fragmentation on wildlife. 

■ Research to support early eradication of non-native invasive insec

and weeds; for example, information on the biology of Asian long

tles supports successful control of this introduced pest in New Yo

newly developed DNA markers for viral control agents provide m

and cost-effective control of Asian gypsy moth. 

Business Operations—Acquisition Management

The agency spent nearly $900 million in over 728,000 actions for go

services in FY 1998. Over 69 percent of the total procurement dollars we

to small businesses. Awards included more than $52 million to small disa

businesses and $32 million to women-owned small business firms. Fores

dollars benefited States, research, international organizations, and other o
174

managed approximately 22 million square feet of owned office and related sp

6 million square feet of agency leased and General Services Administration- c

trolled space with an annual rental of $62 million. The Forest Service also ma

approximately 4,000 units of living quarters for employees valued at $375 mi

Property managers oversee more than $2.7 billion worth of Forest Service per

property, including property on loan to State forestry departments. The agenc

supports the President’s initiative on recycling with emphasis on both procure

of and efficient disposal of recyclable materials. The agency national strategy 

waste prevention and recycling is available via the Internet’s World Wide Web 

http://www.fs.fed.us/land/recycle.html.

Senior, Youth, and Volunteer Programs 

Senior, Youth, and Volunteer Programs provide job opportunities, training

education for the unemployed, underemployed, elderly, young, and others wit

cial needs, while benefiting high-priority conservation work. In FY 1998, thes

grams included more than 125,600 participants and accomplished over $109 m

in conservation work on Forest Service lands. 

Through an agreement with the U.S. Department of Labor, the Forest Ser

operates 18 Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers on Forest Service lands

Job Corps program is the only Federal residential education/training program 

Nation’s disadvantaged youth.

Key Facts About Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers:

■ 18 Job Corps Centers, 17 co-ed

■ 9,373 enrolled, ages 16-24

■ $98.6 million budget

■ 17.2 million work accomplishment

■ 82 percent placed

■ Average starting salary, approximately $7.00 per hour

■ 45 percent minorities 
In the Youth Conservation Corps summer employment program, p

15-18 accomplish projects that further the development and conservation 

United States’ natural resources. 

The Volunteers in the National Forests program allows organizatio

viduals to donate their talents and services to help manage the Nation’s n

resources.

Hosted programs provide conservation training and work opportun

national forests or in conjunction with Federal programs. Programs are a

through agreements with State and county agencies, colleges, universitie

tribes, and private and nonprofit organizations. 

Key Facts About the Senior Community Service Employment Pr

■ 5,484 older workers participated

■ $28.4 million budget 

■ $40.7 million work accomplishment

■ Only Federal agency among 10 national sponsors

■ 44 percent females

■ 24 percent placed in unsubsidized employment

■ $1.43 return on dollar invested 

Key Facts About the Youth Conservation Corps:

■ 594 enrollees, ages 15-18

■ $1.8 million operating costs

■ $1.6 million work accomplishment

■ $.88 return on dollar invested

■ 43 percent females 

Key Facts About Volunteers in the National Forests:

■ 98,271 volunteers have participated (including 105 internat

volunteers and 265 Touch America Project volunteers, ages 

■ $38.3 million work accomplishment

■ 33 percent females

■ Over 1.3 million volunteers served since the 1972 legislatio

Key Facts About Hosted Programs:

■ 11,976 participants

■ $11.3 million work accomplishment

■ 30 percent females

■ 24 percent minorities
176

sustainable forest management practices worldwide. In addition, many individ

research relationships exist between Forest Service researchers and managers 

their counterparts around the world. 

The Office of International Programs (IP) is divided into three program a

technical cooperation, policy, and disaster assistance support. Partners include 

U.S. Government agencies, as well as international organizations such as the

International Tropical Timber Organization and the Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations. In addition, IP has developed numerous c

specific partnerships that promote training and technical exchange and tap int

diversity of experience within the Forest Service. 

IP is involved with a wide variety of activities. Some examples from 199

include: organizing a workshop on nontimber forest products in Central Afric

facilitating research to combat invasive pests in the United States; and coordin

Forest Service technical participation in response to drought, flood, and fire d

in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. 

In addition, long-term partnerships include working with the Partners in F

program to support neotropical migratory bird habitat restoration in Mexico, w

with the Federal Forest Service of Russia to advance the ability of their fire ec

and managers to more effectively use fire as a management tool, and working 

the Indonesians to develop mapping technology for land management. 

In the policy area, IP is working to develop criteria and indicators for inte

tional and forest level monitoring. Further policy work includes issue briefs th

explore current issues affecting international and domestic forestry. Other effo

include providing Incident Command System training to foreign firefighters s

they are prepared to deal with wildfires when they arise, and promoting reduc

impact harvesting techniques through a network of forestry research organiza

Since October 1997, over 100 Forest Service employees representing eac

10 regions as well as research stations have been involved in international for

work. They have participated in international forestry meetings, conducted as

ments of disaster situations, coordinated interagency response teams, and con

original research. The partnerships that have developed and that are being enc

enable a great exchange of ideas and techniques, which lead to more sustainab

forestry practices, in this country and abroad. 

Law Enforcement and Investigations

The objective of the Forest Service law enforcement program is to provid

public and employee safety, and to protect natural resources and property with

authority and jurisdiction of the Forest Service. The program focuses on activ

such as vandalism, archaeological resource violations, timber theft, wildland 

and the cultivation and manufacture of illegal drugs. 

Forest Service drug control efforts continue to focus on the detection, app

sion, and prosecution of persons responsible for illegal drug activities on the f

Drug enforcement efforts annually result in the seizure of several million doll
worth of assets and the seizure and destruction of nearly $1 billion worth 

marijuana and other drugs. 

In FY 1998, 520 cooperative law enforcement agreements enhanced 

with State and local law enforcement agencies and with other Federal age

increase the protection and service to forest visitors. About 160 drug enfo

agreements were set up between the Forest Service, State and local law e

agencies, and other Federal agencies or task forces to cooperate in elimin

drug activities in the National Forest System. 

governmental organizations, 12 countries forged a consens

set of criteria and indicators for assessing progress towards 

tainable forest management.

■ International collaboration on research and monitoring help 

reduce the impact of invasive pests such as the Asian gyps

and hemlock woolly adelgid, which have severe impacts on 

resources.

■ Partnerships with organizations such as Ducks Unlimited to

restore waterfowl habitat will increase the populations of wa

that migrate to the Western and Southwestern United State

Mexico and further south.

■ A program with the Federal Forest Service of Russia, the S

Alaska, and U.S. companies and nongovernmental organiz

will help to ensure that Russians have access to the best en

mental technology as petroleum resources on Sakhalin Isla

developed. This will promote increased employment in Alas

preserve salmon fisheries around Sakhalin Island and Alas

Key Facts About Law Enforcement and Investigations:

■ Nearly 290,000 incidents or criminal violations were reporte

handled by Forest Service (FS) officers in FY 1998. These 

tions resulted in many millions of dollars in damages and lo

FS property and natural resources.

■ Nearly 338,000 marijuana plants valued at over $1.0 billion 

eradicated from approximately 3,900 sites. Officers and age

made over 2,800 arrests for drug-related offenses, seized n

$12 million in processed marijuana, and seized over $4.8 m

dollars in assets. There were 14 incidents of assault, 23 inc

of intimidation, and 174 firearms seized in relation to drug a

ties.

■ About 460 uniformed officers and 135 criminal investigators 

formed investigation and enforcement activities unique to th

the resources, and its nearly 191 million acres.
178

Introduction

As USDA’s lead private lands conservation agency, the Natural Resource

Conservation Service (NRCS) provides technical assistance and administers a 

range of programs to help solve this country’s natural resource problems.

Our well-being depends on healthy, productive natural resources and thei

tainable use. Just as soil, water, and habitat are interrelated, the programs that 

these resources are interrelated, and programs that help one resource also ben

ers. If you stop erosion, for example, you also enhance soil productivity and p

water and air quality. Improving the environment enhances the economic futu

communities throughout the United States.

The mission of NRCS is to provide national leadership, in a partnership e

help people conserve, improve, and sustain the Nation’s natural resources and 

ronment.

A Partnership Approach to Resource Conservation

For more than six decades, NRCS employees have worked side by side w

landowners, conservation districts, Resource Conservation and Development

Councils, State and local governments, and urban and rural partners to restore 

enhance the American landscape. The agency helps landowners and commun

take a comprehensive approach in conservation planning, working toward an 

standing of how all natural resources—soil, water, air, plants, animals—relate 

other and to humans. The agency works to solve the natural resource challeng

the Nation’s private lands—reducing soil erosion, improving soil and rangela

health, protecting water quality and supply, conserving wetlands, and providin

and wildlife habitat.

Most NRCS employees serve in USDA’s network of local, county-based 

including those in Puerto Rico and the Pacific Basin. The rest are at State, reg

and national offices, providing technology, policy, and administrative support

serve all people who live and work on the land. Nearly three-fourths of the ag

technical assistance goes to helping farmers and ranchers develop conservatio

tems uniquely suited to their land and their ways of doing business.

The agency helps rural and urban communities curb erosion, conserve an

tect water, and solve other resource problems. American Indian tribes, Alaska

Natives, Pacific Islanders, and other native groups work with NRCS on a vari

initiatives that include resource inventories and the adaptation of conservation 

grams to fit the special needs of their people and their land. Also, countries ar

the globe seek NRCS advice on building their own conservation delivery syst

in coping with severe natural resource problems.
conserve natural resources. This assistance is based on voluntary local la

cooperation.

CTA is the foundation upon which NRCS delivers its services, throu

conservation districts, to private landowners, communities, and others wh

natural resources. CTA is the intellectual capital of the agency; experts in 

other physical and biological sciences, with knowledge of local condition

private landowners in the stewardship of our natural resources.

CTA provides the infrastructure through which the agency is able to 

a multitude of needs, from natural resource disasters to complex site spec

resource problems. CTA is the means by which this Nation is able to volu

bring about land stewardship that improves our soil, water, wildlife, and a

while providing for sustainable agricultural production. The investments 

return the American public significant benefits from an improved environ

quality of life to a safe and abundant food supply.

NRCS Programs

Following is an overview of NRCS programs:

Wetlands Reserve Program

The Wetlands Reserve Program is a voluntary program to restore we

Participating landowners can establish conservation easements of either p

or 30-year duration or can enter into restoration cost-share agreements w

easement is involved. In exchange for establishing a permanent easement

landowner receives payment up to the agricultural value of the land and 1

of the restoration costs for restoring the wetland. The 30-year easement p

75 percent of what would be provided for a permanent easement on the s

and 75 percent of the restoration cost. The restoration cost-share agreeme

a minimum 10-year duration and provide for 75 percent of the cost of res

involved wetlands.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program works primarily in l

fied priority areas where there are significant natural resource concerns, s

erosion, water quality and quantity, wildlife habitat, wetlands, and forest 

lands. Priority is given to areas where State or local governments offer fin

nical, or educational assistance, and to areas where agricultural improvem

help meet water quality objectives. Activities must be carried out accordi

a conservation plan. The program offers financial, educational, and techn

install or implement structural, vegetative, and management practices cal

5- to 10-year contracts. Cost sharing may pay up to 75 percent of the cos

conservation practices. Nationally, half of the funding for this program is 

livestock-related natural resource concerns and the remainder to other sig

conservation priorities.
180

habitat for fish and wildlife on private lands. Participants agree to implement 

wildlife habitat development plan, and USDA agrees to provide cost-share as

for the initial implementation of wildlife habitat development practices. USD

program participants enter into 5- to 10-year cost-share agreements for wildli

habitat development.

Farmland Protection Program

The Farmland Protection Program provides assistance to State, tribal, or 

government entities to help purchase development rights to keep productive f

in agricultural use. USDA joins with State, tribal, or local governments, work

through their existing programs, to acquire conservation easements or other in

from landowners. USDA provides up to 50 percent of the costs of the easeme

qualify, farmland must: be part of a pending offer from a State, tribe, or local 

land protection program; be privately owned; have a conservation plan; be lar

enough to sustain agricultural production; be accessible to markets for what th

produces; have adequate infrastructure and agricultural support services; and 

surrounding parcels of land that can support long-term agricultural production

Soil Surveys 

The year 1999 marked the centennial of the soil survey in the United Stat

perhaps the largest and most valuable natural resource database in the world. 

conducts soil surveys cooperatively with other Federal agencies, land-grant u

ties, State agencies, and local units of government. Soil surveys provide the p

with local information on the uses and capabilities of their soil resource. Soil 

are based on scientific analysis and classification of the soils, and are used to 

mine land capabilities and conservation treatment needs. The published soil s

for a county or designated area includes maps and interpretations with explan

information that is the foundation of resource policy, planning, and decisionm

for Federal, State, county, and local community programs. Soil survey mappin

been completed on more than 90 percent of the Nation’s private land, 48 perc

Indian lands, and 47 percent of public lands. In addition, over 700 soil survey

been digitized and made available for resource assessments.

Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasts

NRCS field staff collect snow information through a network of about 65

Telemetry (SNOTEL) and 1,100 manual snow courses to provide 13 western 

with water supply forecasts. The data are collected, assembled, and analyzed 

about 6,300 annual water supply forecasts, which provide estimates of availab

annual yield, spring runoff, and summer stream flow. Snowmelt provides appr

mately 80 percent of the streamflow in the West. Water supply forecasts are u

individuals, organizations, and State and Federal agencies to make decisions r

to agricultural production, fish and wildlife management, flood control, recrea

power generation, and water quality management.
increased plant propagation and usefulness of plant species for biomass p

carbon sequestration, erosion reduction, wetland restoration, water qualit

ment, streambank and riparian area protection, coastal dune stabilization

other special conservation treatment needs. The work is carried out coope

with State and Federal agencies, universities, commercial businesses, and 

nursery associations. After species are proven effective for conservation p

they are released to the private sector for commercial production. NRCS 

almost 400 varieties of conservation plants to commercial producers. Nea

improved varieties are now in commerical production and used in conser

grams. Forty-two new plants have been released since 1997.

Small Watersheds Projects

The Small Watershed Program works through local government spon

helps participants solve natural resource and related economic problems 

watershed. Project purposes include watershed protection, flood preventi

and sediment control, water supply, water quality, fish and wildlife habita

ment, wetlands creation and restoration, and public recreation in watersh

250,000 or fewer acres. Both technical and financial assistance are availa

Emergency Watershed Protection

The Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program is designed to 

threats to life and property in the wake of natural disasters. It provides tec

cost-sharing assistance. Assistance includes establishing vegetative cover

streambank protection devices; removing debris and sediment; and stabil

channels, and gullies. In subsequent storms, EWP projects protect homes

highways, and public facilities from further damage. Floodplain easemen

EWP may be purchased to help prevent future losses due to natural disas

Watershed Operations

Under the Flood Control Act of 1944, NRCS is authorized to admini

shed works of improvement. Flood prevention operations include plannin

installing improvements and land treatment measures for flood preventio

conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water; and for the 

sedimentation and erosion damages. This may also include the developm

ational facilities and the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat. Activit

authorized in 11 specific flood prevention projects covering about 35 mil

11 States.

Watershed Surveys and Planning

NRCS cooperates with other Federal, State, and local agencies in co

river basin surveys and investigations, flood hazard analysis, and flood pl

ment assistance to aid in the development of coordinated water resource p

including the development of guiding principles and procedures. Cooper

basin studies are made up of agricultural, rural, and upstream water and l
182

improvement, opportunities for water conservation, wetland and water storag

ity, agricultural drought problems, rural development, municipal and industria

needs, upstream flood damages, and water needs for fish, wildlife, and forest-

industries. Flood plain management assistance includes the identification of fl

hazards and the location and use of wetlands. NRCS represents USDA on rive

regional entities and River Basin Interagency Committees for coordination am

Federal Departments and States.

Forestry Incentives Program

The Forestry Incentives Program supports good forest management pract

privately owned, nonindustrial forest lands nationwide. The program is design

benefit the environment while meeting future demands for wood products. Eli

practices are tree planting, timber stand improvement, site preparation for nat

regeneration, and related activities. The program is available in counties desig

by a Forest Service survey of eligible private timber acreage. 

Resource Conservation and Development Program

The Resource Conservation and Development Program (RC&D) provide

framework for local people to join together to improve their community’s eco

environment, and living standards. RC&D areas are locally organized, sponso

directed. USDA provides technical and financial assistance and helps sponsor

funding and services from Federal, State, and local sources. The major empha

environmental conservation and rural development. Currently, there are 315 R

areas covering more than 75 percent of the United States. Each year, these loc

organized and directed areas create thousands of new jobs, protect thousands 

of water bodies, conserve hundreds of thousands of acres of land, and improv

quality of life in hundreds of communities.

RC&D areas are run by a council of volunteers who serve without pay. C

more than 20,000 people donate 78,000 days per year to improve their comm

through this program. USDA provides a person to work full time with each ar

help implement local objectives.

Other Activities

National Resources Inventory

Every 5 years, NRCS develops an inventory on the condition and trends o

ural resources on non-Federal land. The National Resources Inventory, (NRI) 

tains the most comprehensive and statistically reliable data of its kind in the w

measures trends in soil erosion by water and wind, wetland losses, prime farm

acreage, irrigation, habitat and conservation treatment at national, regional, S

sub-State levels.
educational, and related assistance is provided to those who own private 

lands. The Nation’s more than 600 million acres of private grazing lands 

food and fiber, hold and carry important water resources, and offer wildli

and recreational opportunities.

National Conservation Buffer Initiative

In April 1997, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman announced a new 

private partnership called the National Conservation Buffer Initiative. Th

help landowners install 2 million miles of conservation buffers by the yea

Conservation buffers are areas or strips of land maintained in perman

tion and designed to intercept pollutants. Buffers can be installed along s

uplands—within crop fields, at the edge of crop fields, or outside the mar

field.

The National Conservation Buffer Initiative is a multi-year effort led 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in cooperation with oth

agencies, State conservation agencies, conservation districts, agribusines

agricultural and environmental organizations. Seven national agricultural 

tions pledged nearly $1 million over 3 years to complement USDA’s effo

promote conservation buffers.

To date, more than 2 million acres—or about 720,000 miles—of buf

been established under the Conservation Reserve Program, Environment

Incentives Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and other USDA progra

Agricultural producers and other landowners who install buffers can imp

and water quality; enhance wildlife habitat; restore biodiversity; and crea

landscapes.

International Programs

NRCS helps improve the management and conservation of natural re

globally. Participation in collaborative efforts with other countries results 

to the United States and in accomplishment of the NRCS mission. During 

1998, NRCS specialists completed 253 assignments to 49 countries. The 

of the assignments were to provide short- and long-term technical assista

leadership for the development of natural resource conservation program

projects and exchange conservation technology with countries that face s

water conservation issues similar to those in this country.

NRCS provided opportunities for approximately 205 foreign nationa

more than 25 countries to gain a better understanding of natural resource 

tion activities by observing and discussing conservation programs in the 

States.
184

recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture with regard to the scientific 

for agriculture’s impact on air quality. The Task Force is charged with strengt

and coordinating USDA air quality research efforts to determine the extent to 

agricultural activities contribute to air pollution and to identify cost-effective 

which the agricultural industry can improve air quality.

Backyard Conservation Campaign

In 1998, NRCS developed a national Backyard Conservation campaign to 

non-farm audiences about the good conservation work being done by Americ

farmers and ranchers. The campaign features 10 common conservation practi

such as composting, mulching, tree planting, nutrient management, and water 

vation, and shows how miniature versions can work in just about any backyar

whether measured in acres, feet, or flower pots.

Farmers and ranchers are already making progress in natural resource co

tion by protecting and restoring wetlands, enhancing wildlife habitat, and red

soil erosion. There are nearly 2 billion acres of land in the United States. Mos

land, 1.4 billion acres, is managed by farmers and ranchers. However, more th

million acres are privately developed, and much of this land is tended by hom

ers. These homeowners can join the conservation tradition right in their own b

yards to curb water pollution and improve wildlife habitat.

For more information on this campaign or agency programs, visit the NR

site at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov

Clean Water Action Plan

USDA worked with State and local governments and other Federal agenc

continue implementation of the President’s Clean Water Action Plan. In Marc

USDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released the United Na

Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations (AFO’s). The strategy established a n

performance expectation that all AFO’s will develop and be implementing co

hensive nutrient management plans by 2009. This goal will be accomplished p

ily through voluntary efforts of AFO owners and operators, with technical and

financial assistance from NRCS, other USDA agencies, other Federal agencie

and local entities, and the private sector.

A series of Federal-tribal regional workshops to assist tribes with their un

watershed assessments and watershed restoration action strategies also took p

In FY 1999, producers completed installation of 6,100 animal waste managem

systems with NRCS assistance.
FPO
186

Forest Service

Office of Communications Director

George Lennon

2Cen-Aud

Washington, DC 20250

202-205-8333

FAX 202-205-0885

glennon@fs.fed.us

Media Program Manager

Pete Pierce

2Cen-Aud

Washington, DC 20250

202-205-1294

FAX 202-205-0885

ppierce01@fs.fed.us

Program Manager

Carl Holguin

2Cen-Aud

Washington, DC 20250

202-205-1780

FAX 202-205-0885

cholguin@fs.fed.us

Program Manager

Christine Murray

2Cen-Aud

Washington, DC 20250

202-205-1545

FAX 202-205-0885

cmurray@fs.fed.us

Program Manager

Mary Jane Senter

2Cen-Aud

Washington, DC 20250

202-205-1719

FAX 202-205-0885

msenter@fs.fed.us

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Naomi Charboneau

1012-RPE

Arlington, VA 22209

703-605-4910

FAX 703-605-5104 

ncharbon@fs.fed.us

FS Regional Communication Of

Northern Region

Ed Nessellroad

P.O.Box 7669–Federal Building

Missoula, MT 59807

406-329-3089

FAX 406-329-3411

enesselroad/r1@fs.fed.us

Rocky Mountain Region

Steve Deitemeyer

P.O.Box 25127–11177 W.8th Ave

Lakewood, CO 80225

303-275-5135

FAX 303-275-5366

sdeitemeyer/r2@fs.fed.us

Southwest Region

Carolyn Bye

517 Gold Avenue, SW, Fed.Bldg.

Albuquerque, NM 87l02

505-842-3290

FAX 505-842-3457

cbye/r3@fs.fed.us

Intermountain Region

Robert Swinford

324 25th St. Federal Building

Ogden, UT 84401

801-625-5347

FAX 801-625-5240

bob.swinford/r4@fs.fed.us

Pacific SW Region

Marilyn Hartley

630 Sansome Street

San Francisco, CA 94111

415-705-2804

FAX 415-705-1097

mhartley/r5@fs.fed.us

Pacific NW Region

Al Matecko

P.O.Box 3623 - 333 S. First St

Portland, OR 97208

503-808-2971

FAX 503-808-2229

amatecko/r6@fs.fed.us
404-347-7226

FAX 404-347-3808

Atlanta, GA 30367

acoleman/r8@fs.fed.us

Eastern Region

Sherry Wagner

310 W. Wisconsin Ave., Rm 500

Milwaukee, WI 53203

414-297-3640

FAX 414-297-3608

swagner/r9@fs.fed.us

Alaska Region

Pamela Finney

P.O.Box 21628 - Federal Bldg.

Juneau, AK 99802-1628

907-586-8803

FAX 907-586-7892

pfinney/r10@fs.fed.us

NE Area State-Private

John Pasquantino

11 Campbus Boulevard, Suite 200

Newtown Square, PA 19703

610-557-4142

FAX 610-557-4177

jpasquan/na@fs.fed.us

FS Research Stations Communications

Offices

Forest Products Laboratory

Susan Paulson (Acting)

One Gifford Pinchot Drive

Madison, WI 53705-2398

608-231-9249

FAX 608-231-9592

skpaulson/fpl@fs.fed.us

North Central Research Station

Debra Dietzman

1992 Folwell Avenue

St. Paul, MN 55108

612-649-5031

FAX 612-649-5285

ddietzman/nc@fs.fed.us

Newton Square, PA 19073

610-557-4112

FAX 610-975-4200

dmcgee/ne@fs.fed.us

Pacific NW Research Statio

Sherri Richardson

P.O.Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

503-808-2137

FAX 503-326-2455

sherri.richards/r6pnw@fs.fed

Pacific SW Research Statio

Connie Gill

2400 Washington Ave.

Redding, CA 96001

530-242-2465

FAX 530-242-2460

cgill/psw@fs.fed.us

Rocky Mtn. Research Stati

Rick Fletcher (Ft. Collins)

240 W. Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526-2098

970-498-2340

FAX 970-498-1660

charlesr.fletcher/rmrs@fs.fed

Dave Tippets (Ogden)

324 25th Street, Federal Bldg

Ogden, UT 84401

801-625-5434

FAX 801-625-5129

dtippets/rmrs,ogden@fs.fed.u

Southern Research Station

Carol Ferguson

P.O.Box 2680

Asheville, NC 28802

704-257-4389

FAX 704-257-4330

carol.ferguson/srs@fs.fed.us
188

ctg ecto, Cosevato

Communications Staff

Henry C. Wyman

Rm 6121-S

Washington, DC 20013

202-720-3210

FAX 202-720- 1564

henry.wyman@ca.usda.gov

Program Assistant 

Joyce Hawkins

Rm 6121-S

Washington, DC 20013

202-720-3210

FAX 202-720-1564

joyce.hawkins@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Mary Cressel

Rm 6121-S

Washington, DC 20013

202-690-0547

FAX 202-690-1221

mary.cressel@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

June Davidek

Rm 6121-S

Washington, DC 20013

202-720-3876

FAX 202-720-1564

june.davidek@usda.gov

Visual Information Specialist

Robert Gresh

Rm 6109-S

Washington, DC 20013

202-720-3933

FAX 202-720-9975

robert.gresh@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Fred Jacobs

Rm 6121-S

Washington, DC 20013

202-720-4649

FAX 202-690- 1221

fred.jacobs@usda.gov

Washington, DC 20013

202-720-6794

FAX 202-690-1221

jeannine.kenney@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Ted Kupelian

Rm 6121-S

Washington, DC 20013

202-720-5776

FAX 202-690-1221

ted.kupelian@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Tom Levermann

Rm 6116-S

Washington, DC 20013

202-720-7570

FAX 202-690- 1221

tlevermann@usda.gov

Visual Information Specialist

Chris Lozos

Rm 6121-S

Washington, DC 20013

202-720-4244

FAX 202-690- 1221

chris.lozos@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Diana Morse

Rm 6121-S

Washington, DC 20013

202-720-4772

FAX 202-690-1221

diana.morse@usda.gov

Printing Specialist

Doug Wilson

Rm 6116-S

Washington, DC 20013

202-720-6243

FAX 202-720-6009

doug.wilson@usda.gov

Freedom of Info Act Office

Wilda Grant

5601 Sunnyside Avenue

Beltsville, MD 20705-5000

301-504-2168

FAX 301-504-2161

wilda.grant@usda.gov
Public Affairs Contacts

AL

Joan Love Smith 

665 Opelika Road,

Auburn, AL 36830-0311

334-887-4530

334-887-4551

joan.smith@al.nrcs.usda.gov

AK

Jeanette Colville

949 East 36th Avenue, Suite 400,

Anchorage, AK 99508-4362

907-271-2424

907-271-3951

jeanette.colville@ak.nrcs.usda.gov

AZ

Mary Ann McQuinn

3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 800,

Phoenix, AZ 85012-2945

602-280-8778

602-280-8809

mmcquinn@az.nrcs.usda.gov

AR

Sonja Coderre

700 West Capitol Avenue,

Little Rock, AR 72201-3228

501-301-3133

501-301-3189

scoderre@ar.nrcs.usda.gov

CA

Anita Brown

430 G Street, Suite 4164,

Davis, CA 95616-4164

530-792-5644

530-792-5791

anita.brown@ca.usda.gov

CO

Petra Barnes

655 Parfet Street, Room E200C,

Lakewood, CO 80215-5517

303-236-2886, ext 216

303-236-2896

pbarnes@co.nrcs.usda.gov

Storrs, CT 06268-1299

860-487-4029

860-487-4054

carolyn.miller@ct.nrcs.usda.

DE

Paul Petrichenko

1203 College Park Drive, Sui

Dover, DE 19904-8713

302-678-4178

302-678-0843

ppetrichenko@de.nrcs.usda.g

FL

Dorothy Staley

2614 N.W. 43rd Street,

Gainesville, FL 32606-6611

352-338-9565

352-338-9574

dstaley@fl.nrcs.usda.gov

GA

Pat Hood-Greenberg

Federal Building,

Box 13, 355 East Hancock A

Athens, GA 30601-2769

706-546-2272

706-546-2120

pat.hood- greenberg@ga.usd

HI

Lynn Howell

300 Ala Moana Boulevard, R

Honolulu, HI 96850-0002

808-541-2600, ext 118

808-541-2652

lhowell@hi.nrcs.usda.gov

ID

Sharon Norris

9173 W. Barnes Drive, Suite 

Boise, ID 83705-4711

208-378-5725

208-378-5735

snorris@id.nrcs.usda.gov
190

Champaign, IL 61820-7335

217-353-6606

217-353-6675

paige.mitchell@il.nrcs.usda.gov

IN

Michael McGovern

6013 Lakeside Boulevard,

Indianapolis, IN 46278-2933

317-290-3222, ext 324

317-290-3225

mmcgovern@in.nrcs.usda.gov

IA

Lynn Betts

693 Federal Building, 210 Walnut Street,

Des Moines, IA 50309-2180

515-284-4262

515-284-4394

lynn.betts@ia.nrcs.usda.gov

KS

Mary Shaffer

760 South Broadway,

Salina, KS 67401

785-823-4571

85-823-4540

mary.shaffer@ks.nrcs.usda.gov

KY

Lois Jackson

771 Corporate Drive, Suite 110,

Lexington, KY 40503-5479

606-224-7372

606-224-7399

ljackson@kystate.ky.nrcs.usda.gov

LA

Herb Bourque

3737 Government Street,

Alexandria, LA 71302-3727

318-473-7762

318-473-7682

hbourque@las02.la.nrcs.usda.gov

ME

Elaine Tremble

5 Godfrey Drive, Orono,

ME 04473

207-990-9100

207-990-9599

etremble@me.nrcs.usda.gov

Road, Suite 301,

Annapolis, MD 21401-5534

410-757-0861

410-757-0687

carol.hollingsworth@md.usda.gov

MA

Wendi Kroll

451 West Street,

Amherst, MA 01002-2995

413-253-4371

413-253-4375

wendi.kroll@ma.usda.gov

MI

Christina Coulon

301 Coolidge Road, Suite 250,

East Lansing, MI 48823-6350

517-324-5244

517-324-5171

ccoulon@miso.mi.nrcs.usda.gov

MN

Sylvia Rainford

600 Farm Credit Building,

375 Jackson Street,

St. Paul, MN 55101-1854

651-602-7859

651-602-7914

str@mn.nrcs.usda.gov

MS

Jeannine May

Federal Building, Suite 1321,

100 West Capitol Street,

Jackson, MS 39269-1399

601-965-4337

601-965-4536

jbm@ms.nrcs.usda.gov

MO

Norm Klopfenstein

Parkade Center, Suite 250,

601 Business Loop, 70 West,

Columbia, MO 65203-2546

573-876-0911

573-876-0913

norm.klopfenstein@mo.usda.gov
406-587-6761

lvaladez@mt.nrcs.usda.gov

Federal Building, Room 443,

10 East Babcock Street,

Bozeman, MT 59715-4704

NE

Pat McGrane

Federal Building, Room 152,

100 Centennial Mall, North,

Lincoln, NE 68508-3866

402-437-5328

402-437-5327

pat.mcgrane@ne.usda.gov

NV

Liz Warner

5301 Longley Lane,

Building F, Suite 201,

Reno, NV 89511-1805

775-784-5288

775-784-5939

lwarner@nv.nrcs.usda.gov

NH

Vacant

Federal Building, 2 Madbury Road,

Durham, NH 03824-2043

603-868-7581

603-868-5301

NJ

Irene Lieberman

1370 Hamilton Street, Somerset, NJ

08873-3157

732-246-1171

732-246-2358

irene.lieberman@nj.usda.gov

NM

Betty Joubert

6200 Jefferson Street, NE, Suite 305,

Albuquerque, NM 87109-3734

505-761-4406

505-761-4463

betty.joubert@nm.usda.gov

5th Floor, Suite 354,

Syracuse, NY 13202-2450

315-477-6524

315-477-6550

NC

Andrew Smith

4405 Bland Road, Suite 205,

Raleigh, NC 27609-6293

919-873-2107

919-873-2156

asmith@nc.nrcs.usda.gov

ND

Arlene Deutscher

Federal Building, Room 278

220 East Rosser Avenue,

Bismarck, ND 58502-1458

701-530-2099

701-530-2112

ajd@nd.nrcs.usda.gov

OH

Latawnya Dia

614-255-2471

614-469-2083

latawnya.dia@oh.nrcs.usda.g

200 North High Street, Room 

Columbus, OH 43215-2748

OK

Terri Daniel (Acting)

100 USDA, Suite 203,

Stillwater, OK 74074-2624

405-742-1244

405-742-1201

terri.daniel@ok.nrcs.usda.go

OR

Gayle Norman

101 SW Maine Street, Suite 

Portland, OR 97204-3221

503-414-3236

503-414-3103

gnorman@or.nrcs.usda.gov
Maite, GU 96927

671-472-7375

671-472-7288

marie1@ite.net

PA

Stacy Mitchell

1 Credit Union Place, Suite 340,

Harrisburg, PA 17110-2993

717-237-2208

717-237-2238

smitchell@pa.nrcs.usda.gov

PR

Becky Fraticelli

IBM Building, 6th Fl,

654 Munoz Riveria Ave.,

Hato Rey, PR 00918-4123

787-766-5206

787-766-5987

becky@pr.nrcs.usda.gov

RI

Jeanne Comerford

60 Quaker Lane, Suite 46,

Warwick, RI 02886-0111

401-828-1300

401-828-0433

jcomerford@ri.nrcs.usda.gov

SC

Perdita Belk

Strom Thurmond FB, 1835 

Assembly Street, Room 950,

Columbia, SC 29201-2489

803-765-5402

803-253-3670

pbelk@sc.nrcs.usda.gov

SD

Joyce Watkins

Federal Building, Room 203,

200 4th Street, SW,

Huron, SD 57350-2475

605-352-1228

605-352-1261

joyce.watkins@sd.nrcs.usda.gov

Nashville, TN 37203-3878

615-736-5490

615-736-7764

lblick@tn.nrcs.usda.gov

TX

Harold Bryant

W.R. Poage Federal Building,

101 South Main Street,

Temple, TX 76501-7682

254-742-9811

254-742-9819 

harold.bryant@tx.usda.gov

UT

Ron Nichols

Wallace F. Bennett FB,

125 South State Street, Room 440

Salt Lake City, UT 84138

801-524-4556

801-524-4403

rnichols@ut.nrcs.usda.gov

VT

Anne Hilliard

69 Union Street, Winooski,

VT 05404-1999

802-951-6796

802-951-6327

ahilliard@vt.nrcs.usda.gov

VA

Pat Paul

Culpeper Building, Suite 209,

1606 Santa Rosa Road,

Richmond, VA 23229-5014

804-287-1681

804-287-1737

ppaul@va.nrcs.usda.gov

WA

Betty Schmitt

Rock Pointe Tower II, W. 

316 Boone Avenue, Suite 450,

Spokane, WA 99201-2348

509-323-2912

509-323-2909

betty.schmitt@wa..usda.gov

192
Morgantown, WV 26505

304-284-7547

304-284-4839

preese@wv.nrcs.usda.gov

WI

Renae Anderson

6515 Watts Road, Suite 200,

Madison, WI 53719-2726

608-276-8732

608-276-5890

randerso@wi.nrcs.usda.gov

Room 3124, Casper, WY 826

307-261-6482

307-261-6490

nla@wy.nrcs.usda.gov
194

■ Investing in the Future Through Agricultural

Research, Education, and Economics

USDA leads the world in basic and applied research, as it looks for ways tproblems challenging America’s food and fiber production system, and f

to improve food supply, safety and quality. Five major challenges face U.S. a

ture in the next decade: (1) maintaining an agricultural system that is highly c

tive in the global economy; (2) providing a safe and secure food and fiber sys

maintaining a healthy, well-nourished population; (4) maintaining an agricult

tem that protects natural resources and the environment; and (5) increasing ec

opportunities and improving the quality of life of all Americans. USDA’s Res

Education, and Economics (REE) mission area helps meet these challenges.

Four USDA agencies make up the mission area: the Agricultural Researc

Service (ARS); the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Se

(CSREES); the Economic Research Service (ERS); and the National Agricult

Statistics Service (NASS). Together, these agencies have the Federal responsi

discover and disseminate knowledge that spans the biological, physical, and s

sciences related to agricultural research, economic analysis, statistics, extensi

higher education.

REE serves people along the entire food and fiber chain—-from the farm 

the consumer’s kitchen table. Sound science provides new technology and inf

tion useful to Americans as well as people all over the world in their daily live

REE agencies develop new products and new uses, explore profitable marketi

strategies, develop technologies to improve farming and processing efficiency

increase food safety, improve human nutrition, and conserve and enhance nat

resources. Studies demonstrate that consumers reap the benefits of investing i

cultural research; every tax dollar invested in U.S. agricultural research has pa

at least $1.35. Information about the REE mission and its respective agencies

CSREES, ERS, and NASS—is available on the REE World Wide Web home 

http://www.reeusda.gov/ree/

Agricultural Research Service

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the principal in-house resear

agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

ARS research has contributed to improved crop yields and more environm

sensitive farming techniques. But the impact of ARS research extends far bey

farm gate. Today’s agricultural research is as much about human health as it i

growing corn.
drugcalled taxolfrom labcultured cells of its increasingly rare natural 

yew tree. The new process is 100 times more productive than the original p

deriving taxol, which was patented by USDA in 1991. Taxol is a potent che

drug for breast, ovarian, lung, and other cancers. Under the original proces

about 6,700 pounds of bark from rare yew trees to make a pound of taxol.

ARS research is also as much about development of new products as 

development of new crop varieties. One environmentally friendly produc

market grew out of ARS research showing that adding alum to poultry lit

reduce runoff of nutrients from the litter into groundwater and surface w

The alum reduces phosphorus runoff by 70 percent, reduces the litter’s am

vapors—which can physically damage the chickens and cause respiratory 

for poultryhouse workers—and reduces heavy metal runoff such as copp

iron by up to 50 percent. The ARS-patented technology is now used by p

ers across the United States and in Canada.

On the crops side, a new potato variety known as AWN86514-2 is hi

tant to attack by late blight, the disease that caused the Irish potato famin

1840’s. Late blight is caused by a fungus, Phytophthora infestans. New, m

sive strains of the fungus that are fungicide-resistant have appeared in rec

breeders have been scrambling to find potatoes with natural resistance. T

potato held up well in tests when attacked by the newest and most virulen

the fungus. That’s good news for consumers, because the average Americ

about 143 pounds of potatoes a year, making potatoes the Nation’s favori

ARS released the new potato in collaboration with agricultural experimen

Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. 

ARS research provides solutions to a wide range of problems related 

ture—problems that require long-term commitment of resources or that a

to have solutions with a quick commercial payoff that would tempt privat

do the research. These problems range from fighting the ongoing battle to 

crops and livestock from costly pests and diseases, to improving quality a

agricultural commodities and products for humans, to making the best us

resources. All the while, the research results must help ensure profitabilit

ducers and processors while keeping down costs for consumers.

National Agricultural Library

The National Agricultural Library (NAL) was established as part of 

Department of Agriculture in 1862 under legislation signed by President 

Lincoln. Part of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) of the U.S. Dep

Agriculture, NAL is the largest agricultural library in the world with a co

over 3.2 million items. 

It is the mission of the National Agricultural Library to serve as the c

tural information resource of the United States, ensuring and enhancing a

agricultural information for a better quality of life.

The library serves national and international customers, including re

farmers, educators, policymakers, agricultural producers, and the general 
196

have found a way to extract a health-enhancing oil from a waste

byproduct of the corn processing industry. The scientific team start

with corn fiber, a low-value byproduct of corn milling that’s now sol

as a low-cost ingredient in cattle feed. From that corn fiber, they’ve

extracted an oil that, in tests with hamsters, lowered total serum ch

lesterol levels and LDL cholesterol, the type that clogs arteries.

They’ve also extracted a second product from corn fiber, a white g

that could be used in a variety of products—in food as an emulsifie

soluble dietary fiber or thickener, or industrial adhesives and water

based paint thickeners.

■ The latest twist in alternatives to using chemical pest to combat cro

pests is plants designed to give insects a stomach ache. ARS scie

tists teamed up with researchers at Kansas State University to inse

an insect enzyme into rice plants. The enzyme—chitinase—causes

digestive problems for insects that swallow it. Chitinase causes chi

a key component in insect skin and gut tissue, to break down. In la

studies, the scientists found that the genetically engineered plants

significantly suppressed the growth of feeding insect larvae. Insect

chitinase in plants is harmless to humans or animals. Several agric

tural biotechnology companies are working with the scientists to

transform other plants, such as corn, sorghum, and wheat.

■ ARS studies in Boston have shown that certain foods contain high

levels of compounds that could help slow the processes associate

with aging in both body and brain. In the studies, eating plenty of

foods with these beneficial substances, called antioxidants, raised 

power of human blood to defuse harmful internal substances calle

oxidants by up to 25 percent. Fruits and vegetables found to have t

highest amounts of these beneficial antioxidants were prunes, rais

blueberries, blackberries, kale, strawberries, spinach, raspberries,

brussel sprouts, plums and alfalfa sprouts.

■ ARS research at the U.S. National Arboretum has yielded two new

elm trees resistant to the Dutch elm disease that has ravaged the

American elm population since the 1940’s, wiping out an estimated

77 million trees. The two new disease-resistant elms from ARS are

called Valley Forge and New Harmony. Also, ARS researchers

recently unveiled two new maple trees for American streets and

yards: “Red Rocket,” a fiery-red maple cultivar with good pest resis

tance and the ability to grow where temperatures dip to 40 degrees

below zero, and “New World,” which also has pest and cold resistan

and is an excellent shade tree as well as an ideal choice for city lan

scaping.
key NAL goal is to become a “library without walls,” a library whose col

services are available electronically throughout the world. By adapting el

information technology to its needs, the library is well on its way to meet

with worldwide accessibility over the Internet. 

Over 48 miles of bookshelves hold the NAL collection. Materials in 

collection include the latest electronic resources as well as books, journa

photographs, films, videotapes, maps, artwork, and historic materials dat

16th century. Tens of thousands of new items are added each year. The co

international in scope and includes items in nearly 75 foreign languages.

The library is located in Beltsville, Maryland, on the grounds of the A

Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. In addition to being the agricultu

for the Nation, NAL is also the departmental library for USDA, serving t

USDA employees around the globe. NAL is a key resource in USDA’s sc

research activities. NAL staff includes librarians, computer specialists, in

specialists, administrators, and clerical personnel. Volunteers ranging fro

students to retired persons work on various programs at NAL too. The lib

active visiting scholar program as well, which allows professors, scientis

librarians from universities worldwide to intern at NAL on projects of mu

interest.

ary and begun reducing the level of atmospheric carbon dioxid

rather than adding to it. CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases t

to cause global warming. The ARS study showed that U.S. farm

have shifted from being net producers of carbon dioxide to net 

mulators of carbon, in the form of valuable soil organic matter. 

changeover was due largely to farmers’ increasing use of no-ti

low-till techniques. Now, many farmers leave crop residue on o

the soil surface, where the residue readily decays into organic 

■ For decades, USDA has battled scrapie, a fatal brain disease o

sheep and goats. Now the first preclinical, noninvasive test for 

should be available in a few years as a result of ARS research

Reliable diagnosis of scrapie is the first step to eradicating the 

ease, which would greatly improve U.S. sheep and goat expor

tunities. ARS scientists discovered that the nictitating membra

third eyelid, in sheep collects proteins known as prions. Abnor

ons are the infectious agents believed to cause scrapie. The

researchers developed a new laboratory-built molecule, called 

oclonal antibody, that detects the presence of the abnormal pr

The test will eventually allow veterinarians to detect scrapie be

animals show clinical signs.

■ For more information about ARS, see its home page:

http://www.ars.usda.gov
198

and is available on the Internet through the NAL homepage at

http://www.nal.usda.gov

NAL provides reference and document delivery services in all aspects of 

ture. It also includes specialized information centers that provide customized 

mation services on topics such as alternative farming systems, animal welfare

and nutrition, technology transfer, rural development, and water quality.

For walk-in visitors, the library is open from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., easte

Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Many of NAL’s services are 

able at anytime through the NAL home page.

NAL can be contacted at:

■ The National Agricultural Library

■ Agricultural Research Service, USDA

■ 10301 Baltimore Avenue

■ Beltsville, MD 20705-2351

■ (301) 504-5755

■ e-mail: agref@nal.usda.gov 

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension

Service 

The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSR

works with universities and other public and private organizations to advance

research, extension, and higher education in the food and agricultural science

related environmental and human sciences. Its programs increase and provide 

to scientific knowledge, strengthen the capabilities of land-grant and other sci

and education institutions, expand accessibility and use of improved commun

and network systems, and promote informed decisionmaking.

CSREES links the research and education resources and activities of USD

improving customer service and responsiveness to emerging issues and nation

orities. CSREES programs focus on improving economic, environmental, and 

conditions in the United States and globally. These conditions include improv

cultural productivity and development of new products; safer food; cleaner w

air; enhanced stewardship and management of natural resources; healthier and 

responsible individuals, families, and communities; and a stable, secure, diver

affordable food supply. 

Partnership

The CSREES domestic and international research, education, and extens

works are strengthened with partnerships that maximize resources and progra

impact. An array of CSREES partners includes other USDA agencies, Federa

State government departments, nonprofit organizations, and private-sector ent

Working closely with the nationwide Land-Grant University System is centra

CSREES programs. CSREES partners include:

■ Over 130 colleges of agriculture, including land-grant institutions in e

State and territory
■ 59 agricultural experiment stations

■ 57 State or territorial cooperative extension services 

■ 63 schools of forestry

■ 16 1890 historically black land-grant institutions, and Tuskegee U

■ 27 colleges of veterinary medicine

■ 42 schools and colleges of family and consumer sciences

■ 30 1994 Native American land-grant institutions

■ 160 Hispanic-serving institutions

■ Nonprofit organizations 

■ the private sector 

The Agricultural Network Information Center (AgNIC), an agric

information system begun in 1996 by NAL and land-grant univ

continues to show significant growth. AgNIC links worldwide a

tural information networks, providing “one-stop shopping” to an

searching the Web for agricultural information. In Fiscal Year 1

AgNIC received nearly 18.5 million hits.

■ Access to Farming History Improved 

Over 200 years of U.S. farming history can now be more easily 

fied and accessed through NAL efforts. The USDA history coll

dating to 1862 and before, was transferred to NAL in 1998. Sin

then, NAL has created a web site to improve access to the col

as well as cataloged the items and taken steps to improve pre

tion of the collection.

■ Electronic Preservation Plans Developed

NAL has taken the lead in developing plans to preserve USDA 

tronic publications. USDA has made electronic formats the pre

method for releasing information to the public. Preservation an

term access of these materials are an important issue due to t

ephemeral nature of electronic formats. NAL has established a 

ing committee and several subcommittees that are addressing 

issue and formulating preservation plans and procedures.

■ Food Safety Research Information Office Established

NAL has established a Food Safety Research Information Offi

office, mandated by the Agricultural Research, Extension, and

Education Reauthorization Act of 1998, will provide informatio

food safety research initiatives to the research community and 

general public.
200

programs in:

■ Plant and Animal Systems

■ Natural Resources and Environment

■ Economic and Community Systems

■ Families, 4-H, and Nutrition

■ Partnerships

■ Competitive Research Grants and Awards Management

■ Science and Education Resources Development

■ Communications, Technology, and Distance Education. 

What Is CSREES?

■ Development of knowledge leading to advancement in agriculture, the

environment, community and individual well-being through problem-

integrated research and education and targeted scientific efforts, includ

cutting-edge research programs on value-added product development, 

and animal genome mapping and biotechnology, integrated pest mana

water quality, human nutrition, food safety, and animal and plant syste

■ Model education programs in sustainable agriculture, water quality, fo

safety, risk management, children and families, health, environmental

stewardship, distance education, and community economic developme

■ Higher education programs to develop the scientific and professional

expertise needed to advance the food, agricultural, and natural resourc

systems and maintain excellence in college and university teaching pr

■ Cooperative partnerships involving:

—over 9,600 scientists engaged in research at 59 State agricultural ex

ment stations, 16 1890 colleges and universities, and Tuskegee Univer

—over 9,600 local extension agents working in 3,150 counties 

—3 million trained volunteers working with national outreach educati

programs 

—6.5 million youth involved in 4-H programs that increase self-esteem 

and enhance problem-solving skills in a positive, supportive environm

■ The National Research Initiative supporting research in the biological

physical, and social sciences to solve key agricultural and environmen

problems

■ A Small Business Innovation Research program to support high-quali

research proposals containing advanced concepts related to important

scientific problems and opportunities in agriculture that could lead to

significant public benefit if the research is successful

■ Immediate electronic access to vital information on safety and disaste

recovery during time-critical disasters, such as hurricanes, wildfires, a

floods 
Though cases of Salmonella food poisoning from eggs are rar

USDA-CSREES-funded research by Purdue, North Carolina S

and Texas A&M universities may make it nearly nonexistent. P

low-temperature pasteurization process kills Salmonella on th

shells without cooking the eggs. This process could increase th

value of Indiana’s egg industry alone by $40 million. Texas A&M

researchers have also reduced the incidence of Salmonella in 

ens by 75 percent by boosting young chicks’ immune systems 

method similar to vaccinating humans against disease.

■ Increasing Successes and Reducing Failures

Introducing and developing new plant varieties continues to bo

likelihood of success when farmers plant, grow, and harvest th

crops. For example, USDA-CSREES has helped fund a rice br

program at the University of Arkansas which has released 11 

eties of rice since 1980. These new varieties have increased th

age yield by 1,700 pounds per acre in 1998, with an estimated 

of $88 million annually. Two recently introduced varieties, Drew 

Kaybonnet, are resistant to the State’s two most costly disease

these varieties, growers can cut production costs by as much a

per acre by eliminating the need for chemical disease control.

■ Adding Value

Finding ways to turn trash into treasure or adding new value to 

iar products often makes the competitive difference in agricultu

example, University of Florida researchers—with research fun

USDA-CSREES—developed a breakthrough biotech bacterium 

became the basis for a new ethanol plant in Louisiana. The $9

lion factory will use the patented, genetically modified bacteria 

break down bagasse–an otherwise waste byproduct from suga

production–to produce ethanol. Also, a Colorado State Univers

alternative crop specialist with support from USDA-CSREES h

developed a canola-based motor oil which works just as well a

petroleum version but without the environmental drawbacks. T

is about the same weight as 10w30, cuts hydrocarbon emissio

a third, and can be disposed of without environmental concern
202

nearly every county linked to regional and national expertise at col

leges and universities, USDA-CSREES helps citizens overcome

problems and make the most of opportunities close to home. In the

first year of a Louisiana State University extension energy manage

ment program for school districts, for example, participating school

saved an average of 12 percent from their energy costs, for a total 

more than $3.5 million. In New York City, a Cornell University progr

to improve landlord-tenant communications and promote more

responsible ownership has reduced building code violations. The p

gram is being adopted in Oregon, Mississippi, California,

Massachusetts, and Colorado.

■ Environment-Friendly Farming

With help from USDA-CSREES and land-grant universities, farmer

are modifying their practices to create greater harmony between a

culture and the environment. As competition for water increases,

these farmers are finding new ways to prevent pollution and to con

serve and reuse water resources. USDA and Georgia scientists an

extension agents teamed up to develop an environmentally friendly

cotton cropping system which increased conservation tillage in

Georgia from 88,400 acres in 1994 to more than 200,000 acres in

1998. On these acres, less soil and sediments reach streams and

there is more soil organic matter on the soil surface. Tennessee gro

ers using residue management systems introduced by extension

have reduced soil erosion by 20 million tons annually and sedimen

in streams and lakes by 10 million tons annually.

■ Eating Well

Despite the safety and affordability of America’s food supply, dietrelated diseases are all too common; poor diets and nutrition contribute to five of the 10 leading causes of death, costing the U.S.

economy an estimated $250 billion annually. To address this, USDA

CSREES and its land-grant university partners are improving the

quality of the American diet and reducing health-care costs. For

example, when the Food and Drug Administration recently revised 

recommended daily allowance for folate or folic acid, the change w

based largely upon CSREES-funded research at the University of

Florida showing deficiencies in this vitamin could increase risk of a

mia, birth defects, and heart disease. Since cell division depends o

folate, adequate amounts of the vitamin are critical for normal fetal

growth and development, while aging adults need it to repair cells.

Also, Texas A&M University researchers with CSREES support fou

that fish oil combined with the kind of fiber found in oranges could
indicator of possible colon cancer.

■ Working Beyond Welfare

Programs offered by USDA-CSREES and the land-grant syste

helping people move off welfare and into the job market while 

ing their finances and limited food dollars. Arizona extension’s

PHASE program, for example, has helped more than 6,000 sin

parents and displaced homemakers in Pima County complete 

education and find jobs. The program offers job-related schola

job-seeking skills, and job placements. CSREES’ Expanded Fo

and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) reaches low-incom

ple with information on healthy food choices and wise use of fo

lars. In Louisiana, extension reached nearly 4,000 families and 

than 9,000 youth with EFNEP information. Of these, 95 percen

positive dietary changes, increasing consumption of milk, fruits

vegetables; 48 percent said they ran out of food less often befo

month’s end.

■ Managing Pests

For more than 30 years, USDA-CSREES and its land-grant un

partners have been working to develop, evaluate, and share n

methods to control pests that damage crops and invade home

technologies and integrated pest management (IPM) strategie

together cultural, genetic, biological, and chemical methods to 

tively control insects and plant diseases with fewer pesticides, 

crop production costs, and create a safer environment. Extens

grams in Florida, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Texas, and New York, 

example, are teaching school maintenance workers how to us

practices to reduce or eliminate pesticides in and around their

schools. The number of school districts in Florida routinely spr

pesticides has dropped from 75 percent to 40 percent. Forty p

of Pennsylvania school districts also are now implementing IP

grams. In Vermont, extension specialists are helping apple gro

implement IPM programs that reduce reliance on pesticides by 

much as 50 percent. Apple IPM programs in Ohio, Massachus

New Hampshire, Virginia, and many other States are producin

lar results.

■ Water: Making the Most of Every Drop

In finding ways to prevent pollution and improve water quality, 

CSREES and land- grant experts are helping farmers and othe

adopt practices that protect water quality and make the most o

drop. Non-point sources of pollution, such as farm fields, caus

lions of dollars in damage each year. Louisiana State Universi
204

Economic Research Service

Food assistance programs. Climate change. Risk management. Trade libe

tion. Water quality. Concentration in agricultural industries. Agricultural prod

Nutrition. Exports of U.S. farm products. Rural population trends. Food safet

cerns. 

The economics of these topics and many more are analyzed by USDA’s

Economic Research Service (ERS), the Department’s social science research 

As such, ERS provides information and analysis that is used by public officia

developing, administering, and evaluating food, farm, conservation, and rural 

and programs, as well as by consumers, agribusinesses, and farm operators in 

decisionmaking. ERS analysts monitor and evaluate many issues requiring po

decisions by the Administration and Congress.

The agency has four principal functions: research, development of econo

statistical indicators, situation and outlook analysis, and staff analysis.

corn and sugarcane, and taught growers how to maintain profits w

reducing the amount of herbicide in Louisiana surface waters. In

Nebraska, SPLASH is an extension program which teaches irrigato

one-on-one how to reduce water, energy, and fertilizer use. This

program has saved 46.4 million gallons of water on about 35,000

acres irrigated by cooperators.

■ Surviving and Thriving in the Global Marketplace

If there is one hot commodity that’s already commanding a premiu

in the international marketplace, it’s information that helps America

farmers improve their bottom lines and lowers grocery bills for consumers. Research and education programs funded by USDACSREES are helping U.S. producers survive and thrive at a time

when new trade agreements are altering the global landscape. For

example, Illinois researchers have found that high-quality soybean

command higher prices in European and Japanese markets, and t

some foreign buyers are now specifying oil and protein contents in

their contracts. These studies provided producers with incentives to

revise soybean grades for more than 60 percent of U.S. exports. An

innovative cattle breeding project at Washington State University h

built a herd of Wagyu cattle imported from Japan, after studies

showed that the breed could be produced in the Pacific Northwest

and its beef marketed in the United States and Japan at premium

prices.
■ Nut

toeducatoad ood assstace, ood saety eguato, d

of consumer demand for quality and safety, and food marketing tr

developments.

■ National and international commodity markets and production ag

■ The economic well-being of the rural economy, the financial perf

the farm sector, and the implications of changing farm credit and 

market structures.

ERS information is made available to the public through research pu

situation and outlook reports, e-mail and the World Wide Web, newspape

zines, radio, and frequent participation of ERS staff at public forums. ER

several periodicals, including Agricultural Outlook, FoodReview, and Ru

The agency’s products are available through a variety of formats. Pri

can be ordered through the ERS-NASS sales desk at 1-800-999-6779. Stu

bases, issue briefs, and other types of information are available on the ER

at www.econ.ag.gov and the ERS AutoFax system at 202-694-5700.

National Agricultural Statistics Service

The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), “The Fact Find

U.S. Agriculture,” is the official data collection arm of the U. S. Departm

Agriculture. The only way to “tell the story” of the phenomenal success 

agriculture is by having data available that measure productivity. Having 

timely information available is not only important to tell the success story 

American agriculture, but it is vital to support the efficient handling of co

in today’s global market.

The NASS mission is to serve the basic agricultural and rural data ne

people of the United States, those working in agriculture, and those living 

communities by objectively providing important, usable, and accurate sta

information and services needed to make informed decisions.

The NASS program has successfully met many challenges over the l

years to provide data to meet demands from a multitude of data users. Th

are geared toward producers to help them plan planting, feeding, breedin

marketing programs. Other major uses of these statistical data include the 

■ Timely, accurate data are essential in establishing and maintainin

place where price is determined by real facts rather than speculati

rumors.

■ Sound data are needed for resolving environmental issues, rather 

case scenarios.

■ Exporters of American farm products rely on accurate informatio

■ Our transportation-storage industry relies on the statistics in its ef

move agricultural products to market.

■ Suppliers use the data to allocate the necessary inputs farmers nee

their crops or raise livestock.
206

■ Ot

eUSageces use te statstcadata accopsg pot

grams for the Department, whether it be carrying out agricultural polic

cerning farm program legislation, commodity programs, agricultural r

and rural development.

NASS headquarters is located in Washington, DC, and 45 State Statistica

Offices cover more than 120 crops and 45 livestock items annually in the 50 S

Current and historical information is published in over 400 reports, which fea

■ Crop acreage, yield, production, and grain stocks;

■ Livestock, dairy, and poultry production and prospects;

■ Chemical use in agriculture, including post-harvest applications on se

crops;

■ Labor use and wage rates;

■ Farms and land in farms; and

■ Prices, costs, and returns.

An abundance of agricultural information is available to data users throug

NASS programs. In addition to the information above, estimates on more spe

commodities, including hop stocks, mink, cherries, cranberries, hazelnuts, len

peppermint oil are also available. The new nursery, equine, and aquaculture s

have been enthusiastically endorsed by these three important industries. Mos

tics are based on information gathered from producers surveyed through perso

telephone or face-to-face interviews or through mailed questionnaires. Other 

cal reports are based on surveys of grain elevators, hatcheries, and other agrib

nesses, as well as on administrative data such as livestock slaughter records.

Data collected from these varied sources are summarized by the NASS S

offices and are sent to the agency’s Agricultural Statistics Board in Washingto

whose members determine and issue State and national official reports.
every 5year census of agriculture, previously administered by the U.S. D

of Commerce’s Census Bureau. This has broadened the scope of agricult

available through the agency. Data from the 1997 Census of Agriculture 

released electronically several months ahead of the normal release schedu

February 1 of 1999, and are now available in print, on CD-ROM, and on 

In addition, following the census of agriculture release, NASS conducts s

ies for aquaculture, horticulture, and irrigation. Every 10 years following 

of agriculture, NASS conducts the agricultural economics and land owne

which is the only source of data on agricultural land ownership, financing

by farm operators and landlords for each State.

The census is a complete accounting of U.S. agricultural production 

source of uniform, comprehensive agricultural data for every county in th

The 1997 Census of Agriculture results include data on land use and own

ator characteristics, crops, machinery and equipment, livestock, fertilizer

chemicals, market value of products, energy expenditures, irrigated land, 

expenses, type of organization, farm programs, and corporate structure.

The NASS Quick Facts brochure published from the 1997 Census of 

data “tells the story” of American agriculture at a glance. 

How To Get More Information

All NASS reports are released at scheduled times, and the informatio

to the public in a variety of formats. The NASS table shows some method

NASS data can be accessed.
208

Agricultural Research

Service

Director, Information Staff

Sandy Miller Hays

Rm 2251

5601 Sunnyside Ave., Bldg. 1

Beltsville, MD 20705- 5128

301-504-1638 

FAX 301-504-1648

shays@asrr.arsusda.gov

Current Info Branch Chief

Sean Adams

Rm 2210

5601 Sunnyside Ave., Bldg. 1

Beltsville, MD 20705-5129

301-504-1622

FAX 301-504-1641

sadams@asrr.arsusda.gov

Chief, Information Products

Ruth Coy

Rm 2234

5601 Sunnyside Ave., Bldg. 1 and Services

Branch

Beltsville, MD 20705- 5130

301-504-1660

FAX 301-504-1641

rcoy@asrr.arsusda.gov

Nat’l Visitor Center Head

John Kucharski

Bldg 302, BARC-E,

Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-9403

FAX 301-504-8069

nvc@asrr.arsusda.gov

Freedom of Info Act Officers

Valerie Herberger

5601 Sunnyside Ave., Bldg. 1

Rm 2248b

Beltsville, MD 20705-5128

301-504-1640

FAX 301-504-1648

vherberg@asrr.arsusda.gov

Stasia Hutchison

Rm 2248a

5601 Sunnyside Ave., Bldg. 1

Beltsville, MD 20705-5128

301-504-1655

FAX 301-504-1648

hutchisn@asrr.arsusda.gov

Field Offices

ARS Information, USDA-ARS N

Center for Agricultural Utilizati

1815 N. University St.

Peoria, IL 61604

FAX 309-681-6690

309-681-6530

510-559-6069

ARS Information, USDA-ARS

Western Regional Research Cente

800 Buchanan St.

Albany, CA 94710

FAX 510-559-5882

National Agricultural Library

Public Affairs Officer

204-NAL

Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6778

FAX 301-504-5472

Library Services

1st Fl.-NAL

Beltsville, MD 20705

(reference, lending, etc.)

301-504-5755

Freedom of Info Act Officers

Valerie Herberger

5601Sunnyside Ave., Bldg. 1

Rm 2248b

Beltsville MD 20705

301-504-1640

FAX 301-504-1648

vherberg@asrr.arsusda.gov
y, g

Rm 2248a

Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-1655

FAX 301-504-1641

hutchisn@asrr.arsusda.gov

NAL TDD/TTY

DCRC TDD/TTY

301-504-6856

202-720-3434

Information Centers Branch

Alvetta S. Pindell

304-NAL

Beltsville, MD 20705

30l-504-5414

FAX 301-504-6409

apindell@nal.usda.gov

Alternative Farming Systems

Information Center

Jane Gates

304-NAL

Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5724

FAX 301-504-6409

jgates@nal.usda.gov

Animal Welfare Information Center

Jean Larson

304-NAL

Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5215

FAX 301-504-7125

jlarson@nal.usda.gov

Food and Nutrition Information Center

Ginny Hartmueller

304-NAL

Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-5719

FAX 301-504-6409

fnic@nal.usda.gov

Rural Information Center

304-NAL

Beltsville, MD 20705

Patricia John

301-504-5372

FAX 301-504-5181

pjohn@nalusda.gov

304-NAL Beltsville, MD 207

301-504-5547

All other U.S. calls

304-NAL Beltsville, MD 207

1-800-633-7701

Reference Section

Stan Kosecki

4th Fl.-NAL Beltsville, MD 2

301-504-5204

FAX 301-504-6927

skosecki@nal.usda.gov

Reference Desk

Librarian on Duty

1Fl.-NAL Beltsville, MD 207

301-504-5479

FAX 301-504-6927

agref@nal.usda.gov

Russian Wheat Aphids Proj

Wayne Olson

100-NAL Beltsville, MD 207

301-504-5204

FAX 301-504-6927

wolson@nal.usda.gov

Special Collections Program

Susan Fugate

3Flr-NAL Beltsville, MD 20

301-504-6503

FAX 301-504-5675

speccoll@nal.usda.gov

Technology Transfer Inform

Center

Kathleen Hayes

4Flr-NAL Beltsville, MD 20

301-504-6875

FAX 301-504-7098

khayes@nal.usda.gov

Water Quality Information 

Joseph Makuch

4Flr-NAL Beltsville, MD 20

301-504-6875

FAX 301-504-7098

jmakuch@nal.usda.gov
Rm1052-S Washington, DC 20250

202-720-3434

FAX 202-720-3200

dcrc@nal.usda.gov

Global Change

Roberta Rand

Rm013NAL Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-6684

FAX 301-504-7098

rrand@nal.usda.gov

Cooperative State

Research, Education, and

Extension Service

(CSREES is located at Waterfront Center,

800 9th Street, S.W.)

Director, Communication &

Information Access

Terry Meisenbach

Rm 4306

Washington, DC 20250-2207

202-720-2677

FAX 202-690-0289

tmeisenbach@reeusda.gov

National Media Liaison

Marti Asner

Rm 4301

Washington, DC 20250-2207

202-720-8188

FAX 202- 690-0289

masner@reeusda.gov

Public Affairs Officer

Len Carey

Rm 4314

Washington, DC 20250-2207

202-720-1358

FAX 202-690-0289

lcarey@reeusda.gov

Public Inquiries

Joyce Tonigan

Rm 4000C

Washington, DC 20250-2207

202-690-1899

FAX 202-690-0289

jtonigan@reeusda.gov

Rm 4302

Washington, DC 20250-2207

Joe Fulks

jfulks@reeusda.gov

FAX 202-690-0289

Freedom of Info Act Officers

Valerie Herberger

Rm 2248b

5601 Sunnyside Ave., Bldg. 1

Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-1640

FAX 301-504-1648

vherberg@asrr.arsusda.gov

Stasia Hutchison

5601 Sunnyside Ave., Bldg. 1

Rm 2248a

Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-1655

FAX 301-504-1641

hutchisn@asrr.arsusda.gov

Economic Research Se

Chief, Publishing & Communica

Adrie Custer

1800 M St., NW

Rm S2018

Washington,DC 20036-5831

202-694-5120

FAX 202-694-5638 

acuster@ers.usda.gov

Media Services

John Snyder

1800 M St.,NW

Rm S2010

Washington,DC 20036-5831

202-694-5138

FAX 202-694-5638

jsnyder@ers.usda.gov

Outlook

Diane Decker

1800 M St.,NW

Rm S2043

Washington,DC 20036-5831

202-694-5116

FAX 202-694-5638

ddecker@ers.usda.gov

210
1800 M St., NW

Rm S2042

Washington,DC 20036-5831

202-694-5121

FAX 202-694-5638

lhatcher@ers.usda.gov

Research Publishing

Thomas McDonald

1800 M St., NW

Rm S2038

Washington,DC 20036- 5831

202-694-5129

FAX 202-694-5638

thomasm@ers.usda.gov

Design and Technology

Douglas Parry

1800 M St., NW

Rm S2013

Washington,DC 20036-5831

202-694-5131

FAX 202-694-5638

dparry@ers.usda.gov

1800 M St.,NW

Rm S3100

Washington,DC 20036-5831

202-694-5050

FAX 202-694-5638

service@ers.usda.gov

Freedom of Information Ac

Valerie Herberger

5601 Sunnyside Ave., Bldg. 1

Rm 2248b

Beltsville, MD 20705

301-504-1640

FAX 301-504-1648

vherberg@asrr.arsusda.gov

Stasia Hutchison

5601 Sunnyside Ave., Bldg. 1

Rm 2248a

Greenbelt, MD 20770

301-504-1655

FAX 301-504-1641

hutchisn@asrr.arsusda.gov
212

NASS Autofax:

202-720-2000

Place a call from your fax machine to receive highlights of selected NASS reports,

including individual State Highlights from the 1997 Census of Agriculture. Listen to 

respond to the voice prompts. You may request up to three documents per call.

Printed Reports or Data Products

(Free catalog available upon request)

Orders Only

1-800-999-6779

Customer Service and Foreign Orders

703-605-6220

Fax: 703-321-8547

Mail order requests to:

ERS-NASS

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

Assistance

If you need general agricultural statistics or further information about NASS or its p

or services, please contact:

NASS Customer Service

1-800-727-9540

(Operating Hours: 7:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. ET Monday thru Friday)

Fax: 202-690-2090

E-Mail: NASS@NASS.USDA.GOV

Local Walk-in Service

(Operating Hours: 7:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday)

National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA

Room 5829, South Building

14th & Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20250
ticular State, call the State Statistician at

any of the folllowing offices, or e-mail at

NASS**@NASS.USDA.GOV. Replace **

with the State abbreviation. 

Alabama 

(Montgomery, AL) 

800-832-4181

Alaska 

(Palmer, AK)

800-478-6079

Arizona 

(Phoenix, AZ)

800-645-7286

Arkansas 

(Little Rock, AR)

800-327-2970

California

(Sacramento, CA)

800-851-1127

Colorado

(Lakewood, CO)

800-392-3202

Connecticut 

(Concord, NH) 

800-642-9571

Delaware

(Dover, DE)

302-739-4811

Florida 

(Orlando, FL)

800-344-6277

Georgia 

(Athens, GA)

800-253-4419

Hawaii 

(Honolulu, HI)

800-804-9514

Illinois 

(Springfield, IL)

800-622-9865

Indiana

(West Lafayette, IN)

800-363-0469

Iowa 

(Des Moines, IA)

800-772-0825

Kansas 

(Topeka, KS)

800-258-4564

Kentucky 

(Louisville, KY)

800-928-5277

Louisiana 

(Baton Rouge, LA)

800-256-4485

Maine

(Concord, NH) 

800-642-9571

Maryland

(Annapolis, MD)

800-675-0295

Massachusetts

(Concord, NH)

800-642-9571

Michigan 

(Lansing, MI)

800-453-7501

Minnesota 

(St. Paul, MN)

800-453-7502

Mississippi

(Jackson, MS)

800-535-9609
Montana 

(Helena, MT)

800-835- 2612

Nebraska 

(Lincoln, NE)

800-582-6443

Nevada 

(Reno, NV)

888-456-7211

New Hampshire 

(Concord, NH) 

800-642-9571

New Jersey

(Trenton, NJ)

800-328-0179

New Mexico 

(Las Cruces, NM)

800-530-8810

New York 

(Albany, NY)

800-821-1276

North Carolina 

(Raleigh, NC)

800-437-845

North Dakota 

(Fargo, ND)

800-626-3134

Ohio

(Reynoldsburg, OH)

800-858-8144

Oklahoma 

(Oklahoma City, OK)

888-525-9226

Oregon

(Portland, OR)

800-338-2157

Rhode Island 

(Concord, NH) 

800-642-9571

South Carolina 

(Columbia, SC)

800-424-9406

South Dakota 

(Sioux Falls, SD)

800-338-2557

Tennessee 

(Nashville, TN)

800-626-0987

Texas 

(Austin, TX)

800-626-3142

Utah

(Salt Lake City, UT)

800-747-8522

Vermont 

(Concord, NH)

800-642-9571

Virginia

(Richmond, VA)

800-772-0670

Washington

(Olympia, WA)

800-435-5883

West Virginia

(Charleston, WV)

800-535-7088

Wisconsin 

(Madison, WI)

800-789-9277

Wyoming 

(Cheyenne, WY)

800-892- 1660

214
g

■ Agricultural Marketing Service 

When you visit the grocery store, you know you’ll find an abundance of top-quality produce, meats, and dairy products. If you’re like m

you probably don’t give a second thought to the marketing system that br

food from the farm to your table. Yet, this state-of-the-art marketing syste

possible to pick and choose from a variety of products, available all year 

lored to meet the demands of today’s lifestyles. Millions of people—from 

retailer—make this marketing system work. Buyers, traders, scientists, fa

ers, transportation experts, wholesalers, distributors, retailers, advertising 

addition to the Nation’s farmers—all help create a marketing system that 

passed by any in the world. And USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service 

helps make sure the U.S. marketing system remains world-class.

Services to Promote Quality: Grading, Quality Standa

Certification

Wherever or whenever you shop, you expect good, uniform quality a

able prices for the food you purchase. AMS quality grade standards, grad

cation, inspection, and laboratory analysis are voluntary tools that industr

help promote and communicate quality and wholesomeness to consumer

pays for these services and since they are voluntary, their widespread use 

indicates they are valuable tools in helping market their products.

USDA quality grade marks are usually seen on beef, lamb, chicken, 

ter, and eggs. For many other products, such as fresh and processed fruits 

bles, the grade mark isn’t always visible on the retail product. In these co

the grading service is used by wholesalers, and the final retail packaging 

include the grade mark. However, quality grades are widely used—even 

not prominently displayed—as a “language” among traders. They make b

transactions easier whether they are local or made over long distances. C

well as those involved in the marketing of agricultural products, benefit f

greater efficiency permitted by the availability and application of grade s

Grading is based on standards, and standards are based on measurab

that describe the value and utility of the product. Beef quality standards, 

are based on attributes such as marbling (the amount of fat interspersed w

meat), color, firmness, texture, and age of the animal, for each grade. In t

factors are a good indication of tenderness, juiciness, and flavor of the me

characteristics important to consumers. Prime, Choice, and Select are all 

familiar to consumers of beef.
216

each for chickens, eggs, and turkeys. On the other hand, there are 45 grades fo

ton, 26 grade standards or specifications for dairy products, and more than 31

vegetable, and specialty product standards.

The food testing side of the AMS program has nine user-funded laborato

performing numerous microbiological, chemical, and physical analyses on a h

of food and fiber commodities, including processed dairy products, meat, pou

egg products, and fruits and vegetables. This testing supports AMS purchases 

National School Lunch Program and other domestic feeding programs, troop 

specifications for the Department of Defense, export of U.S. food to foreign c

tries, laboratory quality control and assurance programs, and testing for aflato

in peanut products.

In addition to grading and laboratory services, USDA provides certificati

services, for a fee, that facilitate ordering and purchase of products used by la

volume buyers. Certification assures buyers that the products they purchase w

meet the terms of their contracts—with respect to quality, processing, size, pa

ing, and delivery. If a large buyer—such as a school district, hospital, or priso

orders huge volumes of a particular product such as catsup or processed turke

chicken, it wants to be sure that the delivered product meets certain needs. To

money is involved to risk getting tomato soup when you need catsup, and mea

can’t be postponed while the mistake gets corrected. Graders review and acce

agricultural products to make sure they meet contract requirements and specifi

set by private-sector purchasers. They also certify food items purchased for F

feeding programs.

AMS has developed quality assurance (QA)services that include Hazard

Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) and International Organization 

Standardization (IOS)-based programs. These programs ensure and documen

companies’ operations are in compliance with provisions of contracts and/or t

own standards and procedures. QA services are voluntary, hourly fee-based, a

■ Facts about grading:

From October 1997 through September 1998, USDA graded 30 pe

cent of the shell eggs and 95 percent of the butter produced in the

United States. Nearly 83 billion pounds of fresh fruits and vegetabl

and more than 11 billion pounds of processed fruits and vegetable

received a USDA grade mark. Nearly all of the meat industry reque

AMS grading services: USDA grades were applied to 83 percent o

beef, 91 percent of all lambs, 23 percent of all veal and calves, 69

percent of all turkeys, and 41 percent of all chickens and other pou

marketed in this country. USDA also graded more than 98 percent 

the cotton and 97 percent of the tobacco produced in the United

States. In addition 88 percent of the butter sold in consumer size

packages is marketed bearing the USDA grade shield.
dures are becoming an international norm for some processes. Another Q

Assurance activity performed by AMS is the accreditation or certification 

ries whose customers need the testing service of these laboratories to faci

export of U.S. products. In addition, AMS’ laboratories are currently purs

itation under IOS/IEC Guide 25, an internationally recognized guide for 

tems in laboratory operations.

AMS’ Dairy programs conducts comprehensive evaluations of dairy 

products manufacturing plan facilities and equipment to assure their eligi

receive grading service and display the grade shield on products. Associa

service is a sanitary design evaluation service for processing equipment. 

service, processors can have the sanitary aspects of the design and the cle

a machine or process evaluated prior to installation in their facility. A sim

is being developed by AMS for the meat and poultry industry.

Spreading the News 

Farmers, shippers, wholesalers, and retailers across the country rely 

Market News for up-to-the-minute information on commodity prices and 

Market News helps industry make the daily critical decisions about wher

to sell, and what price to expect. Because this information is made so wid

able, farmers and those who market agricultural products are better able t

ensuring consumers a stable and reasonably priced food supply.

AMS Market News reporters generate approximately 700 reports ea

lected from more than 100 U.S. locations. Reports cover local, regional, n

international markets for dairy, livestock, meat, poultry, grain, fruit, vege

tobacco, cotton, and specialty products. Weekly, biweekly, monthly, and 

reports track the longer range performance of cotton, dairy products, pou

eggs, fruits, vegetables, specialty crops, livestock, meat, grain, floral prod

wool, and tobacco. Periodically, AMS issues special reports on such com

olive oil, pecans, peanuts, and honey.

USDA’s commodity market information in Market News is easily ac

via newspapers, television, and radio; printed reports mailed or faxed dire

user; telephone recorders; electronic access through the Market News

Communication System and the Internet; through electronic mail; and by 

tact with USDA reporters.

Buying Food: Helping Farmers, School Children, and N

Persons 

AMS serves both farmers and those in need of nutrition assistance th

commodity procurement programs. By purchasing wholesome, high-qua

products that are in abundance, AMS helps provide stable markets for pro

Nation’s food assistance programs benefit from these purchases, because 

go to low-income individuals who might otherwise be unable to afford th

Some of the programs and groups that typically receive USDA-purch

include: children in the National School Lunch, Summer Food Service, a
218

for the Elderly; and lowincome and homeless persons through the Commodi

Supplemental Food Program and the Emergency Food Assistance Program. In

addition, USDA helps provide disaster relief by making emergency purchases 

commodities for distribution to disaster victims.

Once USDA determines that a purchase is appropriate, AMS publicly inv

bids, and makes sure that the food it purchases meets quality and nutrition sta

Often, AMS specifies that foods be low in fat, sugar, and sodium. Compliance 

these requirements is ensured through testing in AMS laboratories. AMS only 

chases products that are 100 percent domestic in origin.

Pesticides: Information and Records 

The U.S. food supply is one of the safest in the world, but the public is st

cerned about the effects of agricultural pesticides on human health and enviro

quality. The Pesticide Data Program (PDP), which is administered by AMS, p

statistically reliable information on chemical residues found on agricultural c

modities such as fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, grain, and milk. P

a Federal-State partnership where 10 participating States using uniform proce

collect and test these commodities. The information gained helps form the ba

conducting realistic dietary risk assessments and evaluating pesticide toleranc

required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. The Environmental Prot

Agency uses PDP data to address re-registration of pesticides. Other Federal a

use the data to respond more quickly and effectively to food safety issues. PD

are also used to support the export of American commodities in the competiti

global marketplace and to assess with integrated pest management activities. 

AMS also administers the Federal Pesticide Recordkeeping Program, wh

requires certified private applicators to keep records of their restricted use pes

applications for a period of 2 years. These records support collection of pestic

data to help analyze agricultural pesticide use and are used by health care pro

als when treating individuals who may have been exposed to a restricted use p

cide. AMS works with State pesticide regulatory agencies and Cooperative Ex

Services to provide the regulatory and education aspects of the program.

Helping Farmers Promote Their Products 

“The Touch...the Feel of Cotton...the Fabric of Our Lives,” “Beef...It’s W

Want,” “Got Milk?.” If you’ve watched television or read magazines lately, yo

probably heard or read these slogans and others for a host of agricultural com

ties. All of these promotional campaigns are part of the Research and Promoti

Programs that AMS oversees.

Federal research and promotion programs, authorized by Federal legislat

designed to strengthen the industry’s position in the marketplace and to maint

expand domestic and foreign markets. The programs are all fully funded by in

assessments. Board members are nominated by industry and appointed officia

the Secretary of Agriculture. AMS oversees the activities of the boards or cou

and approves budgets, in order to assure compliance with the legislation.
and popcorn.

But, while advertising is one part of these programs, product researc

opment is also a major focus. Wrinkle-resistant cotton and low-fat dairy p

just two examples of how these programs have benefitted consumers and 

markets for producers.

New generic commodity promotion, research, and information legisl

enacted as part of the 1996 Farm Bill to make Federal promotion and res

grams available to more commodities.

Marketing Orders: Solving Producers’ Marketing Prob

Marketing agreements and orders help dairy, fruit, vegetable, and pe

ers come together to work at solving marketing problems they cannot sol

ally. Marketing orders are flexible tools that can be tailored to the needs o

market conditions for producing and selling. They have the force of law, 

subject to USDA oversight.

Federal milk marketing orders, for example, establish minimum pric

handlers or dealers must pay to producers for milk, depending on how th

used—whether fluid milk, ice cream, cheese, or other storable product. F

orders help build more stable marketing conditions by operating at the fir

trade, where milk leaves the farm and enters the marketing system. They 

consumers will have a steady supply of fresh milk at all times. 

Marketing agreements and orders also help provide stable markets fo

vegetable, and specialty crops like nuts and raisins, to the benefit of prod

consumers. They help farmers produce for a market, rather than having to 

whatever happens to be produced. A marketing order may help an industr

the flow of crops moving to market, to alleviate seasonal shortages and g

addition, marketing orders help maintain the quality of produce being ma

standardize packages or containers; and authorize advertising, research, a

development. Each program is tailored to the individual industry’s marke

Ensuring Fair Trade in the Market

AMS also administers several programs that ensure fair trade practic

buyers and sellers of agricultural products.

Fruit and Vegetable Programs, PACA Branch, administers the Perish

Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), which promotes fair trading in th

frozen fruit and vegetable industry. PACA extends to produce dealers, co

merchants, and brokers who operate subject to PACA and requires that th

be licensed.

PACA provides for administrative disciplinary proceedings to be bro

licensees or unlicensed entities subject to PACA that commit unfair trade 

such as bribery, failing to account and make full payment promptly for pu

misbranding, or making false or misleading statements for a fraudulent p

A finding of the commission of these violations could lead to a license re

suspension, or the imposition of a civil penalty. Under the PACA, partner
220

agency to be responsibly connected with the partnership or corporation. A det

tion of responsible connection will bar the person or firm from licensing and e

ment by any licensee or entity subject to license for a period of time. The pers

firm determined to be responsibly connected has the right to a hearing to appe

determination. PACA also provides administrative reparation proceedings by 

the parties can resolve contract disputes resulting from the buying and selling 

produce. Further, PACA provides statutory trust protection for unpaid produc

suppliers, whose trust claims have priority over the claims of secured lenders 

the debtor files for bankruptcy.

The fruit and vegetable industry needs the protections provided by PACA

because of the highly perishable nature of the products involved. Trading in p

is considerably different than trading for a car, a computer, or even grain. Wh

vegetable grower does not get paid, the product usually cannot be reclaimed b

it spoils–or before it has already been consumed. Further, the parties are often 

across the country from each other, and the seller has no control over the prod

once the produce leaves the seller’s possession.

Although PACA was initiated to protect producers, it benefits consumers 

entire produce industry. Over the past decade, AMS has handled nearly 40,00

complaints, not just from growers, but also from grower-agents, grower-shipp

brokers, wholesalers, retailers, and processors. PACA is funded by license fee

by industry, but the bottom line is that fair trade and resolved disputes mean b

nesses of any size can operate in a better trade environment and consumers ca

a wider choice of reasonably priced, high-quality fruits and vegetables.

The Federal Seed Act (FSA) protects everyone who buys seed by prohibi

false labeling and advertising of seed in interstate commerce. The FSA also c

ments State seed laws by prohibiting the shipment of seed containing excessiv

ious weed seeds. Labels for agricultural seed must state such information as t

and percentage of seed in the container, percentages of foreign matter and we

seeds, germination percentage and the date tested, and the name and address o

shipper. USDA also tests seed for seed sellers and seed buyers on a fee-for-se

basis to determine quality.

The Plant Variety Protection Act provides patent-like protection to breede

of plants that reproduce both sexually, that is, through seeds, and through tube

Developers of new plant varieties can apply for certificates of protection. This

protection enables the breeder to market the variety exclusively for 20 years a

in so doing, creates an incentive for investment in the development of new pla

varieties. Since 1970, AMS’ Plant Variety Protection Office has issued more t

4,000 certificates of protection.

The Agricultural Fair Practices Act allows farmers to file complaints with 

or a U.S. District Court if a processor refuses to deal with them because they 

members of a producers’ bargaining or marketing association. The act makes 

unlawful for handles to coerce, intimidate, or discriminate against producers b
Organic Certification 

AMS is responsible for developing and implementing an organic cer

program, which was authorized by the Organic Foods Production Act as 

1990 Farm Bill. Current estimates of organic retail sales total over $3.5 b

there are an estimated 12,000-15,000 farmers who describe their operatio

organic. 

The goals of the organic certification program are to:

■ Establish national standards governing the marketing of certain p

organically produced,

■ Assure consumers that organically grown products meet consisten

and 

■ Facilitate interstate commerce in fresh and processed food that is 

produced.

Under the act, a National Organic Standards Board was appointed in 

1992. Its job is to help develop standards for substances to be used in org

production. 

In December 1997, USDA issued a proposed rule with a comment p

closed at the end of April 1998. USDA received 275,603 comments on th

A revised proposal will be published in 2000 for further comment. 

Direct Marketing and Wholesale Market Development

AMS continually seeks ways to help farmers and marketers improve 

food marketing system. For example, AMS’ Federal-State Marketing Imp

Program (FSMIP) provides matching funds to State Departments of Agri

other State agencies for marketing research or marketing service projects 

marketing systems. The aim of the program is to reduce costs or identify 

opportunities for producers, ultimately benefiting consumers through low

costs and more food choices. Projects include research on innovative mar

techniques, taking those research findings into the marketplace to “test m

the results, and developing State expertise in providing service to market

agricultural products. In FY 1998, the FSMIP program funded 24 project

States for $1.2 million.

The Wholesale and Alternative Markets Program works to improve t

processing, packaging, storage, and distribution of agricultural products. 

researchers work with local governments and food industry groups to dev

modern, efficient, wholesale food distribution centers and farmers marke

also conducts research and outreach on alternative marketing channels fo

produced by small and limited-resource farmers and processors. Agricult

producers, producer groups, shippers, exporters, rural communities, carri

and consumers all benefit from the analyses, technical assistance, and inf
222

Efficient Transportation for Agriculture

An efficient transportation system allows consumers access to a wide var

agricultural products and commodities produced beyond their own localities.

AMS, through its Transportation and Marketing Programs, conducts rese

the logistical requirements and constraints involved in transporting and distrib

U.S. agricultural products to destination markets by railroads, trucks, inland b

and ocean vessels, and monitors the adequacy of existing infrastructure to sup

efficient commerce. The research reports and technical assistance provided by 

transportation and marketing specialists are designed to help agricultural grow

processors, shippers, and exporters respond more effectively to emerging cha

both the domestic and international marketplace and are specifically targeted 

smaller grower, processor, shipper, or exporter who may lack easy access to r

market research. 

Produce Locally, Think Globally

To remain competitive in today’s world, American agriculture has becom

global, and AMS has striven to be a strong partner in expanding markets for U

agricultural products.

The AMS role in the international marketing of U.S. commodities center

quality grading and certification programs, which are user-fee funded. Gradin

involves determining whether a product meets a set of quality standards. Cert

ensures that contract specifications have been met—in other words, that the b

receives the product in the condition and quantity described by the terms of th

tract. AMS commodity graders frequently support other USDA agencies invo

export assistance, including the Farm Service Agency and the Foreign Agricu

Service. 

U.S. companies often request certification services when exporting to a c

that has specific import requirements. Certification services provided by AMS 

avoid rejection of shipments or delay in delivery once the product reaches its 

destination. Delays lead to product deterioration and, ultimately, affect the im

U.S. product quality. AMS’ Quality Systems Verification Program provides in

dent, third-party verification of a supplier’s documented quality management 

The program was developed to promote world-class quality and to improve th

national competitiveness of U.S. livestock and meat.

leasing or renting space in a common facility on a temporary basis

with an emphasis on the sale of fresh farm products, crafts, and ot

locally produced items. USDA estimates there are currently more

than 2,700 farmers markets in the United States.
date, this service has been requested by exporters of products destined fo

South Korea, and other Pacific Rim countries, South Africa, European Un

countries, and countries of the former Soviet Union.

For selected fruits, vegetables, nuts (including peanuts), and specialt

imported into the United States, minimum quality requirements must be 

most part, however, firms importing agricultural products into the United 

grading services voluntarily. AMS graders are often asked to demonstrate 

quality standards and grading procedures to foreign firms and governmen

In addition to grading and certification services, AMS market news o

vide information on sales and prices of both imports and exports. Today, 

participants can receive market information on livestock and meat from V

New Zealand, Japan, Poland, and other Pacific Rim markets, Mexico, Ca

Australia, and New Zealand; fruits and vegetables from France, Great Br

Bulgaria, Poland, Mexico, New Zealand, and Canada; ornamentals from 

France, and Mexico; dairy products from Eastern and Western Europe an

and a host of products from Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Russia.

AMS participates in a number of international forums that aim to fac

agricultural trade and avoid potential trade barriers. Technical assistance 

provided to countries in Eastern and Central Europe, and elsewhere aroun

to improve their marketing systems. With improved transportation, distrib

marketing information systems, these countries will become better custom

U.S. food and fiber products.

Whether at home or abroad, AMS strives to help U.S. agriculture ma

abundant, high-quality products. And AMS will continue to work to help 

culture market its products in growing world markets, while assuring U.S

an abundant supply of high-quality, wholesome food at reasonable prices

■ Animal and Plant Health Inspection Servic

Protecting Agricultural Health and Produc

Why are the farmers and ranchers of the United States able to producfood for the tables of America’s consumers? 

Of course, there’s no simple answer. But one key to this plentiful sup

can be summed up in a single phrase: “Healthy crops and livestock.”

And this is no accident. America’s agricultural health is a result of a 

effort—good husbandry by farmers and ranchers plus an organized effort 

and eradicate pests and diseases and to prevent the entry of devastating fo

plagues.

Just like frosts, floods, and droughts, pests and diseases can wreak h

cultural productivity, depressing farm incomes and driving up food costs 

sumers in the process. While we may not be able to prevent weather-relat
224

in the world. 

If agriculture is this foundation of manufacture and commerce, there is p

no greater mission than making sure that foundation remains healthy and stro

the advent of free trade initiatives, a global network of countries has agreed th

agricultural health concerns—not politics, not economics—are the only accep

basis for trade restrictions. In this environment, our country’s agricultural hea

infrastructure will be our farmers’ greatest ally in seeking new export markets

Excluding Foreign Pests and Diseases

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection

Agriculture, America’s biggest industry and its largest employer, is under 

stant threat of attack. The enemies are countless and often microscopic, and th

access to our country in surprising ways. Their potential allies are every trave

entering the United States and every American business importing agricultura

ucts from other countries. 

Many passengers entering the United States don’t realize that one piece o

packed in a suitcase has the potential to cause millions of dollars in damage to 

agriculture. Forbidden fruits and vegetables can carry a whole range of plant d

and pests. Oranges, for example, can introduce diseases like citrus canker or p

like the Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly).

Similarly, sausages and other meat products from many countries can con

animal disease organisms that can live for many months and even survive pro

Meat scraps from abroad could end up in garbage that is fed to swine. If the m

came from animals infected with a disease, such as African swine fever, class

swine fever, or foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), it could easily be passed to do

swine, and a serious epidemic could result. An outbreak of African swine feve

U.S. hogs would drive up the price of pork to consumers, cost hundreds of mi

dollars to eradicate, and close many U.S. export markets.

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) safeguards 

borders against the entry of foreign agricultural pests and diseases. At all airp

minals, seaports, and border stations, about 1,600 Plant Protection and Quara

(PPQ) employees inspect international conveyances and the baggage of passe

for plant and animal products that could harbor pests or disease organisms. At 

national airports, detector dogs in APHIS’ Beagle Brigade help find prohibite

cultural materials. PPQ officers also inspect ship and air cargoes, rail and truc

freight, and package mail from foreign countries. At animal import centers, A

veterinarians check animals in quarantine to make sure they are not infected w

foreign pests or diseases before being allowed into the country.
Ships Inspected 53,270 52,661 52,974 52,348 

Aircraft Inspected 451,342 401,741 410,318 461,927 

Passengers and

Crew Inspected 62,548,979 65,645,734 66,119,960 68,448,289 

Interceptions of

Plant Material 1,442,214 1,583,687 1,567,886 1,609,370 

Interceptions of Pests 54,831 58,032 48,483 62,830 

Interceptions of

Meat/Poultry Products 281,230 223,392 264,001 294,674 

Baggage Civil

Penalties-Number 22,164 21,813 20,716 21,498 

Baggage Civil

Penalties-Amount of Fines$1,186,310 $1,098,220 $1,080,000 $1,107,670 

From high-tech to a keen nose, APHIS uses a variety of means to saf

American agriculture. PPQ officers augment visual inspection with some 

units that help check passenger baggage and mail for prohibited agricultu

als. They also have enlisted trained detector dogs and their keen sense of 

help sniff out prohibited fruit and meat. On leashes and under the constan

sion of their handlers, the friendly beagles in USDA’s Beagle Brigade hav

the baggage of passengers arriving from overseas for 15 years. Currently

about 48 canine teams at 21 airports, including 19 of America’s 20 busies

tional airports.

Preclearance—Checking at the Source

In addition to domestic exclusion efforts, APHIS has a corps of expe

overseas, sometimes with the help of APHIS officers on temporary duty, 

the Nation’s defenses against exotic pests and diseases. Often it is more p

and effective to check and monitor commodities for pests or diseases at th

through preclearance programs. APHIS has special arrangements with a n

countries for preclearance programs, which are summarized in the table.

International Programs

Through direct overseas contacts, International Services (IS) employ

and exchange information on plant and animal health; work to strengthen 

regional, and international agricultural health organizations; and coopera

tional programs against certain pests and diseases that directly threaten A

agriculture. Two of the latter are the MOSCAMED program—which com

infestations in Mexico and Guatemala—and a program to eradicate screw

parasitic insect of warm-blooded animals. Screwworm flies lay their eggs 

of open wounds, and the developing larvae feed on the living flesh of the 

untreated, the infestation can be fatal.
226

Screwworms were eradicated from the United States through the use of t

sterile insect technique. With this method, millions of screwworm flies are rea

captivity, sterilized, and then released over infested areas to mate with native 

flies. Eggs produced through such matings do not hatch, and the insect literall

breeds itself out of existence.

To provide further protection to U.S. livestock, starting in 1972, eradicati

efforts were moved southward from the U.S.-Mexico border, with the eventua

of establishing a barrier of sterile flies across the Isthmus of Panama. To date,

screwworms have been eradicated from Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Hondura

El Salvador, and Nicaragua. Eradication is well advanced in Costa Rica and a

June 1999, no new cases had been reported since March 18, 1999. Eradication 

Panama began in 1998, and a new rearing facility is planned. Currently, the pr

tion plant at Tuxtla Gutierrez, Chiapas in Mexico is producing 143 million ste

weekly. The plant has the capacity to produce 500 million sterile flies weekly

IS also works to prevent foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) from entering M

Central America, and Panama and works with Colombia to eliminate FMD fr

northern part of that country.

Brazil Mangoes

Chile Stonefruit, berries, grapes, cut flowers, cherimoya, kiwifru

other fruits & vegetables

Costa Rica Mangoes

Ecuador Mangoes & melons (free zone)

Great Britain Flower bulbs

Guatemala Mangoes

Haiti Mangoes

Ireland Flower bulbs

Israel Flower bulbs

Jamaica Ugli fruit, cut flowers, papaya & 46 other commodities

Japan Sand pears, Unshu oranges, Fuji apples

Korea Sand pears, mandarin oranges

Mexico Mangoes, citrus (fumigation or from Sonora free zone), a

apricots, peaches, persimmons, & pomegranates 

(Sonora free zone)

New Zealand Apples, pears, Nashi pears

The Netherlands Flower bulbs

Nicaragua Mangoes

Peru Mangoes

Scotland Flower bulbs

South Africa Apples, pears, plums, grapes, peaches, nectarines, & cit

Spain Lemons, clementines, Valencia oranges

Turkey Flower bulbs

Venezuela Mangoes
border defenses, APHIS conducts appropriate control and eradication me

Examples include Mediterranean fruit fly eradication projects in Californ

early 1990’s and outbreaks of exotic Newcastle disease in pet birds in sev

during the 1980’s.

APHIS PPQ has a special cadre of people who deal with introductio

plant pests. Known as “Rapid Response Teams,” these groups have been 

on several occasions to combat costly infestations of Medflies and to perf

tasks.

Early detection of exotic animal diseases by alert livestock producer

ticing veterinarians who contact specially trained State and Federal veter

the key to their quick detection and elimination. More than 300 such train

narians are located throughout the United States to investigate suspected 

eases. Within 24 hours of diagnosis, one of two specially trained task forc

APHIS’Veterinary Services (VS) can be mobilized at the site of an outbr

implement the measures necessary to eradicate the disease.

Currently, APHIS officials are actively working to prevent the entry 

spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)—sometimes referred to as “mad cow 

This disease has had a serious impact on the British livestock industry. B

been diagnosed in the United States. Since 1989, APHIS has restricted th

tion of live ruminants and ruminant products—including animal feed ma

ruminant protein—from Great Britain and other countries where BSE is k

exist. In addition, APHIS has conducted a BSE surveillance program sinc

Specialists have examined brain specimens from more than 7,052 cattle a

found no evidence of BSE.

Import-Export Regulations

APHIS is responsible for enforcing regulations governing the import 

of plants and animals and certain agricultural products. 

Import requirements depend on both the product and the country of o

and plant materials usually must be accompanied by a phytosanitary cert

by an official of the exporting country. Livestock and poultry must be acc

by a health certificate, also issued by an official of the exporting country. 

products, such as meats and hides, are usually restricted if they originate 

that have a disease that is not present in the United States.

APHIS regulates the importation of animals that enter the country th

ports along the borders with Mexico and Canada. Imports of livestock an

from most countries must be quarantined at one of three animal import ce

Newburgh, NY; Miami, FL; and Los Angeles, CA.

Personally owned pet birds can enter through one of five USDA-ope

quarantine facilities: New York, NY; Miami, FL.; San Ysidro, CA.; Hidal

Los Angeles, CA. Those that qualify as U.S.-origin birds may return thro

of entry when arrangements have been made for a USDA-VS veterinarian 

their bird. 
228

Commercial shipments of pet birds can enter through one of the privately own

APHIS-supervised quarantine facilities. APHIS cooperates with the U.S. Dep

of Interior in carrying out provisions of the Endangered Species Act that deal 

imports and exports of endangered plant, animal, or bird species. APHIS insp

at ports of entry are trained to identify these species and notify Interior of any

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)-protected 

found during inspection. Also, at many ports, APHIS officers inspect and sam

imported from foreign countries to ensure that it is accurately labeled and free 

noxious weeds. 

APHIS also maintains 16 plant inspection stations, the largest of which is 

Miami, FL, for commercial importation of plant materials. Smaller stations ar

Orlando, FL; San Juan, PR; JFK International Airport, Jamaica, NY; Elizabet

Houston, El Paso, and Los Indios (Brownsville), TX; Nogales, AZ.; San Dieg

Angeles, and San Francisco, CA; Seattle, WA; Honolulu, HI; Beltsville, MD; 

New Orleans, LA.

To facilitate agricultural exports, APHIS officials certify the health of bot

and animals that are shipped to foreign countries. APHIS PPQ provides assur

that U.S. plants and plant products meet the plant quarantine import requirem

foreign countries. This assurance is in the form of a phytosanitary certificate, 

by PPQ or its State cooperators. During fiscal year (FY) 1997, 298,365 phyto

certificates were issued for exports of plants and plant products worth more th

billion.

VS officials and the National Center for Import and Export negotiates an

health requirements for export of livestock, germplasm, poultry and animal pr

with the importing countries. These requirements are maintained in the Intern

Regulations Retrieval System (IRRS). VS area offices and major exporters ha

access to the system. IRRS is also available on the World Wide Web.

USDA accredited veterinarians issue health certificates in order to meet t

requirements and the requirements of the recipient country. These health certi

are endorsed by VS area veterinarians in the State of origin. The final inspecti

livestock is conducted by a VS port veterinarian at the port of embarkment. T

inspection is not required for livestock shipped to Canada and Mexico if they 

shipped through land border ports.

It is in the area of foreign health requirements that APHIS is of greatest h

the U.S. livestock industry. Through direct negotiations with foreign governm

APHIS has established approximately 450 livestock, semen, embryo and pou

health agreements with more than 100 countries in the world. These negotiati

a continuous process, wherever APHIS finds opportunities to open new marke

to reduce unnecessary impediments or whenever changing disease conditions 

adjustments. In 1996, APHIS averted a ban of U.S. poultry meat to Russia and 

worth more than $2 billion.

In addition to certifying to the health of agricultural exports, APHIS offic

mount a proactive approach to the marketing of U.S. crops and livestock over
year. On the plant side, efforts by APHIS and Foreign Agricultural Servic

helped maintain U.S. wheat exports after the March 1996 discovery of an 

Karnal bunt, a fungal disease of wheat, in Arizona. The United States is t

leading wheat exporter, accounting for 25 percent of world wheat exports 

U.S. wheat exports in calendar 1997 were valued at $3.4 billion.

■ Domestic Plant Health Programs

I

n most cases, plant pest problems are handled by individual farmers, ra

other property owners and their State or local governments. However, w

insect, weed, or disease poses a particularly serious threat to a major crop

Nation’s forests, or other plant resources, APHIS may join in the control 

Most pests and weeds that are targets of APHIS’ Plant Protection and 

(PPQ) programs are not native to America. They gained entry into this co

through commercial trade channels, international travelers, or other mean

When pests are new to this country, control techniques may not be av

any case, PPQ applies interstate quarantines and takes other steps to prev

until effective control measures can be developed.

In many cases, foreign pests are only minor problems in their native 

because they are kept in check by native parasites, predators, and disease

many of these natural enemies may not exist in the United States, one of 

trol techniques—in cooperation with USDA’s Agricultural Research Serv

importation, rearing, and release of parasites and other biological control 

Biocontrol—Nature’s Way

In its classical sense, biological control means using predators, paras

pathogens to combat plant pests. Predators and parasites include insects, 

nematodes that naturally attack a target pest. Pathogens include bacteria, 

fungi that cause diseases specifically injurious to a target pest.

Biological control was first put to broad, practical use in the United S

1880’s. At that time, California citrus groves were being devastated by an 

insect, the cottony-cushion scale. A USDA scout working in Australia fou

vedalia beetle feeding on the scale insect. The beetle, part of the lady bee

was successfully introduced into California and other citrus-growing regi

kept the scale insect from causing economic damage ever since. 

To coordinate the important search for new and better biocontrol opp

National Biological Control Institute was established in APHIS in 1989. 

Institute’s mission is to promote, facilitate, and provide leadership for bio

trol. Its main work is to compile and release technical information and co

work needed to find, identify, and augment or distribute new biological c

agents. 
carefully screened at quarantine centers before being put to use.

Various agencies have successfully cooperated on biocontrol projects. Fo

ple, several decades ago, ARS scientists found six species of stingless wasps i

Europe that keep alfalfa weevils in check. In 1980, APHIS took on the job of 

lishing these beneficial wasps across the land. Between 1980 and 1989, APHI

its cooperators raised and distributed about 17 million wasps, and today there 

beneficial wasps within reach of virtually every alfalfa field in the country. It’

mated that the benefits of the alfalfa weevil biocontrol program amount to abo

million per year, representing a return of about $87 for each $1 spent on the p

Other APHIS biocontrol programs currently underway in cooperation wi

agencies include efforts against the cereal leaf beetle, sweet potato whitefly, C

potato beetle, brown citrus aphid, pink hibiscus mealybug, gypsy moth, impo

ant, leafy spurge, purple loosestrife, Russian knapweed, dalmatian and yellow 

flax, diffuse and spotted knapweed. Promising biocontrol agents for other pes

being tested at PPQ biocontrol labs located at Mission, TX; Niles, MI; and Bo

MT.

“Deliver Us From Weevil”—Boll Weevil Eradication

One major domestic program PPQ is coordinating is the effort to eradica

weevils from the United States. The boll weevil entered this country from Me

the late 1890’s and soon became a major pest of cotton. It has caused an estim

$12 billion in losses to the Nation’s economy. In 1973, it was estimated that in

cides applied to control boll weevils accounted for about one-third of the tota

to agricultural crops in the United States. 

The success of a 1971-73 cooperative boll weevil eradication experiment 

portions of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama involving Federal and State 

and grower associations led to two 3-year demonstration projects. One was an 

cation trial in North Carolina and Virginia; the second was an optimum pest m

ment trial in Mississippi. The eradication trial was a success in 1980, and the 

has undergone regular, incremental expansion since that time. 

The current boll weevil eradication effort judiciously applies pesticides b

the number of adult weevils trapped around cotton fields. The traps contain a

pheromone (insect attractant) and a small amount of insecticide that kills all c

weevils. In eradication program areas, one to three traps are placed per acre a

checked weekly. Pesticide is applied only to fields that reach a predetermined 

of trapped weevils. This selective use of pesticides results in fields requiring m

pesticide applications—sometimes none—during the growing season. After s

seasons, the weevils are eradicated within the defined program area, eliminati

further need to spray for this pest. As an indirect benefit of eliminating the bo

vil, growers are able to maintain beneficial insects that help control many seco

pests. This further reduces the amount of pesticide used each season to produ

cotton crop.

230
States involved Eradication Acres Weev

1983 VA/NC/SC 160,000 

1985 +CA/AZ 1,400,000 1

1987 +GA/FL/AL 450,000 1

1994 +MS/TN/TX 50,000 2

1996 Same 1,300,000 4

1997 +LA 1,600,000 4

1998 +OK 2,000,000 *4

*significant acreage should move into “weevil-free” phase in 1999

In the cooperative boll weevil eradication program, APHIS provides 

support, a portion of program funds, and some capital equipment and adm

support. Grower assessments and/or State appropriations provided 87 per

total program cost in 1998, with APHIS providing the remaining 13 perc

The economic benefit to cost ratio for the program has been projecte

to1 nationwide, and as high as 40 to1 in specific areas of the Cotton Belt. 

of the program has brought a resurgence of cotton production and related 

Acreage in the Southeast has increased nearly fourfold since the weevil’s 

Cotton growers in eradicated areas are better able to withstand difficult e

times, such as the low market prices of 1998, because their production co

out the weevil—are much lower than those in the infested areas.

Witchweed–A Success Story

Witchweed is a parasitic plant that attaches itself to the roots of crop

corn, sorghum, sugar cane, and other members of the grass family, robbin

water and vital nutrients. Each plant can produce up to 500,000 seeds per 

the seeds can remain viable in the soil for up to 15 years, germinating wh

come into contact with the root of a host plant.

Witchweed was introduced into the Carolinas from Africa in the mid

When the parasite first struck, corn plants mysteriously withered and died

visiting from India recognized the weed and told U.S. agricultural expert

was.

Over the course of an eradication effort that began in 1974, some 45

have been infested. The eradication program was based on surveillance to 

infested fields, quarantines to prevent spread, and a combination of herbi

germination stimulants to actually eradicate the weed.

At the beginning of FY 1995, with fewer than 28,000 infested acres 

APHIS turned operation of the program over to North Carolina to comple

tion there, but continues to help finish the eradication effort in South Car

fall of 1997, the infested area was expected to be reduced to 9,000 acres i

Carolina and 1,500 acres in South Carolina.
232

initiative for grasshopper control in the Western United States. This IPM proj

which began in 1987 and closed down in 1994, was aimed at finding better an

acceptable ways of preventing grasshopper damage, while protecting the envi

ment. Activities included developing means to predict and manage grasshopp

outbreaks, developing biological control alternatives that minimize the use of 

cals, and integrating proven control techniques into guidelines for APHIS ran

grasshopper programs. 

All this information was integrated into a computer-based decision suppo

tem program called “HOPPER.” HOPPER is a user-friendly software package 

facilitates grasshopper predictions, time and selection of control options, com

of weather data, and analysis of the economics of range management practice

example of how HOPPER is used was provided by a Logan County, CO, offic

August 1996. He wrote: “I was recently asked to utilize the district’s resource

help ranchers save grass pasture obviously threatened by grasshoppers.” Usin

HOPPER computer model (previously downloaded from the Internet), he esti

the return and decided on the best treatment method.

“We discovered that we would spend $4 per acre in an effort to save $1.5

acre of grass. The ranchers quickly realized they could purchase hay to replac

forage and save money. The program showed us we would also have very littl

on next year’s population. It also showed us that we should initiate any contro

sooner in the year than we have done in the past.”

Other domestic PPQ programs include a quarantine program to prevent th

artificial spread of the European gypsy moth from infested areas in the Northe

United States through movement of outdoor household goods and other articl

quarantines to prevent the spread of imported fire ants through movement of p

nursery material from infested areas; and releasing irradiated sterile pink boll

moths to keep this insect out of cotton in California’s San Joaquin Valley. 

Domestic Animal Health Programs

Protecting the health of the Nation’s livestock and poultry industries is th

responsibility of APHIS’Veterinary Services (VS).

VS veterinary medical officers and animal health technicians work with t

counterparts in the States and with livestock producers to carry out cooperativ

programs to control and eradicate certain animal diseases. The decision to beg

a nationwide campaign against a domestic animal disease is based on a numb

factors, the most important of which is: “Are producers and the livestock indu

a leading force in the campaign?”

This organized effort against livestock diseases began in 1884 when Con

created a special agency within USDA to combat bovine pleuropneumonia–a 

cattle disease that was crippling exports as well as taking a heavy toll on dom

cattle. Within 8 years, contagious bovine pleuropneumonia had been eradicate

this campaign set the pattern for subsequent animal disease control and eradic

programs.
Year Disease

1892 Contagious bovine pleuropneumonia

1929 Foot-and-mouth disease 

1929 Fowl plague

1934 Glanders

1942 Dourine

1943 Texas cattle fever

1959 Vesicular exanthema (VE)

1959 & 66 Screwworms (southeast & southwest)

1971 Venezuelan equine encephalitis

1973 Sheep scabies

1974 Exotic Newcastle disease

1978 Classical swine fever

1985 Lethal avian influenza

Current VS disease eradication programs include cooperative State-F

efforts directed at cattle and swine brucellosis, bovine tuberculosis, and p

in swine. The following table shows the status of States in these program

Disease control and eradication measures include quarantines to stop 

ment of possibly infected or exposed animals, testing and examination to 

infection, destruction of infected (sometimes exposed) animals to preven

ease spread, treatment to eliminate parasites, vaccination in some cases, a

and disinfection of contaminated premises. In addition to the programs li

APHIS also cooperates with States in a voluntary Flock Certification pro

combat scrapie in sheep and goats. By April 1998, 260 sheep and goat flo

been enrolled in the certification program. A current listing of enrolled flo

and by breed, is available on the World Wide Web

(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/scrapie/status.html).

APHIS animal health programs are carried out by a field force of abo

veterinarians and 360 lay inspectors working out of area offices (usually 

State capitals). Laboratory support for these programs is supplied by APH

National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) at Ames, IA, and Plum 

NY, which are centers of excellence in the diagnostic sciences and an inte

APHIS’ animal health programs. 

Under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act of 1913, APHIS enforces regulatio

that animal vaccines and other veterinary biologics are safe, pure, potent, 

tive. Veterinary biologics are products designed to diagnose, prevent, or t

diseases. They are used to protect or diagnose disease in a variety of dom

mals, including farm animals, household pets, poultry, fish, and fur beare

Veterinarians and other professionals in the APHIS VS Center for Ve

Biologics regulate and license veterinary biologics as well as the facilitie

are produced. They also inspect and monitor the production of veterinary 
234

AK FREE FREE FREE FREE

AZ FREE FREE FREE FREE

AR FREE STAGE 2 FREE STAG

CA FREE FREE M-A STAG

CO FREE FREE FREE FREE

CT FREE FREE FREE FREE

DE FREE FREE FREE FREE

FL FREE STAGE 2 FREE STAG

GA FREE FREE FREE STAG

HI FREE FREE SUSP.M-A STAG

ID FREE FREE FREE FREE

IL FREE FREE FREE STAG

IN FREE FREE FREE STAG

IA FREE FREE FREE STAG

KS CLASS A FREE FREE STAG

KY FREE FREE FREE FREE

LA FREE STAGE 2 FREE STAG

ME FREE FREE FREE FREE

MD FREE FREE FREE FREE

MA FREE FREE FREE STAG

MI FREE FREE FREE STAG

MN FREE FREE FREE STAG

MS CLASS A FREE FREE FREE

MO CLASS A FREE FREE STAG

MT FREE FREE FREE FREE

NE FREE FREE FREE STAG

NV FREE FREE FREE FREE

NH FREE FREE FREE FREE

NJ FREE FREE FREE STAG

NM FREE FREE M-A FREE

NY FREE FREE FREE FREE

NC FREE FREE FREE STAG

ND FREE FREE FREE FREE

OH FREE FREE FREE STAG

OK CLASS A STAGE 2 FREE STAG

OR FREE FREE FREE FREE

PA FREE FREE M-A STAG

PR FREE FREE M-A FREE

RI FREE FREE FREE FREE

SC FREE STAGE 2 FREE FREE

SD CLASS A FREE FREE STAG

TN FREE FREE FREE FREE

TX CLASS A STAGE 2 M-A STAG
including both genetically engineered products and products produced by 

tional means. 

Since the first genetically engineered vaccine was licensed in 1979, a 

such biologics have been licensed; all but 20 are still being produced. Mo

half century ago, there were perhaps half a dozen animal vaccines and ot

available to farmers. Now there are 2,379 active product licenses and 110 

manufacturers.

Monitoring Plant and Animal Pests and Diseases

In order to combat plant pests and animal diseases, it’s important to k

number and where they are located.

To monitor plant pests, APHIS PPQ works with the States in a projec

Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey, which started in 1982 as a pilot pro

data on weeds, insects, and plant diseases and pests is entered into a natio

base, the National Agricultural Pest Information System (NAPIS). This d

be accessed from anywhere in the country by persons with an authorized 

By accessing NAPIS, users can retrieve the latest data on pests. NAP

assist pest forecasting, early pest warning, quicker and more precise delim

efforts, and better planning for plant pest eradication or control efforts. S

which can reflect the absence as well as the presence of pests—also helps 

exports, assuring foreign countries that our commodities are free of speci

diseases.

There are more than a million records in the NAPIS database. Appro

200 Federal and State agencies use NAPIS. NAPIS contains survey data 

as text and graphics files. The data can be downloaded and analyzed with 

information systems (GIS) to provide graphic representation of informati

example, locations of pine shoot beetle detections can be shown graphica

as where and how often surveys have been conducted for the beetle. This 

is used by the State and Federal agencies regulating this pest.

Describing animal health and management in the United States is the 

APHIS National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS). This pro

is conducted by APHIS VS, began in 1983. 

VA FREE FREE FREE F

WA FREE FREE FREE F

WV FREE FREE FREE F

WI FREE FREE FREE S

WY FREE FREE FREE F

* Class A (less than 0.25 percent herd infection rate) or Class Free

** Stage 1,2, or Free

*** Modified Accredited (M-A) or Accredited Free (Free)

**** Stage 1,2,3,4, or Free 
236

ture of animal agriculture. This information then can be used to predict trends 

improve animal production efficiency, and food quality. NAHMS provides sta

cally sound data concerning U.S. livestock and poultry diseases and disease c

tions, along with their costs and associated production practices. By the end o

NAHMS had conducted nine national studies on U.S. animal populations: sw

dairy (2), beef cow/calf (2) , beef feedlot (1), sheep (1), and catfish (1). Sentin

itoring of morbidity and mortality in beef feedlots is an ongoing monitoring p

as is bulk tank somatic cell count. Marek’s disease in broiler operations, and p

enteritis and mortality syndrome (PEMS) in turkeys were among NAHMS’ sh

term projects.

Information from NAHMS aids a broad group of users throughout agricu

For instance, baseline animal health and management data from NAHMS nati

studies are helping analysts identify associations between Salmonella and cat

management. NAHMS data are also helping researchers evaluate managemen

practices that contribute to the occurrence of Johne’s disease and digital derm

cattle. State and national officials, industry groups, and producers apply NAH

data and information in educational programs and in setting research prioritie

NAHMS information is available through the World Wide Web

(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah); see the Center for Animal Health Monit

Regulating Biotechnology in Agriculture

Scientists use agricultural biotechnology with a variety of laboratory tech

such as genetic engineering, to improve plants, animals, and microorganisms. 

discoveries have led to virus-resistant crops such as cucumbers, tomatoes, and 

toes; to better vaccines and diagnostic kits used for diseases of horses, chicke

swine; and even to new and improved varieties of commercial flowers.

Since 1987, APHIS’ role in agricultural biotechnology has been to manag

oversee regulations to ensure the safe and rapid development of the products o

biotechnology. Applicants under APHIS’ effective regulations and practical g

lines can safely test—outside of the physical containment of the laboratory—

cally engineered organisms. 

APHIS officials issue permits or acknowledge notification for the import

interstate movement, or field testing of genetically engineered plants, microor

isms, and invertebrates that are developed from components from plant patho

material. 

Since 1987, APHIS has issued more than 3,800 release permits and notifi

at more than 17,000 sites in the United States and no environmental problems 

resulted from these field tests. The biotechnology regulations also provide for 

exemption process once it has been established that a genetically engineered p

does not present a plant pest risk. Under this process, applicants can petition A

for a determination of nonregulated status for specific genetically engineered 

ucts. Over 2-1/2 years, 20 new engineered plant lines in 11 crops were proven 

and no longer need to be regulated by APHIS. One was the first genetically en

neered sugar beet, which is herbicide tolerant. 
■ 

apeseed (caoa) e wtebcde toeace,

■ corn line with herbicide tolerance, and

■ chicory (salad green) line with male sterility.

APHIS biotechnology personnel meet with regulatory officials from 

nations on a regular basis to foster regulatory harmonization. These discu

intended to help ensure that requirements imposed by other countries are 

tent as possible with U.S. requirements and that our trading partners are k

informed of biotechnology regulatory developments.

Controlling Wildlife Damage

The mission of APHIS’ Wildlife Services (WS) program is to provid

leadership in managing problems caused by wildlife. Wildlife is a signifi

resource that is greatly valued by the American public. But by its very na

also can damage agricultural and industrial resources, pose risks to huma

safety, and affect other natural resources. WS helps solve problems that o

human activity and wildlife are in conflict with one another. In doing so, 

to develop and use wildlife management strategies that are biologically, e

tally, and socially sound.

The need for effective and environmentally sound wildlife damage m

is rising dramatically. There are several reasons for this. Increasing subur

ment intrudes upon traditional wildlife habitats. Population explosions of 

adaptable wildlife species, such as coyotes, deer, and geese, pose increas

human activities. At the same time, advances in science and technology a

alternative methods for solving wildlife problems.

APHIS’ National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC), the world’s on

facility devoted entirely to the development of methods for managing wil

age, accounts for about one-fourth of WS’ budget. In existence since the 

NWRC has an integrated, multi-disciplinary research program that is uni

to provide scientific information and solutions to wildlife damage proble

A few examples of current NWRC projects include:

■ developing chemosensory repellants and attractants for birds and 

■ finding methods to reduce threats to human safety when birds col

airplanes,

■ finding ways to control the brown tree snake in Guam,

■ engineering an immunocontraceptive vaccine and delivery system 

resolve problems caused by wildlife overpopulation,

■ reducing damage by birds to commercial fish production and cere

■ studying coyote biology and behavior to develop techniques for p

livestock from these predators,

■ looking at ways to solve wildlife problems in urban areas involvin

things as deer in backyards, squirrels damage to telephone lines, a

golf courses,

■ reducing beaver damage to agricultural resources,

■ developing methods to reduce wildlife damage to forest resources

■ finding effective methods for reducing rodent damage to agricultu
In 1995, cattle producerslosses to predators were worth $39.6 million. Durin

year, coyotes alone caused $11.5 million in sheep losses and $21.8 million in 

losses nationwide. A survey in 1993 showed that wildlife caused $92 million 

to corn producers in the top 10 corn-producing States.

Additionally, beavers in the Southeastern United States cause an estimate

million in damage each year to public and private property, while Mississippi 

farmers lose nearly $6 million worth of fingerlings to fish-eating birds. During 

in Pennsylvania, white-tailed deer caused crop losses totaling $30 million. Ov

bird populations cause an estimated annual loss to U.S. agriculture of $100 m

In 1994, the annual dollar loss to agriculture in the United States from wildlif

between $600 million and $1.6 billion.

The National Agricultural Statistics Service surveyed 1,465 catfish produ

January of 1997. Results indicated that 68 percent of the respondents spent so

effort to avoid wildlife-related losses to their catfish crops. Of all losses repor

percent of the catfish were depredated by wildlife, primarily birds. In Mississ

where 81 percent of wildlife damage was reported, cormorants were cited as t

cause 53 percent of the time. Total cost of wildlife-related damage prevention 

further damage was projected to have cost catfish producers $17 million in 19

APHIS deals with a wide variety of wildlife problems, ranging from coyo

predation on lambs to protecting endangered species from predation by other

wildlife. Here are a few examples of WS efforts:

■ A farmer in the State of Washington requested WS assistance after tho

of Canada geese congregated on his 43-acre field of carrots and began 

his crop, which had a potential market value of more than $7,000 an a

Noise-making devices and other scare tactics recommended by WS w

successful in frightening the geese and keeping them out of his field.

■ WS is conducting a program to reduce the impact of Canada geese on 

tural crops in southwestern Washington State. WS provides services to 

ers using a variety of nonlethal methods to haze geese grazing on past

crops. These services are part of a cooperative effort involving the U.S

and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife, and WS. The program has proven to be both effective and po

with farmers in the service area. During February, producers petitione

who is funding the program, to extend the period of service provided b

This resulted in FWS providing an additional $200,000 to WS for field 

tions. These funds enabled WS to extend control activities into early M

when Canada goose damage to pastures and crops typically starts to d

■ A mountain lion that killed a dog and attacked another dog and a mule 

Colorado was captured by a WS specialist and officials from the Colo

Division of Wildlife. The lion was released unharmed in a remote site 

165 miles from the community where the attacks occurred.

238
$300,000 worth of damage. WS is providing various types of tech

and direct control assistance to reduce hazards at the airport. In a 

effort with airport officials, FWS, and WS—including NWRC—i

trapping program to capture red-tailed hawks and American kestr

relocate them approximately 150 miles from the airport.

■ WS’ NWRC has entered into a new 5-year interagency agreemen

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to conduct research on un

and reducing bird hazards to aircraft. This new agreement, coveri

2003, replaces an agreement that had been in place from 1991 to 

Research tasks to be conducted by NWRC for FAA under the new 

ment include: habitat management on and near airports to reduce 

development and evaluation of bird repellent and frightening met

ports, management and analysis of the National Wildlife Strike D

development of an FAA wildlife control manual for use by airpor

nationwide. The research will be coordinated out of NWRC’s Oh

tion. Bird and other wildlife collisions with aircraft occasionally r

loss of life and cost U.S. aviation over $300 million per year.

■ Livestock guarding dogs, predator-proof fencing, and the “Electro

(a device developed by WS that combines a flashing strobe light a

scare coyotes) are examples of nonlethal ways to minimize damag

predators.

■ WS helps protect many threatened or endangered species from pr

including the California least tern and light-footed clapper rail, th

Clemente Island loggerhead strike, Louisiana black bear, the Aleu

goose, the black-footed ferret, the Louisiana pearl shell (mussel), 

species of endangered sea turtles.

■ Since 1995, WS has cooperated with Texas officials in a multi-ye

to help combat rabies epidemics in southern and central parts of t

cooperated in the development of coyote bait units containing a g

engineered rabies vaccine approved by APHIS for use in the proje

Cumulatively, since 1995, more than 11 million bait units have be

over an area of 171,000 square miles in Texas. The goal of the pro

create a buffer zone of immunized coyotes to help prevent the fur

of canine rabies across Texas into more heavily populated areas. J

marked the fifth year that WS has participated in the project to pre

spread of canine rabies in both coyotes and foxes. The 1999 opera

project was concluded in 26 days and involved the distribution of 

mately 2.7 million bait units of an area of nearly 34,000 square m

and central Texas. The project has led to a marked decrease in the 

of rabies in wild canids. 
240

mals: the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the Horse Protection Act (HPA). 

For more than a quarter century, USDA has enforced the AWA and its sta

and regulations to prevent the trafficking in lost and stolen pets and protect an

from inhumane treatment and neglect. Congress passed the AWA in 1966 and

strengthened the law through amendments in 1970, 1976, 1985, and 1990. 

The AWA prohibits staged dogfights, bear and raccoon baiting, and simil

mal fighting ventures. It also requires that minimum standards of care and tre

be provided for most warmblooded animals bred for commercial sale, used in

research, transported commercially, or exhibited to the public. This includes a

exhibited in zoos, circuses, and marine mammal facilities as well as pets trans

on commercial airlines. 

Individuals who operate regulated businesses must be licensed or register

USDA and provide their animals with adequate care and treatment in the area

housing, handling, sanitation, nutrition, water, veterinary care, and protection 

extremes of weather and temperature. They must also keep accurate acquisitio

disposition records and a description of every animal that comes into their po

sion. In addition:

■ Dealers must hold the animals they acquire for a period of 5 to 10 day

verify the animals’ origin and allow pet owners an opportunity to loca

missing pet. 

■ Research facilities must provide dogs with the opportunity for exercis

promote the psychological well-being of primates used in laboratories

give all regulated animals anesthesia or pain-relieving medication to m

any pain or distress caused by research if the experiment allows. 

■ Research facilities must establish an institutional animal care and use

committee to oversee the use of animals in experiments. This committ

reviews research protocols and facilities to ensure they are in complian

with the AWA. It also ensures that researchers explore alternatives to p

experiments and ways to reduce the numbers of animals used. The com

must be composed of at least three members, including one veterinaria

one person who is not affiliated with the facility in any way.

In enforcing the AWA, APHIS conducts prelicensing inspections of licen

Before issuing a license, applicants must be in compliance with all standards 

regulations under the AWA. 

APHIS also conducts randomly scheduled unannounced inspections to en

that all regulated facilities continue to comply with the Act. If an inspection re

deficiencies in meeting the AWA standards and regulations, the inspector instr

licensee or registrant to correct the problems within a given timeframe. If defi

remain uncorrected at the followup inspection, APHIS documents the facility

ciencies and considers possible legal action. Such action could include fines a

license suspensions or revocations.

In FY 1998, APHIS pursued numerous cases against individuals who we

in compliance with the AWA. The tables below provide data on APHIS’ inspe

and enforcement efforts for FY 1996-98. 
1998 7,773 

(10,393) 10,709

1997 7,789

(10,534) 12,056

1996 7,837

(10,366) 12,635

Sanctions Imposed, FY 1996–98

FY Fines Imposed Revocations, suspensions, and disq

1998 $378,900 34

1997 $868,440 43

1996 $1,052,225 29

USDA also enforces the HPA, which Congress enacted in 1970 (and 

1976), to end the practice of “soring” the limbs of Tennessee walking hor

other gaited breeds. The HPA prohibits persons from transporting sore ho

show, sales, and auctions, and from entering and exhibiting sore horses in 

events.

Soring practices occur primarily by two means: mechanical and chem

Regardless of the method, soring is a deliberate attempt to alter the gait o

creating a superficial irritation or lesion that is aggravated by training or p

Soring practices are primarily confined to the pasterns of the horse’s feet

The management of horse shows, sales, and actions is authorized to 

viduals, called Designated Qualified Persons or DQP’s, to examine horse

ance with the HPA and the horse protection regulations. DQP’s are requir

disqualify from exhibition any horse that is sore or otherwise not in comp

the regulations (which, among other things, prohibit the use of certain de

substances on horses’ feet). Even if show management has hired a license

a violation of the HPA to allow a sore horse to be exhibited if that DQP, o

has informed management that the horse is sore.

USDA veterinarians also attend shows, sales, and actions in order to 

sore horses are not exhibited and to evaluate the performance of the DQP

events. USDA veterinarians will also examine horses for compliance with 

the DQP did not perform a complete examination or if they suspect that a 

sore.

The HPA provides for both civil and criminal sanctions for violation

Secretary is authorized to impose a civil penalty of up to $2,000 for each 

the HPA, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, and may disqualif

tor from participating in shows, sales, and auctions for not less than 1 yea

first violation and not less than 5 years for any subsequent violation. Crim

tions are punishable by a fine of up to $3,000 for the first conviction, and 

for any subsequent conviction, as well as imprisonment for up to 1 year f

conviction, and up to 2 years for a subsequent conviction.
242

Aquaculture is the fastest growing segment of U.S. agriculture, surpassing in 

most domestic fruit, vegetable, and nut crops. Between 1980 and 1990, the in

experienced a 400-percent increase in growth; it is now estimated to be worth 

imately $1.5 billion. The aquaculture industry provides about 300,000 jobs na

wide. 

Current APHIS services include licensing of fish vaccines and other biolo

under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act; controlling birds and damage-causing anim

providing health certification services for exports. We are currently working t

expand our aquatic animal health activities and underlying authority to suppo

try efforts to increase exports of aquacultural products around the world, for c

nating interstate regulation, and for protection from the entry of animal pests 

diseases. Examples include:

■ European Union (EU) animal health negotiators have been extremely 

cerned that U.S. aquatic health regulations are not equivalent to those 

EU, with the main concern centering around the fact that the United S

does not have a single Federal agency with legal authority to monitor, 

and control outbreaks of aquatic animal disease. Currently, U.S. respo

in this area is divided among four Federal departments (Agriculture, I

Commerce, and Health and Human Services) and the 50 States. APHI

working with the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture’s Task Force on 

Animal Health to clarify Federal agency roles, avoid duplication of au

and achieve adequate protection of U.S. aquatic animals, both wild an

vated. 

■ APHIS has produced a video about health certification procedures for 

export of aquacultural products. The goal of the video—which uses th

ple of exporting trout eggs from Washington State to Chile—is to prov

mal health and natural resources officials and aquacultural producers w

model of how to implement an aquatic health protocol for exportation 

products to a foreign country.

■ APHIS’ WS program hired three wildlife biologists last July, placing t

Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi to assist aquaculture producers with 

depredation problems. These biologists are helping develop new meth

controlling fish-eating birds, providing onsite assistance to aquacultur

ducers experiencing depredation problems, and developing manageme

for fish-eating bird species in the three States.

■ APHIS’VS Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH) co

an overview of the U.S. aquaculture industry, including an analysis of 

on trends in farm size, geographic distribution of aquatic species, and 

description of the industry’s diversity. During 1997, CEAH worked w

USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service on a comprehensive n

study of the U.S. catfish industry.

Recent outbreaks of Taura Syndrome Virus in Texas and Hawaii have cau

millions of dollars in losses to shrimp producers in those States. This disease 

thought to have been introduced via shrimp products imported from South Am
disease. To rectify this situation, APHIS published an Advance Notice of 

Rulemaking seeking comments on treating farm-raised finfish as livestoc

animal quarantine laws. This could lead to a coordinated Federal regulato

to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic plants, animals, and org

could harm commercial aquaculture production.

■ Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards

Administration

The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSAthe marketing of livestock, poultry, meat, grain, oilseeds, and related 

products and promotes fair and competitive trading practices for the over

consumers and American agriculture.

GIPSA, like its sister agencies in USDA’s Marketing and Regulatory 

is working to ensure a productive and competitive global marketplace for 

cultural products. The agency’s Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) 

U.S. grain market with Federal quality standards and a uniform system fo

them. GIPSA’s Packers and Stockyards Programs ensure open and compe

markets for livestock, meat, and poultry.

Federal Grain Inspection Program

Through its Federal Grain Inspection Program, GIPSA facilities the 

grain, oilseeds, pulses, rice, and related commodities. This program serve

agriculture by providing descriptions (grades) and testing methodologies 

ing the quality and quantity of grain, rice, edible beans, and related comm

GIPSA also provides a wide range of inspection and weighing services, o

basis, through the official grain inspection and weighing system, a unique 

of Federal, State, and private laboratories. In FY 1997, the official system 

over 2 million inspections on 226 million metric tons of grain and related 

ties.

Specifically, under the U.S. Grain Standards Act, and those provision

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA) that relate to inspection of ri

lentils, and processed grain products, the Federal Grain Inspection Progra

■ Establishes official U.S. grading standards and testing procedures 

grains (barley, corn, oats, rye, sorghum, triticale, wheat, and mixe

for oilseeds (canola, flaxseed, soybeans, and sunflower seed), rice

dry peas, and a variety of edible beans.

■ Provides American agriculture and customers of U.S. grain aroun

with a national inspection and weighing system that applies the o

ing and testing standards and procedures in a uniform, accurate, a

manner.
244

inspected and weighed upon request.

■ Monitors grain handling practices to prevent the deceptive use of the g

standards and official inspection and weighing results, and the degrad

grain quality through the introduction of foreign material, dockage, or 

nongrain material to grain.

By serving as an impartial third party, and by ensuring that the Official U

Standards for Grain are applied properly and that weights are recorded fairly 

accurately, GIPSA and the official grain inspection and weighing system adva

orderly and efficient marketing and effective distribution of U.S. grain and oth

assigned commodities from the Nation’s farms to destinations around the wor

Packers and Stockyards Programs

GIPSA’s Packers and Stockyards Programs administers the Packers and

Stockyards (P&S) Act of 1921. The purpose of the P&S Act, which has been

amended to keep pace with changes in the industry, is to assure fair competiti

fair trade practice, safeguard farmers and ranchers, and protect consumers and 

bers of the livestock, meat, and poultry industries from unfair business practic

can unduly affect meat and poultry distribution and prices. Enforcement of th

Act takes place through the maintenance of administrative disciplinary procee

within USDA and the filing of actions in court. The P&S Act also provides fo

bers of the industry to file complaints with USDA, seeking reparation.

Payment Protection

The P&S Act requires prompt payment for livestock purchased by dealer

ket agencies, and packers whose operations are subject to the Act. Pursuant to 

requirement, subject firms must pay for livestock before the close of the next 

day following the purchase and transfer of possession. In addition, the Act est

specific payment deliver requirements for livestock purchased for slaughter. A

packers, market agencies, and dealers operating in commerce are required to 

surety bond or its equivalent. At the beginning of FY 1998, bonds totaling $63

lion were in place to cover the livestock purchases of packers, market agencie

dealers.

GIPSA also emphasizes custodial account investigations as a means of pa

protection for consignors of livestock. All market agencies selling on a comm

basis are required to establish and maintain a separate bank account designate

“Custodial Account for Shippers’ Proceeds,” to be used for deposits from live

purchasers and disbursements to consignors of livestock. The custodial audit 

has been very successful in protecting funds due livestock sellers.

Packer and Poultry Trust Activities

The P&S Act provides that if a meat packer fails to pay for livestock in a 

sale, or a live poultry dealer fails to pay for live poultry grown under a poultry 

ing arrangement, then receivables, inventories, and proceeds held by the pack
sellers of livestock and poultry growers receive priority payment in bankr

claims against trust assets in the event of business failure.

Fair Competition

GIPSA works to eliminate unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or decepti

in the meat and poultry industries, with special emphasis on investigation 

petitive activities. Practices such as apportioning of territories, price man

arrangements not to compete, and payoffs or kickbacks to buyers are viol

P&S Act. GIPSA staff members immediately investigate any practice tha

possible unfair or discriminatory practice.

Scales and Weighing Activities

GIPSA is concerned with two different elements that affect the integ

weights: (1) the accuracy of scales used for weighing livestock, meat, and 

and (2) the proper and honest operation of scales to assure that the weigh

a transaction is based is accurate.

The major emphasis is on detecting improper and fraudulent use of s

GIPSA’s investigative program uses several different procedures to determ

whether weighing activity is proper and honest. Agency investigators rou

livestock auction markets, buying stations, and packing plants to verify th

carcasses, and live poultry have been accurately weighed and to examine 

records and equipment.

Trade Practices

Fraudulent trade practices—such as price manipulation, weight man

livestock or carcasses, improper use or designation of carcass grades, mis

tion of livestock as to origin and health, and other unfair and deceptive pr

continue to be concerns within the industry. GIPSA investigates these pra

complaints are received or when such practices are uncovered during oth

tions.

Fair Treatment for Poultry Growers

GIPSA enforces the trade practice provisions of the P&S Act relating 

poultry dealers. Its investigative program extensively examines the record

integrators to determine the existence of any unfair, unjustly discriminato

tive practices in its dealings with poultry growers and sellers. Complaints 

unfair termination of growing contracts are investigated on a priority basi

Carcass Merit Purchasing

GIPSA monitors the use of electronic evaluation devices by hog slau

who purchase hogs on a carcass merit basis, to ensure that the electronic 

is accurate and properly applied and that the producer receives an accura

ing of the sale.
Agricultural Marketing

Service

Director, Public Affairs

Billy Cox

Rm 3510-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8998

FAX 202-720-7135ˆ

billy.cox@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Lena Hogan

Rm 3510-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8998

FAX 202-720-7135

lhogan@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Demaris Kogut

Rm 3510-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8998

FAX 202-720-7135

demaris.kogut@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Becky Unkenholz

Rm 3510-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-8998

FAX 202-720-7135

becky.unkenholz@usda.gov

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Sharon Kerr

Rm 3510-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-2498

FAX 202-690-3767

sharonl.kerr@usda.gov

Animal and Plant Heal

Inspection Service

Director, Legislative & Public A

Ralph Harding

Rm 1147-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-2511

FAX 202-720- 3982

ralph.r.harding@aphis.usda.gov

Deputy Director, Legislative & 

Public Affairs 

Lynn Quarles

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-2511 Rm 1147-S

FAX 202-720-3982

lynn.t.quarles@aphis.usda.gov 

Asst. Dir., Public Affairs

Richard McNaney

4B21

Riverdale, MD 20782

301-734-7799

FAX 301-734-5221

rmcnaney@aphis.usda.gov

246

industries and analyzes the competitive implications of these structural chang

GIPSA uses the analyses as tools in enforcing the P&S Act and in addressing 

policy issues relating to the livestock, meat packing, and poultry industries.

Clear Title

The Clear Title provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985 permit States 

establish central filing systems to inform parties about liens on farm products

purpose of this program is to remove an obstruction to interstate commerce in 

products. GIPSA certifies when a State’s central filing system complies with t

For More Information
q

4A81

Riverdale, MD 20782

301-734-5267

FAX 301-734-5941

mmarquis@aphis.usda.gov

APHIS Regional Information Offices

Mountain/Western 

Stuart McDonald

Suite 204

12345 W. Alameda Parkway

Lakewood, CO 80228

303-969-6560

FAX 303-969-6973

smcdonald@aphis.usda.gov

West Coast/Southern Border

Larry Hawkins 

606 Alamo Pintado, Suite 267

Solvang, CA 73463

805-693-0676

FAX 805-693-0676

lhawkins@aphis.usda.gov

Packers and Stocky

Administration

Public Affairs Officer

Dana Stewart

Rm 1094-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-720-5091

FAX 202-205-9237

dstewart@fgis.usda.gov 

Freedom of Info Act Officer

Bruce Boor

Rm 3406-S

Washington, DC 20250

202-690-3842

FAX 202-205-3941

bruce_m.boor@usda.gov
248

Director of Communications

Sedelta Verble

Rm 402-A

Washington, DC 20250-1301

202-720-4623

FAX 202-720-5043

sedelta.verble@usda.gov

Press Secretary and Director of Public

Affairs

Andy Solomon

Rm 402-A

Washington, DC 20250-1305

202-720-4623

FAX 202-720-5043

andy.solomon@usda.gov

Adm. Asst. to OC Director

Tamika Powell

Rm 412-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330 

202-720-4623

FAX 202-690-2164

tamika.powell@usda.gov

Deputy Director

Jody Jaeger

Rm 412-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-4623

FAX 202-690-2164

jody.jaeger@usda.gov

■ How To Get Information From USDA’s Office o

Communications

The Office of Communications (OC) is integral to USDA’s historical and cmission. This office coordinates and assists with the flow of public inform

from USDA program agencies, reviewing all publications and audiovisuals an

uating new information technology. It offers current information from the Offi

the Secretary on programs and policy. This office ensures that adequate and ap

ate channels are used to disseminate information to the public, and provides p

access to USDA information through the news media. 

OC administers USDA’s home page on the Internet World Wide Web and 

AgNewsFax service. The Internet address for USDA’s home page is

http://www.usda.gov. From this page, you can access information about the

Department and also about programs in all mission areas. 

OC also offers an automated information line to answer questions from th

public. The number for this service is 202-720-2791.

In addition, OC coordinates departmental responses under the Freedom o

Information Act, the Privacy Act, and its amendment, the Computer Matching 

The following list of key Office of Communications staff is offered for yo

convenience:

Office of the Director
y

Rm 405-A

Washington, DC 20250-1305

202-720-4623

FAX 202-720-5403

susan.mcavoy@usda.gov

Deputy Press Secretary

Mary Beth Schultheis

Rm 402-A

Washington, DC 20250-1305

202-720-4623

FAX 202-720-5043

mary_beth.schultheis@usda.gov

Speech Writers:

Bart Acocella

Rm 425-A

Washington, DC 20250-1340

202-720-7819

FAX 202-690-1378

bart.acocella@usda.gov

Cheryl Normile

Rm 423-A

Washington, DC 20250-1340

202-720-4239

FAX 202-690-1378

cheryl.normile@usda.gov

Richard Ades

Rm 422-A

Washington, DC 20250-1340

202-720-9091

FAX 202-690-1378

richard.ades@usda.gov

Coordination and R

Center

Director

Johna Pierce

Rm 440-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-5555

FAX 202-690-3611

johna.pierce@usda.gov

Communications Coordina

Administration, IG, CFO, C

Janet Sledge

Rm 446-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2065

FAX 202-690-3611

janet.sledge@usda.gov

Communications Coordina

and Foreign Agricultural S

Wayne Baggett

Rm 444-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2032

FAX 202-690-3611

wayne.baggett@usda.gov

Communications Coordina

Nutrition, and Consumer S

Jim Borland

Rm 434-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-690-0469

FAX 202-690-3611

jim.borland@usda.gov

Communications Coordina

Safety, and Marketing & R

Programs

Jerry Redding

Rm 432-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-6959

FAX 202-690-3611

jerry.redding@usda.gov
250

Martha Cashion Abrams

Rm 442-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-3310

FAX 202-690-3611

martha.abrams@usda.gov

Communications Coordinator for

Research, Education, and Economics

Maria Bynum

Rm 448-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-5192

FAX 202-690-3611

maria.bynum@usda.gov

Communications Coordinator for 

Rural Development

Jim Brownlee

Rm 436-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2091

FAX 202-690-3611

jim.brownlee@usda.gov

“USDA NEWS” Coord/Editor

Ron Hall

Rm 430-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-5747

FAX 202-690-3611

ron.hall@usda.gov

Coord & Rev Asst/HTGI Editor

Shirley E. Adams

Rm 440-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-2882

FAX 202-690-3611

shirley.adams@usda.gov

Webmaster

Victor Powell

Rm 528-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-7762

FAX 202-690-3611

vic.powell@usda.gov

Rm 456-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-9045

FAX 202-690-3611

charles.hobbs@usda.gov

“AgNews” Editor

Phil Shanholtzer

Rm 457-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-8138

FAX 202-720-5575

phil.shanholtzer@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Marci Hilt

Rm 421-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-3088

FAX 202-690-3611 

marci.hilt@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Deborah Smith

Rm 410-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350 

202-720-2914

FAX 202-690-3611

debbie.smith@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Katherine Gibney

Rm 428-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-9173

FAX 202-690-3611

katherine.gibney@usda.gov

Publishing & Info. Svs. Coord.

Ed Poe

Rm 426-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-9081

FAX 202-720-4948

ed.poe@usda.gov
Rm 428-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-3298

FAX 202-690-3611

dennis.carroll@usda.gov

Publications Clearance Editor

Carrie Pollard

Rm 419-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-6046

FAX 202-690-3611

carrie.pollard@usda.gov

Exec. Corres./FOIA Asst.

Sandie Stasiak

Rm 541-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-4105

FAX 202-690-3611

sandie.stasiak@usda.gov

Information Response Team

Barbara Robinson

Rm 506-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-690-4069

FAX 202-690-0228

barbara.robinson@usda.gov

Joyce Tyler

Rm 506-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-3365

FAX 202-690-0228

joyce.person@usda.gov

General Information Hotline

202-720-2791

Freedom of Info. Act Officer

Andrea Fowler

Rm 532-A

Washington, DC 20250-1350

202-720-8164

FAX 202-720-7808

andrea.fowler@usda.gov

Meg Evans

Rm 412-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

meg.evans@usda.gov

202-720-4623

FAX 202-690-2164

Public Liaison Coordinator

Kathryn Hill

Rm 415-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-690-4750

FAX 202-690-2164

ocnet.oc-post.kathryn.hill@u

Public Liaison Analyst

Mocile Trotter

Rm 418-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-5505

FAX 202-690-2164

Mocile.trotter@usda.gov

Public Affairs Specialist

Robert Miranda-Acevedo

Rm 417-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-0494

FAX202-690-2164

robert.miranda@usda.gov

Admin. Support Specialist

Sandy Odom

Rm 416-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-8891

FAX 202-690-2164

sandy.odom@usda.gov

News Distribution

Gayle Turner

Rm 460-A

Washington, DC 20250-1330

202-720-9035

FAX 202-690-2164

gayle.turner@usda.gov

AgNewsFax Service

Use FAX telephone to call

202-690-3944
252

g

http://www.usda.gov

Video, Teleconference, 

and Radio Center

Director

Larry A. Quinn

Rm 1618-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

larry.quinn@usda.gov

202-720-6072

FAX 202-720-5773

Dep Dir/ Broadcasting Coord

Garth Clark

Rm 1614-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-5376

FAX 202-720-5773

garth.clark@usda.gov

Senior Television Producer

Patrick O’Leary

Rm 0095-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7039

FAX 202-720-5773

patrick.oleary@usda.gov

Senior Radio Producer

Gary Crawford

Rm 1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7068

FAX 202-690-2165

gary.crawford@usda.gov

Senior Radio Producer

Brenda Curtis-Heiken

Rm 1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7079

FAX 202-690-2165

brenda.curtis@usda.gov

Rm 1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7884

FAX 202-690-2165

leslie.parker@usda.gov

Video Production Coord

David Black

Rm 1614-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-3068

FAX 202-720-5773

david.black@usda.gov

Senior Production Spec

Bob Stobaugh

Rm 0097-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-4753

FAX 202-720-5773

bob.stobaugh@usda.gov

Studio Mgr./Tech Dir

Larry Holmes

Rm 1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-4001

FAX 202-720-5773 

larry.holmes@usda.gov

Duplic./Off Air Recording

Evangeline Minor

Rm 1604-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-7501

FAX 202-720-5773

evangline.minor@usda.gov

Teleconference Coordinator

David Vennell

Rm 1617-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-5368

FAX 202-720-5773

david.vennell@usda.gov
y 

Rm 1615-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-2029

FAX 202-720-5773

mansy.pullen@usda.gov

Teleconference Scheduling

Anita Booth (Audio)

Rm 1611-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-6143

FAX 202-690-2042

anita.booth@usda.gov

Liz Conley (Compressed video)

Rm 1611-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-8690

FAX 202-720-2042

liz.conley@usda.gov

Training Center Scheduling

Michael Johnson

Rm 1623-S

Washington, DC 20250-1360

202-720-2822

FAX 202-690-2704

ocnet.oc-post.mike.xjohnson@usda.gov

Design Center

Director

Eva Cuevas

Rm 517-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-6641

FAX 202-720-8197

eva.cuevas@usda.gov

Deputy Director

David Sutton

Rm 518-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-6281

FAX 202-720-8197

david.sutton@usda.gov

Rm 524-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-4339

FAX 202-720-8197

julie.olson@usda.gov

Exhibit Fabrication Coord.

Larry Sullivan

Rm S-310

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-3393

FAX 202-690-1799

larry.sullivan@usda.gov

Exhibit Shipping Coordina

Cindy Haydon

Rm 517-A

Washington, DC 20250-1380

202-720-6641

FAX 202-720-8197

cindy.haydon@usda.gov

Photography Cente

Director

Bill Tarpenning

Rm 4404-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-6633

FAX 202-720-0902

bill.tarpenning@usda.gov

Photojournalists

Ken Hammond

Rm 4415-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-8929

FAX 202-720-0902

ken.hammond@usda.gov
254

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-8903

FAX 202-720-0902

bob.nichols@usda.gov

Anson Eaglin

Rm 4409-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-0909

FAX 202-720-0902

anson.eaglin@usda.gov

Photo Reproduction/Review

Alice Welch

Rm 4423-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-4022

FAX 202-720-0902

alice.welch@usda.gov

Photo Library

Anson Eaglin

Rm 4409-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-0909

FAX 202-720-0902

anson.eaglin@usda.gov

Stanley Harrison

Rm 4409-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-8905

stan.harrison@usda.gov

Photo Assignments

Vivian Thomas

Rm 4404-S

Washington, DC 20250-1390

202-720-6633

FAX 202-720-0902

vivian.thomas@usda.gov

Printing Management

Center

Director

Al Senter

Rm 501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-1370 

202-720-7175

FAX 202-720-8939

al.senter@usda.gov

y 

Rm 501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-1370

202-720-8137

FAX 202-720-8939

ed.mcverry@usda.gov

Gail Merriman

Rm 501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-1370

202-720-8146

FAX 202-720-8939

gail.merriman@usda.gov

Publications

Lonnie Thomas

Rm 501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-1370

202-720-8180

FAX 202-720-8939

lonnie.thomas@usda.gov

Mark Emery

Rm 501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-1370

202-720-8194

FAX 202-720-8939

mark.emery@usda.gov

Cynthia McNeill

Rm 501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-1370

202-720-8189

FAX 202-720-8939

cynthia.mcneill@usda.gov

Composite/Rider Orders

Mary Hill

Rm 501-A

Washington, D.C. 20250-1370

202-720-5983

FAX 202-720-8939

mary.hill@usda.gov
Metric Conversions

to this

To convert this multiply by (rounded to hu

Length

inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . millimeters (mm) 25.4

feet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . centimeters (cm) 30.48

yards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . meters (m) 0.91

miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kilometers (km) 1.61

millimeters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inches 0.04

centimeters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inches 0.39

meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inches 39.37

meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yards 1.09

kilometers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . miles 0.62

Weight

ounces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . grams(g) 28.35

pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kilograms (kg) 0.45

short tons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . metric tons 0.91

kilograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pounds 2.20

metric tons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pounds 2,204.6

metric tons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . short tons 1.10

Area

square inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square centimeters 6.45

square feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square meters 0.09

square miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square kilometers 2.59

acres. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . hectares 0.40

square centimeters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square inches 0.16

square meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square yards 1.20

square kilometers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square miles 0.39

hectares. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . acres 2.47

Volume

teaspoons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . milliliters 4.93

tablespoons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . milliliters 14.79

fluid ounces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . milliliters 29.58

cups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . liters 0.24

pints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . liters 0.47

quarts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . liters 0.95

gallons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . liters 3.79

cubic feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cubic meters 0.03

cubic yards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cubic meters 0.76
256

liters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pints 2.11

liters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . quarts 1.06

liters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . gallons 0.26

cubic meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cubic feet 35.31

cubic meters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cubic yards 1.31

Temperature

Fahrenheit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Celsius .56 (after subtra

Celsius. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fahrenheit 1.82 (then add 32

Farm products

pounds per acre . . . . . . . . . . kilograms per hectare 1.12

short tons per acre . . . . . . . . kilograms per hectare 2.24

kilograms per hectare . . . . . metric tons per hectare .001

kilograms per hectare . . . . . . . . . . pounds per acre 0.89

tons per hectare. . . . . . . . . . . . . short tons per acre 0.45

tons per hectare . . . . . . . . . . kilograms per hectare 1,000

Bushel/Weight Conversions

weight in weigh

1 bushel of: pounds kilogr

wheat, soybeans, potatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 

corn, grain sorghum, rye, flaxseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 

beets, carrots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 

barley, buckwheat, peaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 

oats, cottonseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 

weight in num

1 metric ton of: pounds of bus

wheat, soybeans, potatoes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 36

corn, grain sorghum, rye, flaxseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 39

beets, carrots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 44

barley, buckwheat, peaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 45

oats, cottonseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204.6 68

Prepared by USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service
Figure A-1.Planting and Harvesting Calendar for Most Major U.S. Crop Areas1

Hard Red Winter Wheat

Soft Red Winter Wheat 

White Winter Wheat 

Hard Red Spring Wheat 

Durum Spring Wheat 

Corn

Sorghum

Barley

Oats

Soybeans

Peanuts

Sunflowerseed

Cotton

Sugarbeets

Sugar Cane*

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest

Harvest Harvest

Plant

Plant

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.

Plant

Plant

Plant

Plant

Plant

Plant

Plant

Plant

Plant

Plant

Plant

Harvest Plant
258

Acid soil. Soil with a pH of less than 7.0.

Acreage reporting date. The date by which

insureds must report their planted acreage to

their agent. These reports are essential

because they help determine premium and

liability. Reporting dates vary and are printed

in crop insurance policies.

Actual production history (APH). An APH

yield is a producer-certified report of the

planted acreage and harvested production for

each insured crop. MPCI coverage is based

on at least 4 years of APH yields. If records

are lacking, transitional yields (T-yields—a

percentage of local yield averages) are used

to help calculate coverage.

Actuarial table. The forms and related material for the crop year, which are available for

public inspection in the crop insurance

agent’s office, show the amounts of insurance

or production guarantees, coverage levels,

premium rates, prices for computing indemnities, practices, insurable acreage, and other

related information regarding crop insurance

in the county.

Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (P.L.

73-10). Signed May 12, 1933, this law introduced the price support programs, including

production adjustments, and the incorporation of the Commodity Credit Corporation

(CCC), under the laws of the State of

Delaware on October 17, 1933. The program

benefits were financed mostly by processing

taxes on the specific commodity. The Act also

made price support loans by the CCC mandatory for the designated "basic" (storable)

commodities: corn, wheat, and cotton.

Support for other commodities was authorized upon the recommendation by the

Secretary of Agriculture with the President's

approval.

Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (P.L.

75-430). Signed February 16, 1938, this law

was the first to make price support mandatory

for corn, cotton, and wheat to help maintain 

a sufficient supply for low productio

along with marketing quotas to keep 

in line with market demand. The 193

considered part of permanent agricul

legislation. Provisions of this law are 

superseded by more current legislati

However, if the current legislation ex

and new legislation is not enacted, th

reverts back to the permanent provis

the 1938 Act, along with the Agricul

Act of 1949.

Agronomy. The science of crop prod

and soil management.

Alfalfa. A valuable leguminous crop 

forage or hay used in livestock feedi

Alkaline soil. Soil with a pH of mor

7.0.

Alternative farming. Production me

other than energy- and chemical inte

one-crop (monoculture) farming. Alt

include using animal and green manu

than chemical fertilizers, integrated p

management instead of chemical pes

reduced tillage, crop rotation (especi

legumes to add nitrogen), alternative 

diversification of the farm enterprise

Animal unit. A standard measure ba

feed requirements, used to combine 

classes of livestock according to size

age, and use.

Aquaculture. The production of aqu

plants or animals in a controlled env

such as ponds, raceways, tanks, or ca

all or part of their life cycle. In the U

States, baitfish, catfish, clams, crawfi

freshwater prawns, mussels, oysters, 

shrimp, tropical (or ornamental) fish

trout account for most of the aquacul

production. Less widely established 

growing species include alligator, hy

striped bass, carp, eel, red fish, north

sturgeon, and tilapia.
irrigation.

Artificial insemination (AI). The mechanical injection of semen into the womb of the

female animal with a syringe-like apparatus.

Back hoe. A shovel mounted on the rear of a

tractor, hydraulically operated to dig trenches

or pits in soil.

Base acreage. A farm’s crop-specific acreage

of wheat, feed grains, upland cotton, or rice

eligible to enroll in commodity programs

under legislation prior to the 1996 Farm Bill.

Base acreage equalled land planted for harvest to the crop, plus any land enrolled in

acreage reduction programs, plus land considered planted to the crop in 0,50/85-92 or

under permitted normal flex or optional flex

acreage shifts during a specified period of

time. A farmer’s crop acreage base is reduced

by the portion of land placed in the Conservation Reserve Program, but is increased by

CRP base acreage leaving the CRP.

Basic commodities. Six crops (corn, cotton,

peanuts, rice, tobacco, and wheat) that are

covered by parity-based price support provisions, provisions which have been suspended

for the 1996 through 2002 crops of each of

these commodities.

Biological control of pests. Control, but not

total eradication, of insect pests achieved by

using natural enemies, either indigenous or

imported, or diseases to which the pest is susceptible. It includes such nontoxic pesticides

as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt).

Biologics. Immunization materials made

from living or "killed" organisms and their

products used for the detection and prevention of diseases; includes serums, vaccines,

bacterins, antigens, and antitoxins.

Biotechnology. The use of technology, based

on living systems, to develop processes and

products for commercial, scientific, or other

purposes. These include specific techniques

Blended credit. A form of expo

which combines direct Governm

credit and credit guarantees to r

effective interest rate.

Brucellosis. A contagious dise

and dairy cattle, which causes a

disease in humans is known as u

fever.

BST (bovine somatotropin) (a

BGH, for bovine growth horm

protein hormone produced natu

pituitary gland of cattle. Recom

or rBST, is BST produced using 

DNA biotechnology. BST contr

amount of milk produced by co

Cargo preference. A law that r

certain portion of goods or com

financed by the U.S. Governme

shipped on U.S. flag ships. The 

traditionally applied to P.L. 480 

concessional financing or donat

grams.

Carryover. Existing supplies o

modity not used at the end of a 

year, and remaining to be carrie

the next year. Marketing years g

start at the beginning of a new h

commodity, and extend to the s

the following year.

Cash grain farm. A farm on w

grain sorghum, small grains, so

field beans and peas account for 

50 percent of value of products 

Catastrophic risk protection (

lowest level of Federal crop ins

age. It provides a coverage leve

of the actual yields at 55 percen

expected market price. Coverag

for an administrative fee.

Census of Agriculture. A coun

5 years of the number of farms, 

crop acreage and production, liv

bers and production, farm expen
260

sex), etc. Data are obtained for States and

counties. USDA now administers the Census

of Agriculture, which was previously done 

by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. 

Checkoff programs. Research and promotion programs authorized by law and financed

by assessments. The programs are paid for by

specified industry members such as producers, importers, and handlers.

Combine. A self-propelled machine for 

harvesting grain and other seed crops. In 

one operation, it cuts, threshes, separates,

and cleans the grain and scatters the straw.

Commodity certificates. Payments issued

by the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)

in lieu of cash payments to program participants. Holders of the certificates may

exchange them with the CCC for CCC-owned

commodities. With the exception of the

upland cotton loan program, CCC authority

to issue such certificates in lieu of cash payments was suspended for the 1996 through

2002 crops by the Federal Agriculture

Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. Under

the “special marketing loan provisions” for

the upland cotton loan program, however,

cotton user marketing certificates may be

paid by CCC with commodity certificates.

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).

A federally owned and operated corporation

within USDA created to stabilize, support,

and protect agricultural prices and farm

income through loans, purchases, payments,

and other operations. All money transactions

for agricultural price and income support 

and related programs are handled through 

the CCC.

Commodity loan rates. Price per unit

(pound, bushel, bale, or hundredweight) at

which the CCC provides nonrecourse loans to

farmers to enable them to hold program crops

for later sale. Commodity loans under the

1996 Act can be recourse for sugar and will

become recourse for dairy in 2000.

as bananas, coffee, rubber, cocoa, tea

and cordage fiber (see also suppleme

imports).

Compost. Organic residues, or a mix

organic residues and soil, which hav

piled, moistened, and allowed to und

logical decomposition for use as a fe

Concessional sales. Credit sales of a 

modity in which the buyer is allowed 

favorable payment terms than those o

open market. For example, Title I of 

for Peace Program (P.L. 480) provid

financing sales of U.S. commodities 

low-interest, long-term credit.

Conservation compliance. This rep

portion of the Highly Erodible Land

Conservation provisions of the Food 

Act of 1985 that is designed to encou

the use of conservation practices on 

erodible cropland. To remain eligibl

many USDA program benefits, farm

required to crop highly erodible land 

an approved conservation plan. Also 

"Sodbuster."

Conservation district. Any unit of l

ernment formed to carry out a local s

water conservation program.

Conservation plan. A combination 

uses and practices to protect and imp

productivity and to prevent soil deter

A conservation plan must be approve

local conservation district for acreag

in the Conservation Reserve Program

plan sets forth the conservation meas

maintenance that the owner or opera

carry out during the term of the contr

Conservation practices. Methods w

reduce soil erosion and retain soil m

Major conservation practices include 

vation tillage, crop rotation, contour 

strip cropping, terraces, diversions, a

grassed waterways.
water quality on millions of acres of farmland. Under the program, enrolled landowners agree to convert environmentally sensitive

land to approved conserving uses for 10-15

years. In exchange, the landowner receives an

annual rental payment as well as an initial

cost-share payment for up to 50 percent of

the cost of establishing permanent vegetative

cover.

Conservation tillage. Any of several farming

methods that provide for seed germination,

plant growth, and weed control yet maintain

effective ground cover throughout the year

and disturb the soil as little as possible. The

aim is to reduce soil loss and energy use

while maintaining crop yields and quality.

No-till is the most restrictive (soil-conserving) form of conservation tillage. Other 

practices include ridge-till, strip-till, and

mulch-till.

Contour farming. Field operations such as

plowing, planting, cultivating, and harvesting

on the contour, or at right angles to the natural slope, to reduce soil erosion, protect soil

fertility, and use water more efficiently.

Contract acreage. Enrolled 1996 commodity

base acreage under the 1996 Farm Act for

wheat, feed grains, upland cotton, and rice,

generally fixed for 1996 through 2002. A

farmer may voluntarily choose to reduce 

contract acreage in subsequent years. Land

leaving the CRP may be entered into a production flexibility contract if the land had 

an acreage base.

Contract crops. Crops eligible for production flexibility payments: wheat, corn,

sorghum, barley, oats, rice, and upland cotton.

Cooperative. An organization formed for the

purpose of producing and marketing goods 

or products owned collectively by members

who share in the benefits.

Cooperative Extension System. A national,

publicly funded, nonformal education net

the District of Columbia. The F

is the Cooperative State Researc

and Extension Service. This un

State, and local partnership focu

cal solutions to critical issues af

ple's daily lives.

Cost of production. The sum, m

dollars, of all purchased inputs 

expenses necessary to produce 

Cost of production statistics ma

expressed as an average per ani

or per unit of production (bushe

hundredweight) for all farms in 

in the country.

County extension agent. An e

employed by a county and/or a 

tive extension service to bring r

agriculture and quality of life ed

local people to help them addre

home, and community problem

level. 

Cover crop. A close-growing c

protect and improve soils betwe

regular crops or between trees a

orchards and vineyards.

Crop rotation. The practice of 

ferent crops in recurring succes

same land. Crop rotation plans 

followed for the purpose of incr

fertility and maintaining good y

Crop year. Generally, the 12-m

from the beginning of harvest o

crop.

Custom work. Specific farm op

formed under contract between 

and the contractor. The contract

labor, equipment, and materials 

the operation. Custom harvestin

spraying and picking of fruit, an

shearing are examples of custom 

Dairy Export Incentive Progr

gram that offers subsidies to exp

dairy products to assist in comp
262

was originally authorized by the 1985 Farm

Act and reauthorized by the 1990 Farm Act.

The 1996 Farm Act extends the program

through 2002.

Disaster payments. Federal payments made

to farmers because of a natural disaster when

(1) planting is prevented or (2) crop yields are

abnormally low because of adverse weather

and related conditions. Disaster payments

may be provided under existing legislation or

under special legislation enacted after an

extensive natural disaster.

Distance Education. Delivery of instructional material over a wide geographical area

via one or more technologies, including

video, computer, and laser.

DNA. Deoxyribonucleic acid, a polymeric

chromosomal constituent of living cell nuclei,

composed of deoxyribose (a sugar), phosphoric acid, and four nitrogen bases--adenine,

cytosine, guanine, and thymine. It contains

the genetic information for living organisms,

and consists of two strands in the shape of 

a double helix. A gene is a piece of DNA.

Double crop. Two different crops grown on

the same area in one growing season.

Dryland farming. A system of producing

crops in semiarid regions (usually with less

than 20 inches of annual rainfall) without the

use of irrigation. Frequently, part of the land

will lie fallow in alternate years to conserve

moisture.

Erosion. The process in which water or wind

moves soil from one location to another.

Types of erosion are (1) sheet and rill—a general washing away of a thin uniform sheet of

soil, or removal of soil in many small channels or incisions caused by rainfall or irrigation runoff; (2) gully—channels or incisions

cut by concentrated water runoff after heavy

rains; (3) ephemeral—a water-worn, shortlived or seasonal incision, wider, deeper and

longer than a rill, but shallower and smaller

than a gully; and (4) wind—the carrying

Ethanol. An alcohol fuel that may b

duced from an agricultural foodstock 

as corn, sugarcane, or wood, and ma

blended with gasoline to enhance oc

reduce automotive exhaust pollution

reduce reliance on petroleum-based 

Export Enhancement Program (EE

Started in May 1985 under the Comm

Credit Corporation Charter Act to he

exporters meet competitors’ prices in 

dized markets. Under the EEP, expor

awarded bonuses, enabling them to c

for sales in specified countries.

Extra-long staple (ELS) cotton. Co

having a staple length of 1-3/8 inche

more, characterized by fineness and 

fiber strength. American types includ

American Pima and Sea Island cotto

Family Farm. An agricultural busin

which (1) produces agricultural com

for sale in such quantities so as to be 

nized as a farm rather than a rural res

(2) produces enough income (includ

farm employment) to pay family and 

operating expenses, to pay debts, and 

maintain the property; (3) is manage

operator; (4) has a substantial amoun

labor provided by the operator and fa

and (5) may use seasonal labor durin

periods and a reasonable amount of f

hired labor.

Farm. USDA defines a farm in 1997 

place from which $1,000 or more of 

tural products were produced and so

mally would have been sold during t

Farm Credit System. The system m

of cooperatively owned financial ins

in districts covering the United State

Puerto Rico that finance farm and far

related mortgages and operating loan

Institutions within each district speci

farmland loans and operating credit, 

ing to farmer-owned supply, marketi
Federal Agriculture Improvement and

Reform Act of 1996 (1996 Farm Act)

(P.L.104-127). The omnibus food and agriculture legislation signed into law on April 4,

1996, that provided a 7-year framework

(1996-2002) for the Secretary of Agriculture

to administer various agricultural and food

programs. The 1996 Act fundamentally

redesigns income support and supply management programs for producers of wheat,

corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, rice, and

upland cotton. The 1996 Farm Act also makes

program changes for dairy, sugar, and

peanuts. Additionally, trade programs are

more targeted and environmental programs

are consolidated and extended in the 1996

Farm Act.

Feed grain. Any of several grains most commonly used for livestock or poultry feed,

including corn, grain sorghum, oats, rye, and

barley.

Fertilizer. Any organic or inorganic material

of natural or synthetic origin which is added

to soil to provide nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, necessary 

to sustain plant growth.

FFA. An organization for high school students studying vocational agriculture.

Flood plains. Lowland and relatively flat

areas adjoining inland and coastal waters,

including floodprone areas of islands. This

land includes, at a minimum, those areas that

are subject to a 1 percent or greater chance 

of flooding in any given year.

Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and

Trade Act of 1990 (1990 Farm Act) (P.L.

101-624). Signed November 28, 1990, this 5-

year farm bill applied to the 1991-95 crop

programs. This Act continued the transition,

started by the Food Security Act of 1985,

toward greater market orientation of domestic

commodity programs, the most notable

changes being frozen minimum target prices

and greater planting flexibility. Most of the

commodity program provisions of this Act

Food grain. Cereal seeds most 

used for human food, chiefly wh

Food Security Act of 1985 (19

(P.L. 99-198). The omnibus foo

ture legislation signed into law 

23, 1985, that provided a 5-year 

(1986-90) for the Secretary of A

to administer various agricultur

programs.

Forage. Vegetable matter, fresh 

that is gathered and fed to anim

roughage; includes alfalfa hay, 

and other hay crops.

Forward contracting. A metho

crops before harvest by which t

agrees to pay a specified price t

a portion, or all, of the grower's 

Fungicide. A chemical substan

spray, dust, or disinfectant to ki

ing plants or seeds.

Futures contract. An agreemen

two people, one who sells and a

deliver and one who buys and a

receive a certain kind, quality, a

product to be delivered during a 

delivery month at a specified pr

General Agreement on Tariffs 

(GATT). An agreement origina

in 1947 to increase internationa

reducing tariffs and other trade 

agreement provides a code of co

international commerce and a fr

periodic multilateral negotiation

eralization and expansion. The 

Round Agreement established t

Trade Organization (WTO) to r

GATT. The WTO officially rep

GATT on January 1, 1995. 

Genetic engineering. Genetic m

of organisms by recombinant D

nant RNA, or other specific mo

transfer or exchange techniques
264

Gleaning. Collecting of unharvested crops

from the fields, or obtaining agricultural

products from farmers, processors, or retailers without charge.

Gopher. The Internet Gopher client/server 

is a distributed information delivery system

around which a campuswide information system can readily be constructed. While providing a delivery vehicle for local information,

Gopher facilitates access to other Gopher and

information servers throughout the world.

Grade A milk. Milk, also referred to as fluid

grade, produced under sanitary conditions

that qualify it for fluid (beverage) consumption. Only Grade A milk is regulated under

Federal milk marketing orders.

Grade B milk. Milk, also referred to as manufacturing grade, not meeting Grade A standards. Less stringent standards generally

apply.

Grafting. The process of inserting a scion of

a specified variety into a stem, root, or branch

of another plant so that a permanent union is

achieved.

Great Plains. A level to gently sloping

region of the United States that lies between

the Rockies and approximately the 98th

meridian. The area is subject to recurring

droughts and high winds. It consists of parts

of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana,

Nebraska, Wyoming, Kansas, Colorado,

Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico.

Green manure. Any crop or plant grown and

plowed under to improve the soil, by adding

organic matter and subsequently releasing

plant nutrients, especially nitrogen.

Ground water. Water beneath the Earth's

surface between saturated soil and rock,

which supplies wells and springs.

Group Risk Plan (GRP). A crop insurance

plan that uses an index—the expected county

yield—as the basis for protection. When the

less paperwork and costs less than th

level coverage described above. How

individual crop losses may not be co

the county yield does not suffer a sim

level of loss.

Hedgerow. Trees or shrubs grown cl

together so that branches intertwine 

a continuous row.

Herbicide. Any agent or chemical u

destroy plants, especially weeds.

Humus. The well decomposed, relat

ble portion of the partly or wholly de

organic matter in a soil, which provid

ents and helps the soil retain moistur

Hydroponics. Growing of plants in 

containing dissolved nutrients, rathe

in soil. This process is being used in 

houses for intensive off-season produ

of vegetables.

Infrastructure. The transportation n

communications systems, financial i

tions, and other public and private se

necessary for economic activity.

Integrated crop management. An a

ture management system that integra

controllable agricultural production 

for long-term sustained productivity, 

itability, and ecological soundness.

Integrated pest management (IPM

control of pests or diseases by using 

of crop production strategies, combin

careful monitoring of insect pests or 

populations and other methods. Som

approaches include selection of resis

varieties, timing of cultivation, biolo

control methods, and minimal use of 

cal pesticides so that natural enemies 

are not destroyed. These approaches 

to anticipate and prevent pests and d

from reaching economically damagin

International trade barriers. Regu

used by governments to restrict impo
Internet. The global connection of interconnected local, mid-level, and wide-area

automated information/communications 

networks.

Land-grant universities. Institutions,

including State colleges and universities and

Tuskegee University, eligible to receive funds

under the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. 

The Federal Government granted land to each

State and territory to encourage practical 

education in agriculture, homemaking, and

mechanical arts.

Land-use planning. Decisionmaking process

to determine present and future uses of land.

The resulting plan is the key element of a

comprehensive plan describing recommended

location and intensity of development of public and private land uses such as residential,

commercial, industrial, recreational, and 

agricultural.

Leaching. The process of removal of soluble

materials by the passage of water through

soil.

Legumes. A family of plants that includes

many valuable food and forage species such

as peas, beans, soybeans, peanuts, clovers,

alfalfas, and sweet clovers. Legumes can 

convert nitrogen from the air to nitrates in 

the soil through a process known as nitrogen

fixation. Many of these species are used as

cover crops and are plowed under for soil

improvement.

Lint. Cotton fiber remaining after the seeds

have been ginned out.

Loan deficiency payments. A provision

begun in the 1985 Farm Act to provide direct

payments to producers who, although eligible

to obtain price support loans for wheat, feed

grains, upland cotton, rice, or oilseeds and

thereby receive marketing loan gains, agree

not to obtain loans.

loans to farmers enabling them 

crops for later sale.

Market Access Program (MA

the Market Promotion Program

organizations include nonprofit 

tions, State and regional trade g

private companies. Fund author

at $90 million annually for FY 

Market basket of farm foods. 

quantities of U.S. farm foods pu

annually per household in a giv

Retail cost of these foods used a

computing an index of retail pri

domestically produced farm foo

are fishery products, imported f

meals eaten away from home.

Marketing allotments. Provide

processor or producer of a parti

modity a specific limit on sales 

above which penalties would ap

Marketing orders. Federal ma

authorize agricultural producers 

orderly marketing by influencin

as supply and quality, and to po

promotion and research. Marke

initiated by the industry, and are 

the Secretary of Agriculture and 

among producers. Once approv

ing order is mandatory.

Marketing spread. The differe

the retail price of a product and 

value of the ingredients in the p

farm-retail spread includes char

assembling, storing, processing

and distributing the products.

Marketing year. Year beginnin

time during which a crop move

Metropolitan statistical area (

county or group of contiguous c

contain at least one city of 50,0

or more, or twin cities with a co

lation of at least 50,000. In addi

ous counties are included in an 
266

Migrant farmworker. A person who travels

across State or county boundaries to do agricultural work of a seasonal or other temporary nature, and who is required to be absent

overnight from his or her permanent place of

residence. Exceptions are immediate family

members of an agricultural employer or a

farm labor contractor, and temporary foreign

workers.

Multiple-peril crop insurance (MPCI).

Refers to the numerous perils (drought,

excess moisture, cold and frost, wind, flood,

and unavoidable damage from insects and

disease) generally covered by a Federal crop

insurance policy. Policies covering one peril,

like hail, exist and are not federally subsidized.

National forest. A Federal reservation dedicated to protection and management of natural resources for a variety of benefits —

including water, forage, wildlife habitat,

wood, recreation, and minerals. National

forests are administered by USDA's Forest

Service, while national parks are administered by the Interior Department's National

Park Service.

National grassland. Land, mainly grass and

shrub cover, administered by the Forest

Service as part of the National Forest System

for promotion of grassland agriculture, watersheds, grazing wildlife, and recreation.

Nematode. Microscopic soil worm, which

may attack root or other structures of plants

and cause extensive damage.

Net farm income. A measurement of the

profit or loss associated with a given year's

production. It is an approximation of the net

value of agricultural production, regardless of

whether the commodities were sold, fed, or

placed in inventory during the year. Net farm

income equals the difference between gross

farm income and total expenses. It includes

nonmoney items such as depreciation, the

consumption of farm-grown food, and the net

Nitrogen. A chemical element essen

life and one of the primary plant nutr

Animals get nitrogen from protein fe

plants get it from soil; and some bac

it directly from air.

Nonfarm income. Includes all incom

nonfarm sources (excluding money e

from working for other farmers) rece

farm operator households.

Nonpoint source pollution. Pollutan

that cannot be traced to a specific sou

including stormwater runoff from ur

agricultural areas.

Nonprogram crops. Crops—such a

toes, vegetables, fruits, and hay—tha

included in Federal price support pro

Nonrecourse loan program. Provid

ating capital to producers of wheat, f

grains, cotton, peanuts, tobacco, rice

oilseeds. Sugar processors are also e

for nonrecourse loans. Farmers or pr

participating in government commod

grams may pledge a quantity of a co

as collateral and obtain a loan from t

at a commodity-specific, per-unit loa

The borrower may repay the loan wi

est within a specified period and rega

trol of the commodity, or forfeit the

commodity to the CCC after the spec

period as full settlement of the loan w

penalty. For those commodities eligi

marketing loan benefits, producers m

the loan at the world price (rice and u

cotton) or posted county price (whea

grains, and oilseeds).

Nutrient. A chemical element or com

that is essential for the metabolism a

growth of an organism.

Off-farm income. Includes wages a

salaries from working for other farm

nonfarm income, for all owner opera

lies (whether they live on a farm or n
sesame seed, castor beans, canola, rapeseed,

and mustard seeds used to produce edible

and/or inedible oils, as well as high-protein

animal meal.

Oilseed meal. The product obtained by

grinding the cakes, chips, or flakes that

remain after most of the oil is removed from

oilseeds. Used as a feedstuff for livestock and

poultry.

Organic farming. There is no universally

accepted definition, but in general organic

farming is a production system which avoids

or largely excludes the use of synthetically

compounded fertilizers, pesticides, growth

regulators, and livestock feed additives. 

To the maximum extent feasible, organic

farming systems rely on crop rotation, crop

residues, animal manures, legumes, green

manure, off-farm organic wastes, mechanical

cultivation, mineral bearing rocks, and

aspects of biological pest control to maintain

soil productivity and tilth; to supply plant

nutrients; and to control weeds, insects, and

other pests.

Payment limitations. Limitations set by law

on the amount of money any one person may

receive in Federal farm program payments

each year under the feed grain, wheat, cotton,

rice, and other farm programs.

Percolation. The downward movement of

water through soil under the influence of

gravity.

Permanent legislation. Legislation that

would be in effect in the absence of all 

temporary amendments (Farm Acts). The

Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 and the

Agricultural Act of 1949 serve as the basic

laws authorizing the major commodity 

programs. Technically, each new Farm Act

amends the permanent legislation for a 

specified period.

Plant germplasm. Living material such as

seeds, rootstock, or leaf plant tissue from

which new plants can grow.

Price index. An indicator of av

change for a group of commodi

pares price for those same comm

some other period, commonly c

period.

Price support level. The price 

of a farm commodity (pound, to

Government will support throug

support loans, purchases, and/o

Price support levels are determi

and are set by the Secretary of A

Price support programs. Gove

programs that aim to keep farm 

falling below specific minimum 

support programs for selected c

(peanuts, tobacco, sugar, and m

carried out through loans or pur

price-support loans, producers (

in the case of sugar) use their pr

commodity as collateral for a lo

Commodity Credit Corporation 

Loans enable the loan taker to s

commodity during periods of lo

loans may be redeemed later if 

prices rise sufficiently to make t

commodity on the market profit

loan taker may forfeit the comm

as collateral for the loan to CCC 

cash repayment. In the case of m

authorized through December 3

purchase manufactured dairy pr

order to support the price of flui

statutorily prescribed levels.

Production Credit Association

groups, owned by their farmer b

provide short and intermediate-

up to 10 years from funds obtai

investors in money markets. Th

associations are an integral part 

Credit System.

Production flexibility contrac

The payments to be made to far

tract crops in 1996 through 200

1996 Farm Act. Payments for ea

allocated each fiscal year based 

levels and crop-specific percent

1996 Farm Act.
268

under the 1996 Farm Act. Payment quantity

is calculated as the farm’s program yield (per

acre) multiplied by 85 percent of the farm’s

contract acreage. 

Production flexibility contract payment

rate. The amount paid per unit of production

to each participating farmer for eligible payment production under the 1996 Farm Act.

Productive capacity. The amount that could

be produced within the next season if all the

resources currently available were fully

employed using the best available technology.

Productive capacity increases whenever the

available resources increase or the 

production of those resources increases.

Productivity. The relationship between the

quantity of inputs (land, labor, tractors, feed,

etc.) employed and the quantity of outputs

produced. An increase in productivity means

that more outputs can be produced from the

same inputs or that the same outputs are produced with fewer inputs. Both single-factor

and multifactor indexes are used to measure

productivity. Single-factor productivity

indexes measure the output per unit of one

input at the same time other inputs may be

changing. Multifactor productivity indexes

consider all productive resources as a whole,

netting out the effects of substitution among

inputs. Crop yield per acre, output per work

hour, and livestock production per breeding

animal are all single-factor productivity indicators. The Total Farm Output per Unit of

Input Index is a multifactor measure.

Program crops. Crops for which Federal

support programs are available to producers,

including wheat, corn, barley, grain sorghum,

oats, extra long staple and upland cotton, rice,

oilseeds, tobacco, peanuts, and sugar.

Public Law 480 (P.L. 480). Common name

for the Agricultural Trade Development and

Assistance Act of 1954, which seeks to

expand foreign markets for U.S. agricultural

products, combat hunger, and encourage economic development in developing countries.

credit sales at low interest rates for u

years. Donations for humanitarian fo

needs are provided under Title II. Ti

authorizes “food for development” g

Rangeland. Land which is predomin

grasses, grasslike plants, or shrubs su

for grazing and browsing. Rangeland

includes natural grasslands, savannah

wetlands, some deserts, tundra, and c

shrub communities. It also includes a

seeded to native or adapted and intro

species that are managed like native 

vegetation.

Renewable resources. Resources su

forests, rangeland, soil, and water th

be restored and improved.

Revenue insurance. RMA’s three re

insurance plans all provide a guarant

of revenue by different means. Gene

indemnities are paid when any comb

of yield and price shortfalls results in 

that is less than the revenue guarante

Revenue is determined differently by 

ticular plans of insurance. All three p

vide traditional MPCI yield protectio

include provisions to account for pri

ability.

Riparian rights. Legal water rights 

son owning land containing or borde

a water course or other body of wate

to its banks, bed, or waters.

RNA (ribonucleic acid). A molecul

to DNA that functions primarily to d

instructions for protein synthesis tha

carried by genes.

Ruminant. Animal having a stomac

four compartments (rumen, reticulum

sum, and abomasum). Their digestiv

is more complex than that of animals 

a true stomach. Ruminants include c

sheep, and goats, as well as deer, bis

buffalo, camels, and giraffes.
residences or to sparsely settled areas, since 

a small town is rural as long as it meets the

above criteria.

Sales closing date. The final date that an

application for crop insurance may be filed.

This is the date for producers to make

changes in their crop insurance coverage for

the crop year.

Saline soil. A soil containing enough soluble

salts to impair its productivity for plants.

Silage. Prepared by chopping green forage

(grass, legumes, field corn, etc.) into an airtight chamber, where it is compressed to

exclude air and undergoes an acid fermentation that retards spoilage. Contains about 

65 percent moisture.

Silviculture. A branch of forestry dealing

with the development and care of forests.

Sodbuster. A portion of the Highly Erodible

Land Conservation provision of the Food

Security Act of 1985 that is designed to discourage the conversion of highly erodible

land from extensive conserving uses, such as

grasslands and woodlands, to intensive production of agricultural commodities. If

highly erodible grasslands or woodlands are

converted to intensive crop production without the application of appropriate conservation practices, producers may lose eligibility

for many USDA program benefits. Also see

“Conservation Compliance.”

Staple. Term used to designate length of fiber

in cotton, wool, or flax.

State Agricultural Experiment Station.

State-operated institutions, established under

the Hatch Act of 1887 and connected to landgrant universities in each State, which carry

out research of local and regional importance

in the areas of food, agriculture, and natural

resources.

Stubble mulch. A protective cover provided

by leaving plant residues of any previous crop

Subsistence farm. A low-incom

the emphasis is on production f

operator and the operator's fami

for sale.

Supplementary imports. Farm 

shipped into this country that ad

put of U.S. agriculture. Exampl

cattle, meat, fruit, vegetables, an

(see complementary imports).

Sustainable agriculture. An in

tem of plant and animal produc

having a site-specific applicatio

over the long term, satisfy food 

needs, enhance environmental q

natural resources, make the mo

of nonrenewable resources and 

resources, integrate natural biol

and controls, sustain the econom

of farm operations, and enhance 

of life.

Swampbuster. This provision w

by the Food Security Act of 198

ages the conversion of natural w

cropland use. With some except

ers converting a wetland area to 

lose eligibility for many USDA 

benefits.

Terminal market. A metropoli

that handles agricultural commo

Tissue culture. The technique o

whole plant from a single engin

or piece of plant tissue.

Unit cost. The average cost to p

single item. The total cost divid

number of items produced.

Upland cotton. A fiber plant de

United States from stock native 

and Central America. Includes a

grown in the continental United 

Sea Island and American Pima 

length of upland cotton ranges f

to 1 1/4 inches.
270

Uruguay Round. The Uruguay Round of

Multilateral Trade Negotiations (UR) under

the auspices of the GATT; a trade agreement

designed to open world agricultural markets.

The UR agricultural agreement covers four

areas: export subsidies, market access, internal supports, and sanitary and phytosanitary

rules. The agreement is implemented over 

a 6-year period, 1995-2000.

Vegetative cover. Trees or perennial grasses,

legumes, or shrubs with an expected lifespan

of 5 years or more.

Viticulture. The science and practice of

growing grapes.

Watershed. The total land area, regardless of

size, above a given point on a waterway that

contributes runoff water to the flow at that

point. A major subdivision of a drainage

basin. The United States is generally divided

into 18 major drainage areas and 160 principal river drainage basins containing some

12,700 smaller watersheds.

Water table. The upper limit of the part 

of the soil or underlying rock material that 

is wholly saturated with water.

Wetlands. Land that is characterized by an

abundance of moisture and that is inundated

by surface or ground water often enough to

support a prevalence of vegetation typically

adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

to sales in large quantities by produc

to prices received by wholesalers, jo

distributors. In agriculture, it is the a

price received by farmers for their fa

commodities at the first point of sale 

the commodity leaves the farm.

Zoonotic diseases. Diseases that, un

natural conditions, are communicabl

animals to humans.

4-H. International youth organizatio

empowers young people 5-19 years o

through programs and activities that 

agricultural, science, and technology 

literacy; citizenship; and other lifelo

skills, such as self-esteem, career and 

sonal development. The national 4-H 

located in the Families, 4-H, and Nu

unit of the Cooperative State Researc

Education, and Extension Service. T

stand for Head, Heart, Hands, and H

1890 Land-Grant Colleges and

Universities and Tuskegee Univers

Historically Black land-grant college

universities. Through the Act of Aug

1890, and several other authorities, t

institutions may receive Federal fund

agricultural research, extension, and 
A

Acreage Conservation Reserve program, 24

Acreage reduction programs, 24-25

Adjusted Gross Revenue plan, 117

ADP. See Automated data processing

Advertising, food marketing costs and, 16

AFOs. See Animal Feeding Operations strategy

Africa, food assistance programs in, 111

African Americans. See Blacks

African Initiative, 111, 115

African swine fever, 224

Age distribution of population, 52-54

AgNIC. See Agricultural Network Information

Center

AGR. See Adjusted Gross Revenue plan

AGRICOLA, 198

Agricultural Air Quality Task Force, 184

Agricultural credit, 28-29

Agricultural Fair Practices Act, 220-221

Agricultural Labor Affairs, 74

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, 243

Agricultural Marketing Service

commodity procurement programs, 217-218

direct marketing, 221

fair trade programs, 219-221

global markets, 222-223

information sources, 246

marketing orders, 219

Market News, 217

organic certification, 221

pesticide information and records, 218

promotional campaigns, 218-219

quality standards, grading, and certification,

215-217

Transportation and Marketing Programs, 222

wholesale market development, 221

Agricultural Network Information Center, 199

Agricultural Outlook, 205

Agricultural products. See also Crops; Livestock

exports, 104-108

imports, 104

Agricultural Research Service, 194-198, 208-210

Agricultural Resource Management Study, 23-24,

35

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation

Service, 97

Agricultural Statistics Board, 206

Agricultural terms, 258-270

Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, 113

Air quality programs, 161-162

Alabama

animal disease eradication prog

boll weevil eradication, 230-23

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

43-44

government payments (1997), 4

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 213

Alaska

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts from farm sales (1

government payments (1997), 4

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 213

Alaska Natives. See also American 

Alaska Native programs

student internships, 65

AMA. See Agricultural Marketing A

American Dietetic Association, 7

American Forests, 169

American Indian and Alaska Native 

See also Native Americans

American Red Cross, 135

American Samoa, nutrition assistan

134

AMS. See Agricultural Marketing S

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

aquaculture, 242-243

biotechnology regulation, 236-2

domestic animal health program

domestic plant health programs

excluding foreign pests and dise

forest health protection, 167

humane care of animals, 240-24

import-export regulations, 227-

information sources, 246-247

international programs, 225-226

mission, 223-224

monitoring pests and diseases, 2

preclearance, 225-226

Rapid Response Teams, 227

trade agreement activities, 109

wildlife damage control, 237-23

Animal fats, exports of, 106

Animal Feeding Operations strategy

Animal Production Food Safety Pro

Animals
importexport regulations, 227229

monitoring pests and diseases, 235-236

Animal Welfare Act, 240

APFSP. See Animal Production Food Safety

Program

APHIS. See Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

Appeal hearings, 78

Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas

program, 85

Aquaculture, 242-243

Arizona

animal disease eradication programs, 234

boll weevil eradication, 230-231

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 41

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1997),

43-44

government payments (1997), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 189

number of farms and land in farms (1993-

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 213

Arkansas

animal disease eradication programs, 234

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 41

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1997),

43-44

government payments (1997), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 189

number of farms and land in farms (1993-

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 213

ARS. See Agricultural Research Service

Asian Americans

percentage of USDA workers, 71

population distribution, 53-54

student internships, 65

Assessment of Need, 168

Automated data processing, 76-77

AWA. See Animal Welfare Act

B

Baby boom, 52-53

Backyard Conservation campaign, 184-185

Bacteria, genetically modified, 201

Banks

Commercial Export Credit Guarantee

Programs, 112-113

farm loans, 28-31

Barley. See also Grains

acreage harvested, 25-26

commodity loan programs, 97

Beagle Brigade, 224-225

pathogen reduction in ground beef, 14

production regions, 18

production values, 32

quality standards, 215

Beet sugar, commodity loan programs fo

Beltsville Agricultural Research Service, 

B&I Loans. See Business and Industry G

Loan Program

Biological control programs, 229-230

Biotechnology, regulation of agricultural 

237

Birds, quarantine facilities for, 227-228

Blacks

class action against USDA, 64

household income, 59

percentage of USDA workers, 71

population distribution, 53-54

poverty rates, 59-60

student internships, 65

unemployment rates, 56-57

Boll weevil eradication program, 230-23

Bonus commodities, 125

Bovine pleuropneumonia, 232-233

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, 227

Breakfast cereals, exports of, 106

Broilers, pathogen reduction in, 144-145

Brucellosis eradication programs, 233-23

BSE. See Bovine spongiform encephalop

Bulk commodities, exports of, 104-105

Bushel/weight conversion chart, 256

Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan P

83-84

Business development programs, 84-86

C

CACFP. See Child and Adult Care Food P

Calendar, planting and harvesting, 257

California

animal disease eradication programs, 

boll weevil eradication, 230-231

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 

cash receipts ranking, by commodity 

43-44

government payments (1997), 47

net farm income, 38

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 1

number of farms and land in farms (1

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 213

Caloric sweeteners, changes in consumpt

8, 13

Campylobacter, 147

Canada, U.S. export market in, 106, 108, 

272
Carrots. See also Vegetables

dietary changes, 5-6

Cash income, net, 32, 35, 46, 50-51

Cattle. See also Beef

cash receipts, 40-44

disease eradication programs, 232-235

Federal inspection, 143

Packers and Stockyards Programs, 244-246

production values, 32, 38

CCC. See Commodity Credit Corporation

CDC. See Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention

CDFI. See Community Development Financial

Institution Partnership

CEAH. See Centers for Epidemiology and Animal

Health

Census of Agriculture, 27, 207

Center for Farm Financial Management, 118

Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 2, 122,

136-139, 141

Center for Veterinary Biologics, 233, 235

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 147-

148

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health, 242

Central America, food assistance programs for, 110

Centralized Excess Property Operation, 72

Centralized Service Center, 89-90

CEPO. See Centralized Excess Property Operation

Cereals. See Grains

Certification services, 215-217, 222-223

CF. See Cooperative Forestry

CFP. See Cooperative Fire Protection program

CFPDC. See Consolidated Forms and Publications

Distribution Center

CGA. See Communications and Governmental

Affairs

Champion Communities, 92-93

Cheese. See also Dairy products

dietary changes, 4-5, 11

Chicken. See Poultry

Chief Economist, Office of, 73-75

Chief Financial Officer, Office of, 77

Chief Information Officer, Office of, 76-77

Chief Meteorologist, 74

Child and Adult Care Food Program, 76, 129-130

Child Care Food Program. See Child and Adult

Care Food Program

Children

nutrition assistance programs, 122, 124-132

poverty rates, 59-60

China, U.S. export market in, 106, 108, 110

Cholesterol, 2, 4, 6

CITES. See Convention on International Trade in

Clean Water Action Plan, 184

Clear Title provisions, 246

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, 76

Clinton, Bill, 91

Cochran Fellowship Program, 115

Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1

College/University Partnership Proj

Colorado

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

43-44

government payments (1997), 4

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 213

Commercial Export Credit Guarant

112-113

Committee on Agriculture, 109

Committee on Certification System

Committee on Food Import and Exp

149

Committee on Sanitary and Phytosa

Standards, 109

Commodities. See Crops; Livestock

Commodities Improvement Counci

Commodity Credit Corporation, 46

113

Commodity procurement programs

Commodity purchase programs, 98

Commodity Supplemental Food Pro

Communications, Office of, 248-25

Communications and Governmenta

136

Communications Coordination and 

249-251

Community Development, Office o

Community Development Financia

Partnership, 89

Community empowerment, 91-94

Community Facilities Program, 83, 

Community Food Security Initiativ

Computer Matching Act, 248

Computers for Learning Initiative, 7

Congressional Relations, Office of, 

Connecticut

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts from farm sales (1

government payments (1997), 4

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1998), 21-22
Conservation of Private Grazing Land, 183

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program,

101

Conservation Reserve Program, 97, 100-101

Emergency Conservation Program, 100

government payments to programs, 47-49

technical assistance, 179

Conservation of Private Grazing Land Initiative,

183

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, 101

Conservation Reserve Program, 100-101

Conservation technical assistance, 179

Consolidated Forms and Publications Distribution

Center, 72

Consumer education about food safety, 149-151

Consumer expenditures, distribution of, 17

Consumer foods, exports of, 106-107

Consumer Price Index, 3, 16

Consumer Safety Officers, 146

Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species, 228

Conversion charts, 255-256

Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey, 235

Cooperative Fire Protection program, 172

Cooperative Forestry, 168-169

Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, 155

Cooperatives, rural, 86

Cooperative Services, 85

Cooperative State Research, Education, and

Extension Service

information sources, 210

overview, 200

partnerships, 198-199

program focus, 198

programs, 200-204

Cooperative Stock Purchase Authority, 84

Cooperator program, 114

Corn

acreage harvested, 25-26

cash receipts, 40-44

commodity loan programs, 97

exports, 104

Corn sweeteners, 8, 13

Corporate farms, 23

Cotton

acreage harvested, 26

boll weevil eradication, 230-231

commodity loan programs, 97-98

exports, 104-105

government payments, 47-49

production regions, 18

CPI. See Consumer Price Index

CR. See Office of Civil Rights

Crop failure, 2425

Crop insurance, 99, 115-117

Croplands, uses of, 24-26

Crop products, farm value of, 17

Crop Revenue Coverage, 117

Crops

cash receipts from sales, 39-44

noninsured crop disaster assistance pr

value of, 32, 37-38

CRP. See Conservation Reserve Program

CSC. See Centralized Service Center

CSFP. See Commodity Supplemental Foo

Program

CSOs. See Consumer Safety Officers

CSREES. See Cooperative State Researc

Education, and Extension Service

CTA. See Conservation technical assistan

Custodial audit program, 244

D

DA. See Departmental Administration

Dairy Export Incentive Program, 113

Dairy Options Pilot Program, 117

Dairy Production Disaster Assistance Pro

Dairy products. See also Milk

cash receipts, 39-44

dietary changes, 1

export programs, 113

price support program, 98

production regions, 18

production values, 32, 38

Day care, Child and Adult Care Food Pro

129-130

Debt-to-asset ratio for farms, 29

DEIP. See Dairy Export Incentive Progra

Delaware

animal disease eradication programs, 

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 

cash receipts ranking, by commodity 

government payments (1997), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 1

number of farms and land in farms (1

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 213

Delta Regional Initiative, 94

Departmental Administration, 63-73

Department of Agriculture Reorganizatio

1994, 63

Department of the Interior and Related A

Appropriation Act, 165

Depreciation, food marketing costs and, 

Designated Qualified Persons, 241

Design Center, 253

274
CSREESfunded research, 202203

factors contributing to change, 1

Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 1, 136, 139

Digital dermatitis, 236

Direct Business and Industry Loans, 84

Disadvantaged business programs, 72-73

Disaster Assistance Programs, 99-100, 116-117,

134-135

Disaster Food Stamp Program, 135

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 135

Disease

animal diseases eradication programs, 232-235

domestic animal health programs, 232-235

excluding foreign pests and diseases, 224-225

monitoring pests and diseases, 235-236

Distance Learning and Medical Link Loans and

Grants, 90

DOD. See U.S. Department of Defense

DOPP. See Dairy Options Pilot Program

DQP. See Designated Qualified Persons

Drought assistance, 102

Drug control programs in the Forest Service, 176-

177

E

E. coli, 144

E. coli O157:H7, 143

Early Resolution Task Force, 64

Earth Day, 83

EBT. See Electronic Benefit Transfer

EC. See Enterprise Communities

Economic Action Programs, 169

Economic Recovery program, 169

Economic Research Service

food supply estimates, 1-2

functions, 204-205

information sources, 210-211

web site, 205

Ecosystem management, 154

Education. See also Research, Education, and

Economics

career-related training, 115

food safety, 149-151

risk management, 118

EEP. See Export Enhancement Program

EFNEP. See Expanded Food and Nutrition

Education Program

Egg Products Inspection Act, 142

Eggs

dietary changes, 3-4, 10

Federal inspection, 143

grading, 215-217

low-temperature pasteurization, 201

poverty rates, 60

Electric service, 90

Electronic Benefit Transfer, 122-12

"Electronic Guard," 239

Emergency Community Water Assi

91

Emergency Conservation Program, 

Emergency Food Assistance Progra

Emergency loans, 99

Emergency preparedness. See Offic

Procurement, Property, and Em

Preparedness

Emergency Watershed Protection p

Employment. See also Labor

farm employment, 27

metro and nonmetro areas, 55-5

nonmetropolitan areas, 56

Empowerment Initiative, 91-94

Empowerment Zones, 91-94

Endangered Species Act, 228

Energy, minerals, and geology prog

Energy management program, 202

Energy Policy and New Uses, Offic

Energy use, food marketing costs an

Enterprise Communities, 91-94

Enterprise Cooperation of the Delta

Entitlement foods, 125

Environmental Protection Agency, 2

Environmental Quality Incentives P

179

EPA. See Environmental Protection 

EQIP. See Environmental Quality In

Program

Equal employment opportunity, 64

ERS. See Economic Research Servi

Ethics, Office of, 73

European Union, U.S. export marke

EWP. See Emergency Watershed Pr

gram

Expanded Food and Nutrition Educ

203

Expenditures on Children by Famil

Export Enhancement Program, 113

Exports

agricultural products, 104-108

bulk commodities, 104-105

consumer foods, 106-107

credit guarantee programs, 112-

grading and certification service

intermediate agricultural produc

international trade agreements, 

regulations, 227-229

seafood products, 104, 108-109
Research, Education, and 

Extension Service

EZ. See Empowerment Zones

F

FAA. See Federal Aviation Administration

Facility Guarantee Program, 112-113

The Fact Finders for U.S. Agriculture, 205

FAIR Act. See Federal Improvement and Reform

Act of 1996

Fair trade programs, 219-221

Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services

Farm Service Agency, 96-102, 119-120

Foreign Agricultural Service, 103-115, 120

Risk Management Agency, 115-118, 120

Farm Bill of 1996. See Federal Agriculture

Improvement and Reform Act of 

1996

Farm Credit System, 28-31

Farmers Home Administration, 97. See also Farm

Service Agency

Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, 128-129

Farmers' markets, 5, 222

Farm income, net, 31-32, 34, 37-39

Farm Labor Housing program, 87

Farmland Protection Program, 180

Farm loans, 28-30, 100, 102. See also specific loans

and programs

Farm operators

defined, 32

household income, 35-37

sources of income, 35-36

Farm production regions, 18-19

Farms

acreage harvested of major crops, 25-26

asset values, 29, 31

cash income, net, 32, 35, 46, 50-51

cash receipts from farm sales, 39-44

credit, 28-30

cropland use, 24-26

debt, by lender, 30

debt, real estate and non-real estate, 30

debt-to-asset ratio, 29

defined, 19

equity, 29, 31

farm income, net, 31-32, 34, 37-39

farming history, 199

government payments, 45-49

household income, 35-37

labor, 27

land in farms, 19-23

land tenure, 24

legal structure, 23

size of, 1920, 23

sources of income, 35-36

value-added, net, 31, 33

wage rates, 27

Farms and Land in Farms report, 20

Farm Service Agency

commodity purchase programs, 98

conservation programs, 100-101

disaster assistance, 99

emergency assistance programs, 99-1

Emergency Conservation Program, 1

farm loans, 28-30, 100, 102

Forest Stewardship Landowner Plans

information sources, 101, 119-120

marketing assistance loan programs, 

mission, 96

the 1996 Act, 97

program successes, 102

purpose, 97

vision, 96

web site, 96

Farm-to-retail price spread, 16-17

FAS. See Foreign Agricultural Service

Fats and oils

dietary changes, 1, 6-7, 12

leaner meat trend, 2

milkfat consumption, 4

FCIC. See Federal Crop Insurance Corpo

FCS. See Farm Credit System

FDA. See Food and Drug Administration

FDIC. See Federal Deposit Insurance Co

FDPIR. See Food Distribution Program o

Reservations

Federal Agriculture Improvement and Re

of 1996

production flexibility contracts, 97

redesign of farm programs, 45-46, 96

transfer of excess personal property, 6

Federal Aviation Administration, 239

Federal Crop Insurance Act, 99

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, 97, 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 8

Federal Excess Personnel Property, 172

Federal Government. See Government fu

specific departments and 

agencies

Federal Grain Inspection Program, 243-2

Federal Grain Inspection Service, 243

Federal Home Loan Bank System, 88

Federal Improvement and Reform Act of 

Federal Meat Inspection Act, 142

Federal Pesticide Recordkeeping Program

Federal Seed Act, 220

276
FFP. See Food for Progress program

FGIS. See Federal Grain Inspection Service

Fight BAC!TM Campaign, 149-151

Financial management, 77

Fire protection and management, 171-172

Fish and shellfish

conservation, 158

dietary changes, 2-3, 9

exports, 104, 108-109

Food and Information & Seafood Hotline, 152

Fleet Card Program, 65

Flock Certification program, 233

Flood Control Act of 1944, 181

Flood plain management, 181-182

Florida

animal disease eradication programs, 234

boll weevil eradication, 230-231

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 39, 41

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1997),

43-44

government payments (1997), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 189

number of farms and land in farms (1993-

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 213

Flour. See also Grains

enrichment, 1, 7

FMNP. See Farmers' Market Nutrition Program

FNS. See Food and Nutrition Service

Folic acid, 7

Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of

1990, 73

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, 122

Food and Agriculture Organization, 109, 148

Food and Drug Administration, 7, 148, 152

Food and Information & Seafood Hotline, 152

Food and Nutrition Service

application procedure, 136

appropriation for assistance programs, 121

Child and Adult Care Food Program, 129-130

Commodity Supplemental Food Program, 129

disaster assistance, 134-135

eligibility determination, 122

The Emergency Food Assistance Program, 134

establishment of programs, 122

Food Distribution Program on Indian

Reservations, 133

Food Stamp Program, 122-124

information sources, 140-141

mission, 121

National School Lunch Program, 98, 124-125

nutrition assistance programs in Puerto Rico,

American Samoa, and the 

School Breakfast Program, 125

Special Milk Program, 131-132

Summer Food Service Program

Team Nutrition, 126

web site, 122

WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition 

129

WIC Program, 127-128

Food assistance programs, 110-111

Foodborne Diseases Active Surveill

148

Food consumption. See Dietary cha

commodities

Food Distribution Program, 135

Food Distribution Program on India

133

Food Drive, 102

Food for Peace program, 98

Food for Progress program, 110-11

The Food Guide Pyramid, 136-138

The Food Guide Pyramid for Young 

FoodNet, 148

Food prices

distribution of expenditures, 15

farm-to-retail price spread, 16-1

marketing costs, 14-16

Food Quality Protection Act of 199

FoodReview, 205

Food Safety and Inspection Service

activities, 142

Animal Production Food Safety 

consumer education, 149

Consumer Safety Officers, 146

emerging issues, 147

farm-to-table food safety chain, 

Fight BAC!TM Campaign, 150-1

Foodborne Diseases Active Sur

Network, 148

FoodNet, 148

HACCP systems, 144-146

information sources, 153

inspection models project, 146

international issues, 148-149

Meat and Poultry Hotline, 151-

Partnership for Food Safety Edu

President's Council on Food Saf

PulseNet, 148

regulatory reform, 146-147

Technical Service Center, 145

trade agreement activities, 109

web site, 145

Food Safety Education Office, 149

The Food Safety Educator, 149
Community Food Security Initiative, 79

cost of services and distribution, 14-16

dietary changes, 1-13

food security, 114

production regions, 18-19

Foot-and-mouth disease, 224, 226

Foreign Agricultural Service

agricultural exports, 104-108

bulk commodity exports, 104-105

Commercial Export Credit Guarantee

Programs, 112-113

consumer food exports, 106-107

dairy export program, 113

export assistance programs, 113

exports summary for 1999, 104

food assistance programs, 110-111

food security, 114

Foreign Market Development Program, 114

foreign service officers, 103

information sources, 120

intermediate agricultural product exports, 106-

107

international cooperation, 114

Market Access Program, 113

mission, 103

scientific collaboration, 114

seafood product exports, 104, 108-109

technical assistance, 114-115

trade agreements, 108-110

training, 115

web site, 103

wood product exports, 104, 106, 108-109

Foreign Market Development Program, 114

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Act of 1974, 154

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Research Act of 1978, 154-155

Forest Legacy Program, 168

Forest Product Laboratory, 155, 172

Forest products, exports of, 104, 106, 108-109

Forest Products Conservation and Recycling

Program, 170

Forestry Incentives Program, 182

Forest Service

acquisition management, 173-174

business operations, 173-174

fact sheets, 159-160, 162, 164, 166

information sources, 186-187

law enforcement and investigations, 176-177

location of National Forests, 157

mission, 154

National Forest system, 158, 160-167

Natural Resource Agenda, 154

reinvention, 156, 158

Research and Development, 155, 172

Senior, Youth, and Volunteer Program

175

State and Private Forestry programs, 

web sites, 158, 174

Forest Stewardship Landowner Plans, 16

Forest Stewardship Program, 168

Foundation for the Mid-South, 94

Freedom of Information Act, 248

Free Trade Area of the Americas, 109

Fruits. See also Vegetables

dietary changes, 1, 5-6, 12

Perishable Agricultural Commodities 

220

production regions, 18

WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Prog

129

FSA. See Farm Service Agency; Federal 

FSIS. See Food Safety and Inspection Se

FSMIP. See Federal-State Marketing Imp

Program

Full ownership, 24

G

Geographic information systems, 235

Geology. See Energy, minerals, and geolo

gram

George Washington Carver Center, 72

Georgia

animal disease eradication programs, 

boll weevil eradication, 230-231

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 

cash receipts ranking, by commodity 

43-44

government payments (1997), 47

net farm income, 38

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 1

number of farms and land in farms (1

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 213

GIPSA. See Grain Inspection, Packers, an

Stockyards Administration

Glickman, Dan, 83, 116, 183

Global Change Program Office, 75

Glossary of agricultural terms, 258-270

Goats, Flock Certification program and, 2

Goods-producing industries, 54-55

Gore, Al, 71-72, 91, 93, 127

Government funding

idled farmland, 24-25

metropolitan areas, 61

payments to farmers, 45-49

278
Administration

carcass merit purchasing, 245

Clear Title provisions, 246

fair competition, 245

fair treatment for poultry growers, 245

Federal Grain Inspection Program, 243-244

information sources, 247

Packers and Stockyards Programs, 244-246

payment protection, 244

scales and weighing activities, 245

structural change analysis, 246

trust activities, 244-245

Grains

commodity loan programs, 97-98

dietary changes, 1, 7, 13

exports, 105

Federal Grain Inspection Program, 243-244

government payments, 47-49

production regions, 18

Grain sorghum, commodity loan programs for, 97

Grain Standards Act, 243

Grants. See specific grant programs

Grasshopper control program, 232

Ground beef, pathogen reduction in, 144-145

Ground turkey, pathogen reduction in, 144-145

Group Risk Plan (GRP), 116-117

GSM programs, 112

Guaranteed Loan Programs

Business and Industry, 83-84

farm loans, 100

Rural Housing Service, 88

Guide to USDA Programs for American Indians

and Alaska Natives, 78

H

HACCP. See Hazard Analysis and Critical Control

Point Systems

HACCP Hotline, 145

Harvested cropland, 24-26

Harvesting calendar, 257

Hawaii

animal disease eradication programs, 234

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 41

government payments (1997), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 189

number of farms and land in farms (1993-

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 213

"Hay Net," 102

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point

Systems, 143-146, 216-217

Hazardous Fuel Treatment, 171

HDL. See High-density lipoprotein

Hispanics

household income, 59

percentage of USDA workers, 7

population distribution, 53-54

poverty rates, 59-60

student internships, 65

unemployment rates, 56-57

Hogs. See also Pork; Swine

animal health programs, 232-23

cash receipts, 40-44

Packers and Stockyards Program

production values, 32, 38

Home Improvement and Repair Lo

86

Home Ownership Loans, 86

Honey

commodity loan programs, 97

dietary intake, 8

Hong Kong, U.S. export market in, 

HOPPER program, 232

Horse Protection Act, 240-241

Hosted programs in the Forest Serv

Hotlines

Food and Information & Seafoo

HACCP Hotline, 145

Meat and Poultry Hotline, 151-

Household income. See also Wages

determining eligibility for USD

grams, 122

farm operators, 35-37

metropolitan areas, 58-59

nonmetropolitan areas, 58-59

off-farm income, 35-36

sources of income for farm oper

holds, 35-36

Housing programs in rural areas, 86

Housing Repair program, 87

HPA. See Horse Protection Act

Human Nutrition Research Center o

Human Resources Management, Of

Hunger Prevention Act, 134

Hurricane Mitch, 110

I

Idaho

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

43-44

government payments (1997), 4

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1998), 21-22
animal disease eradication programs, 234

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 39-41

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1997),

43-44

government payments (1997), 47

net farm income, 38

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 190

number of farms and land in farms (1993-

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 213

Imports

agricultural, 104

preclearance programs, 225-226

regulations, 227-229

Incident Command System, 176

Income. See Farms; Household income

Income Protection, 117

Indiana

animal disease eradication programs, 234

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 41

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1997),

43-44

government payments (1997), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 190

number of farms and land in farms (1993-

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 213

Indians. See Native Americans

Individual Career Management Workshop, 65

Individual farm operations, 23

Industries, nonmetropolitan areas, 54-55

Infants. See also Children

WIC Programs, 127-129

Information Resources Management, 76

Insects. See Pests

Inspection. See Food Safety and Inspection

Service; Grading standards and 

services

Inspector General, Office of, 75-76

Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, 172

Insurance companies and farm loans, 28-30

Integrated pest management, 203, 232

Intergovernmental Affairs, Office of, 78

Intermediary Relending Program Loans, 84

Intermediate agricultural products, exports of, 106-

107

International Forestry Cooperation Act of 1990,

155

International Institute of Tropical Forestry, 156,

172

International issues

agricultural cooperation and development, 114

career-related training, 115

Natural Resources Conservation Serv

grams, 183

preclearance programs, 225-226

scientific collaboration, 114

technical assistance, 114-115

trade agreements, 108-110

International Organization for Standardiz

216-217

International Programs

Forest Service, 155-156

Office of, 176-177

International Regulations Retrieval Syste

International Services, 225-226

International Society of Arboriculture, 16

Internet. See Web sites

Internships, student, 65

IOS. See International Organization for

Standardization

Iowa

animal disease eradication programs, 

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 

cash receipts ranking, by commodity 

43-44

government payments (1997), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 1

number of farms and land in farms (1

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 213

IP. See Office of International Programs

IPM. See Integrated pest management

Irradiation of meat, 147

IRRS. See International Regulations Retr

System

J

Japan, U.S. export market in, 106, 108, 1

Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers

Job growth, nonmetropolitan areas, 55-56

Johne's disease, 236

Joint Institute for Food Safety Research, 

Juices, exports of, 106

K

Kansas

animal disease eradication programs, 

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 

cash receipts ranking, by commodity 

43-44

government payments (1997), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 1

number of farms and land in farms (1

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 213

280
cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 41

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1997), 44

government payments (1997), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 190

number of farms and land in farms (1993-

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 213

Korea, U.S. export market in, 110

L

Labeling. See Nutrition labeling

Labor. See also Employment

farm labor, 27

food marketing costs and, 14

wage rates, 27

Laboratories, accreditation or certification of, 217

Lamb. See Meats

Land-Grant University System, 198

Land in farms, 19-23

Land retirement programs, 24-25

Lands-related activities in the National Forest

System, 158

Land tenure, 24

Law enforcement programs in the Forest Service,

176-177

LDL. See Low-density lipoprotein

Legal structure of farms, 23

Lettuce. See also Vegetables

dietary changes, 5-6

Life insurance companies and farm loans, 28-30

Listeria monocytogenes, 143, 147

Livestock

cash receipts from sales, 39-44

disease eradication programs, 232-235

drought assistance, 102

farm value, 17

federal inspection, 143

payment protection, 244

production values, 32, 35, 38

Veterinary Services, 227-228, 232-233

Livestock Indemnity Program, 99

Loans, agricultural, 28-29. See also specific loans

and programs

Louisiana

animal disease eradication programs, 234

boll weevil eradication, 230-231

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 41

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1997),

43-44

government payments (1997), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 190

number of farms and land in farms (1993-

1998), 21-22

Lumber. See Forest products

M

"Mad cow disease," 227

Mail and Reproduction Division, 72

Mail center, 71

Maine

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

government payments (1997), 4

net farm income, 38-39

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 213

MAP. See Market Access Program

Marek's disease, 236

Market Access Program, 113

Marketing

Agricultural Marketing Service

cost of food services and distrib

fair trade programs, 219-221

grading, quality standards, and 

215-217

Market News, 217

Market News, 217

Maryland

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

government payments (1997), 4

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 213

Massachusetts

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

government payments (1997), 4

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 213

Meals-on-wheels, 132

Meat and Poultry Hotline, 151-152

Meats. See also Fish and shellfish; P

dietary changes, 1-3, 9

Federal inspection, 143

Hotline, 151-152

irradiation, 147

Packers and Stockyards Program
Medical care, 90

Mediterranean fruit fly, 224-225, 227

Mellwood, 72

Metric conversion chart, 255-256

Metropolitan areas

defined, 52

employment, 55-58

population statistics, 52-53

Mexico, U.S. export market in, 106, 108

Michigan

animal disease eradication programs, 234

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 41

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1997),

43-44

government payments (1997), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 190

number of farms and land in farms (1993-

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 213

Milk. See also Dairy products

cash receipts, 39-44

dietary changes, 1, 4-5, 10-11

export program, 113

production regions, 18

production values, 38

Minerals. See Energy, minerals, and geology program

Minnesota

animal disease eradication programs, 234

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 39-41

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1997),

43-44

government payments (1997), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 190

number of farms and land in farms (1993-

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 213

Minorities. See also American Indian and Alaska

Native programs

Business Enterprise Development, 73

household income, 58-59

population distribution, 52-54

poverty rates, 59-60

unemployment rates, 56-57

Mississippi

animal disease eradication programs, 234

boll weevil eradication, 230-231

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 41

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1997),

43-44

government payments (1997), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 190

number of farms and land in farms (1993-

Missouri

animal disease eradication programs, 

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 

cash receipts ranking, by commodity 

43-44

government payments (1997), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 1

number of farms and land in farms (1

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 214

Mohair, commodity loan programs for, 9

Molasses, dietary intake of, 8

Monounsaturated fatty acids, 6

Montana

animal disease eradication programs, 

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 

cash receipts ranking, by commodity 

43-44

government payments (1997), 47

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 1

number of farms and land in farms (1

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 214

MOSCAMED program, 225

MPCI. See Multiple-Peril Crop Insurance

Multi-Family Guaranteed Loan programs

Multiple-Peril Crop Insurance, 116

Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960

Mutual Self-Help Housing Program, 87

N

NAFTA. See North American Tree Trade

Agreement

NAHMS. See National Animal Health M

System

NAL. See National Agricultural Library

NAP. See Noninsured Crop Disaster Assi

Program

NAPIS. See National Agricultural Pest In

System

NASS. See National Agricultural Statistic

National Agricultural Library, 195-198

National Agricultural Pest Information Sy

235-236

National Agricultural Statistics Service, 1

207, 212-214

National Ag Risk Education Library, 118

National Animal Health Monitoring Syst

236

National Appeals Division, 78

National Beef Quality Audit, 2

National Biological Control Institute, 229

National Center for Import and Export, 2

282
National Food Safety Initiative, 149

National Forest Management Act of 1976, 154

National Forest Products Laboratory, 155

National Forest System. See also Forest Service

energy, minerals, and geology, 163-164

forest vegetation management, 163-166

lands-related activities, 158

location of national forests, 157

partnerships, 160-161

Passport In Time program, 167

rangeland, 161-162

stewardship demonstration projects, 165

water, soil, and air, 161

wildlife, fish, and rare plants, 158

National Information Technology Center, 77

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

74

National Organic Standards Board, 221

National Partnership for Reinventing Government,

127, 156

National Partnership in Homeownership, 88

National Performance Review, 71

National Register of Historic Places, 167

National Resources Inventory, 182

National School Lunch Program, 98, 124-125, 136

National Sheep Industry Improvement Center, 85

National Tree Trust Foundation, 168-169

National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory

Council, 169

National Veterinary Services Laboratories, 233

National Wildlife Research Center, 237-239

National Wildlife Strike Database, 239

Native Americans. See also American Indian and

Alaska Native programs

Food Distribution Program on Indian

Reservations, 133

household income, 59

housing loans and grants, 87

percentage of USDA workers, 71

population distribution, 53-54

poverty rates, 59-60

student internships, 65

Tribal College Partnership, 92

Native American Working Group, 78

Natural disasters, assistance programs, 99-100,

116-117, 134-135

Natural Resource Conservation Education, 170-171

Natural Resources Conservation Service

conservation technical assistance, 179

Environmental Quality Incentives Program, 101

information sources, 188-193

international programs, 183

mapping soils, 161

State Public Affairs Contacts, 1

web site, 184

Nebraska

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

43-44

government payments (1997), 4

net farm income, 38

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 214

Nevada

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts from farm sales (1

government payments (1997), 4

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 214

Newcastle disease, 227

New Hampshire

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts from farm sales (1

government payments (1997), 4

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 214

New Jersey

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

government payments (1997), 4

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 214

New Mexico

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

43-44

government payments (1997), 4

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 214

New York

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

government payments (1997), 4
1998), 2122

Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones, 93

State Statistical Office, 214

NFC. See National Finance Center

NFS. See National Forest System

The 1996 Act. See Federal Agriculture

Improvement and Reform Act of 1996

Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program, 99

Nonmetropolitan areas. See also Rural

Development

age distributions, 52-54

employment, 55-58

Federal funding for development, 61-62

household income, 58-59

industry, 54-55

job growth, 55-56

minority population, 53-54

population statistics, 52-54

poverty rates, 58-60

unemployment rates, 56-58

wages, 56-57

Non-real-estate

assets, 29, 31

debt, 30-31

loans, 28-29

Nonrecourse loans, 98

North American Tree Trade Agreement, 106, 108-

109

North Carolina

animal disease eradication programs, 234

boll weevil eradication, 230-231

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 39, 42

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1997),

43-44

government payments (1997), 48

net farm income, 38

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 191

number of farms and land in farms (1993-

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 214

witchweed eradication, 231

North Dakota

animal disease eradication programs, 234

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 42

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1997), 44

government payments (1997), 48

net farm income, 38-39

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 191

number of farms and land in farms (1993-

1998), 21-22

Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones, 92

State Statistical Office, 214

Northern Mariana Islands, nutrition assistance pro

Education

NRCS. See Natural Resources Conservat

Service

NRI. See National Resources Inventory

NSLP. See National School Lunch Progra

Nutrition assistance programs. See Food 

Nutrition Service; specific 

programs

Nutrition labeling of trans-fat contents, 7

Nutrition Program for the Elderly, 132

NVSL. See National Veterinary Services

Laboratories

NWRC. See National Wildlife Research C

O

Oats. See also Grains

acreage harvested, 25-26

commodity loan programs, 97

OC. See Office of Communications

OCC. See Office of the Comptroller of th

Currency

OCFO. See Office of the Chief Financial 

OCIO. See Office of the Chief Informatio

Office of Civil Rights, 64

Office of Communications, 248-254

Office of Community Development, 91-9

Office of Congressional Relations, 77

Office of Consumer Affairs. See Commun

and Governmental Affairs

Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, 7

Office of Ethics, 73

Office of Human Resources Managemen

Office of Inspector General, 75-76

Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, 78

Office of International Programs, 176

Office of Operations, 71-72

Office of Outreach, 73

Office of Procurement, Property, and Em

Preparedness, 65

Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Bene

Analysis, 74

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Busin

Utilization, 72-73

Office of the Chief Economist, 73-75

Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 77

Office of the Chief Information Officer, 7

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

Office of Thrift Supervision, 88

Ohio

animal disease eradication programs, 

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 

cash receipts ranking, by commodity 

43-44

284
1998), 2122

State Statistical Office, 214

OHRM. See Office of Human Resources

Management

OIA. See Office of Intergovernmental Affairs

OIG. See Office of Inspector General

Oils. See Fats and oils

Oilseed products

commodity loan programs, 97-98

exports, 106

Oklahoma

animal disease eradication programs, 234

boll weevil eradication, 230-231

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 42

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1997),

43-44

government payments (1997), 48

net farm income, 38

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 191

number of farms and land in farms (1993-

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 214

Older Americans Act of 1965, 132

Operation "Kiddie Care," 76

Operations, Office of, 71-72

Operation Talon, 76

OPPEP. See Office of Procurement, Property, and

Emergency Preparedness

Oregon

animal disease eradication programs, 234

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 42

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1997),

43-44

government payments (1997), 48

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 191

number of farms and land in farms (1993-

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 214

Organic Administration Act of 1897, 154

Organic certification, 221

Organic Foods Production Act, 221

OSDBU. See Office of Small and Disadvantaged

Business Utilization

Outreach, Office of, 73

Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers

Program, 73

Ownership of farm land, 24

P

PACA. See Perishable Agricultural Commodities

Act

Pacific Islanders, population distribution of, 53-54

Pacific Northwest Assistance program, 170

Paid Land Diversion program, 24

Partnership for Food Safety Educat

Partnerships, 23, 88

Partners in Flight program, 176

Part ownership, 24

Passport In Time program, 167

Pasteurized eggs. See Eggs

Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analy

Control Point Systems,

143-146

Payment-in-kind program, 24-25

PDP. See Pesticide Data Program

Peanuts

commodity loan programs, 97-9

exports, 105

PEMS. See Poultry enteritis and mo

drome

Pennsylvania

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

43-44

government payments (1997), 4

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 214

Perishable Agricultural Commoditi

Pesticide Data Program, 218

Pest management strategies, 203

Pests

biological control program, 229

boll weevil eradication, 230-23

domestic plant health programs

excluding foreign pests and dise

grasshopper control program, 2

integrated pest management, 20

monitoring pests and diseases, 2

Philippines

U.S. export market, 108, 110

Photography Center, 253-254

Phytosanitary certificates, 228

PIK program, 24-25

Planting and harvesting calendar, 2

Plant Materials Centers, 181

Plant Protection and Quarantine, 22

Plants

conservation, 158

domestic plant health programs

excluding foreign pests and dise

fact sheet, 160

inspection stations, 228

monitoring pests and diseases, 2
Population statistics, 5254

Pork. See also Hogs; Meats; Swine

carcass merit purchasing, 245

dietary changes, 2-3, 9

pathogen reduction, 144-145

Potatoes, new varieties of, 195

Poultry. See also Meats

dietary changes, 2-3, 9

disease control, 232-235

exports, 106

fair treatment for poultry growers, 245

Federal inspection, 143

grading, 215-217

Hotline, 151-152

Packers and Stockyards Programs, 244-246

pathogen reduction, 144-145, 147

production regions, 18

production values, 32

reducing runoff from litter, 195

Veterinary Services, 227-228, 232-233

Poultry enteritis and mortality syndrome, 236

Poultry Products Inspection Act, 142

Poverty

community empowerment, 91-94

determining eligibility for nutrition programs,

122

in metro and nonmetro areas, 58-60

PPQ. See Plant Protection and Quarantine

Preclearance programs, 225-226

President's Council on Food Safety, 147

Prices. See Food prices

Price supports, phasing out of, 46

Printing Management Center, 254

Print on Demand, 72

Privacy Act, 248

Private voluntary organizations, 111

Procurement, Property, and Emergency

Preparedness, Office of, 65

Produce. See Fruits; Vegetables

Production flexibility contracts, 97

Project Learning Tree, 170

Property management. See Office of Procurement,

Property, and Emergency 

Preparedness

Proprietorships, 23

Pseudorabies eradication programs, 233-235

Public and Governmental Affairs. See

Communications and Governmental 

Affairs

Public Liaison Center, 251-252

Puerto Rico

animal disease eradication programs, 234

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 192

Purchase Card Management System, 65

Put options, 117

PVOs. See Private voluntary organization

Q

Quality assurance (QA), 216-217

Quality standards, 215-217

Quality Systems Verification Program, 22

Quarantine inspection, 224-225

Quick & Easy Commodity Recipes for th

Distribution Program on Indian 

Reservations, 133

Quick Facts, 207

R

Race issues. See Minorities

Rangeland conservation, 161-162

Rapid Response Teams, 227

RBS. See Rural Business-Cooperative Se

RC&D. See Resource Conservation and

Development Program

Real estate

assets, 29, 31

debt, 30-31

loans, 28-29

REAP Zones. See Rural Economic Area

Partnership Zones

Recommended Dietary Allowances, 136, 

Red meats. See Meats

REE. See Research, Education, and Econ

Refined flour, 1. See also Grains

Remote Sensing Coordination Committe

Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1

Rent, food marketing costs and, 16

Rental Assistance payments, 87

Repairs, food marketing costs and, 16

Rescissions Act of 1995, 162

Research. See specific agencies

Research, Education, and Economics

Agricultural Research Service, 194-1

Cooperative State Research, Educatio

Extension Service, 198-204

Economic Research Service, 204-205

information sources, 208-214

mission, 194

National Agricultural Library, 195-19

National Agricultural Statistics Servic

207

web site, 194

Research and Promotion Programs, 218-2

Research on Rural Cooperative Opportun

Problems program, 85

Resource Conservation and Developmen

286
spread, 1617

Revenue Assurance, 117

Revenue Insurance plans, 117

Rhode Island

animal disease eradication programs, 234

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 42

government payments (1997), 48

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 192

number of farms and land in farms (1993-

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 214

RHS. See Rural Housing Service

Rice

breeding program, 201

commodity loan programs, 97-98

exports, 105

government payments, 47-49

Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis, Office

of, 74

Risk Management Agency, 115-118, 120

River Basin Interagency Committees, 182

River basin surveys, 181-182

RMA. See Risk Management Agency

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency

Assistance Act, 135

Rural America, 205

Rural areas. See Nonmetropolitan areas

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, 82, 84-86

Rural Business Enterprise Grants, 85

Rural Business Opportunity Grants, 85

Rural Cooperative Development Grants, 85

"Rural Cooperatives," 86

Rural Development

Forest Service programs, 169-170

information sources, 95

Office of Community Development, 91-94

program successes, 83-84

purpose, 82

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, 82, 84-86

Rural Housing Service, 82, 86-90

Rural Utilities Service, 82, 90-91

Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones, 92-93

Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants,

85

Rural Electric Loans and Loan Guarantees, 90

Rural Home Loan Partnership, 88-89

Rural Housing Service, 76, 82, 86-90

Rural Local Initiatives Support Corporation

(LISC), 88

Rural Rental Housing, 76

Rural Telecommunications Loans and Loan

Guarantees, 90

Rural Utilities Service (RUS), 82, 90-91

S

Sales classes, 20, 23, 46, 50-51

Salmon, exports of, 108

Salmonella, 143-145, 201

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreem

Sanitation Standard Operating Proc

Saturated fats, 6

SBP. See School Breakfast Program

SCGP. See Supplier Credit Guarant

School Breakfast Program, 125-126

School Lunch Program, 98, 124-12

SCMI. See Service Center Moderni

Screwworms, 225-226

Seafood products. See Fish and she

Seeds and the Federal Seed Act, 220

Senior citizens. See Elderly

Senior Community Service Employ

175

Service Center Modernization Initia

Services-producing industries, 54-5

SFSP. See Summer Food Service Pr

Sheep, Flock Certification program 

Shell eggs. See Eggs

Shellfish. See Fish and shellfish

SHOP. See Small Hog Operation Pa

Single Family Guaranteed Loan pro

Small and Disadvantaged Business 

Office of, 72-73

Small Business Act of 1958, 72

Small Business Programs, 72

Small Hog Operation Payment Prog

Small Watersheds Program, 181

Smokey Bear, 71, 170-171

SMP. See Special Milk Program

SNOTEL. See Snow Telemetry

Snow surveys, 180

Snow Telemetry, 180

Soft drinks, changes in consumptio

Soil

conservation, 161-162

soil surveys, 180

Sorghum, acreage harvested, 26

Soring, 241

South Carolina

animal disease eradication prog

boll weevil eradication, 230-23

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

government payments (1997), 4

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1998), 21-22
animal disease eradication programs, 234

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 42

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1997),

43-44

government payments (1997), 48

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 192

number of farms and land in farms (1993-

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 214

South Korea, U.S. export market in, 106, 108

Southwest Border Regional Partnership, 93

Soybeans

acreage harvested, 25-26

cash receipts, 40-44

exports, 104-105

prices, 32

production regions, 18

production values, 38

revised grades, 204

Soy meal, exports of, 106

Soy oil, exports of, 106

Special Milk Program, 131-132

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for

Women, Infants, and Children,

127-128

SPS Agreement. See Sanitary and Phytosanitary

Agreement

SSOPs. See Sanitation Standard Operating

Procedures

Staphylococcal enterotoxin, 143

State and Private Forestry programs

forest health protection, 167-168

partnership role, 167

State Fire Assistance, 172

State Forestry agencies, 169

State Statistical Offices, 206, 213-214

Statute of Limitations Project, 64

Stewardship Incentives Program, 168

Strategic Space Plan, 72

Student internships, 65

Sucrose, 8, 13

Sugar

commodity loan programs, 97-98

dietary changes, 8, 13

Summer fallow land, 24-25

Summer Food Service Program, 131

Summer Intern Program, 65

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,

Infants, and Children, 127-128

Supplier Credit Guarantee Program, 112

Suppression Operations, 171

Sustainable Development Office, 75

Sweeteners, caloric. See Caloric sweeteners

Swine fever, 224

T

Taiwan, U.S. export market in, 106, 108, 

Task Force on Sexual Orientation, 64

Taura Syndrome Virus, 242-243

Taxol, 195

Team Nutrition, 124, 126

Technical Service Center, 145

Teenagers, unemployment rates of, 56-57

TEFAP. See The Emergency Food Assista

Program

Telecommunications facilities, 90

Telecommunications Services and Opera

National Information 

Technology Center, 76-77

Telemedicine, 90

Tenants, 24

Tennessee

animal disease eradication programs, 

boll weevil eradication, 230-231

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 

cash receipts ranking, by commodity 

43-44

government payments (1997), 48

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 1

number of farms and land in farms (1

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 214

Texas

animal disease eradication programs, 

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 

cash receipts ranking, by commodity 

43-44

government payments (1997), 48

net farm income, 38

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 1

number of farms and land in farms (1

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 214

The Emergency Food Assistance Program

Thrift Savings Plan, 77

Timber. See Forest products

Tobacco

commodity loan programs, 97-98

exports, 105

production regions, 18

Trade agreements, 108-110

Trans-fatty acids, 6-7

Transition payments, 97

Transportation, food marketing costs and

Transportation and Marketing Programs, 

Tree Assistance Program, 99

288
TSC. See Technical Service Center

TSP. See Thrift Savings Plan

Tuberculosis eradication programs, 233-235

Turkey. See also Poultry

pathogen reduction for ground turkey, 144-145

2000 Act, 98

U

U&CF. See Urban and Community Forestry

Unemployment rates, 56-58

Uniform Procedures for the Acquisition and

Transfer of Excess Personal 

Property, 65

United National Strategy for Animal Feeding

Operations, 184

United Nations World Food Programme, 111

Urban and Community Forestry, 168-169

Urban Resources Partnerships, 169

Uruguay Round Agreement Act, 113

Uruguay Round Trade agreement, 108

U.S. Action Plan on Food Security, 114

U.S. Agency for International Development, 110-

111, 114

U.S. Department of Agriculture. See also specific

programs and agencies

American Indian and Alaska Native programs,

78

Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 2

Community Food Security Initiative, 79

Departmental Administration, 63-73

Farm Service Agency, 28

headquarters organization, 66-67

Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, 7

information sources, 80-81

land retirement programs, 24-25

location of employees, 69-70

mission areas, 63

National Appeals Division, 78

number of employees, 68

Office of Communications, 248-254

Office of Congressional Relations, 77-78

Office of Inspector General, 75-76

Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, 78

Office of the Chief Economist, 73-75

Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 77

Office of the Chief Information Officer, 76-77

reorganization, 63

web site, 248

workplace profile by race and gender group, 71

U.S. Department of Defense, 124

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

132

U.S. Trade Representative, 108-109

USTR. See U.S. Trade Representati

Utah

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts from farm sales (1

government payments (1997), 4

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 214

Utilities services, 90-91

V

Value-added, net, 31, 33

Veal. See Meats

Vegetables. See also Fruits

dietary changes, 1, 5-6, 12

Perishable Agricultural Commo

220

production regions, 18

WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition 

129

Vegetation management, 163-166

Vermont

animal disease eradication prog

cash receipts from farm sales (1

government payments (1997), 4

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 214

Veterinary Biologics, 233, 235

Veterinary Services, 227-228, 232-2

Video, Teleconference, and Radio C

Virginia

animal disease eradication prog

boll weevil eradication, 230-23

cash receipts from farm sales (1

cash receipts ranking, by comm

43-44

government payments (1997), 4

NRCS State Public Affairs Con

number of farms and land in far

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 214

Virgin Islands, animal disease eradi

grams in, 235

Virus-Serum-Toxin Act of 1913, 23

Volunteer Fire Assistance, 172

Volunteers in the National Forests p

VS. See Veterinary Services

W

Wages. See also Household income
offfarm income, 3536

Washington

animal disease eradication programs, 235

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 42

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1997),

43-44

government payments (1997), 48

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 192

number of farms and land in farms (1993-

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 214

Washington Area Strategic Space Plan, 72

Waste disposal, 90

Water

Clean Water Action Plan, 184

conservation, 161-162

Emergency Community Water Assistance

Grants, 91

pollution prevention, 202-204

river basin surveys, 181-182

in rural areas, 90-91

supply forecasts, 180

Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants, 90

Water and Wastewater Program, 83

Water 2000 Initiative, 90

Watershed management programs, 181-182

Web sites

Agricultural Labor Affairs, 74

Animal Production Food Safety Program, 146

Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 136

Codex Alimentarius Commission, 148

Departmental Administration, 65

Economic Research Service, 205

Farm Service Agency, 96

Fight BAC!TM Campaign, 151

Flock Certification program, 233

Food and Nutrition Service, 122

FoodNet, 148

Food Safety and Inspection Service, 145

Foreign Agricultural Service, 103

Forest Service recreation options, 158

Forest Service waste prevention and recycling,

174

Global Change Program Office, 75

Guide to USDA Programs for American

Indians and Alaska Natives, 78

Listeria, 147

National Agricultural Library, 198

National Ag Risk Education Library, 118

National Animal Health Monitoring System,

236

National Appeals Division, 78

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 184

Analysis, 74

Office of Small and Disadvantaged B

Utilization, 73

Office of the Chief Economist, 74

President's Council on Food Safety, 1

PulseNet, 148

Research, Education, and Economics

Risk Management Agency, 116

Sustainable Development Office, 75

Technical Service Center, 145

World Agricultural Outlook Board, 74

Welfare, job placement programs and, 20

West Virginia

animal disease eradication programs, 

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 

government payments (1997), 48

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 1

number of farms and land in farms (1

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 214

Wetlands Reserve Program, 179

WFP. See World Food Programme

Wheat. See also Grains

acreage harvested, 25-26

commodity loan programs, 97-98

exports, 104-105

government payments, 47-49

production regions, 18

production values, 38

Wheat Donations Program, 115

Wheat flour, exports of, 106

Wholesale and Alternative Markets progr

WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program

WIC Program, 127-128, 136

Wildfires. See Fire protection and manag

Wildland Fire Management program, 171

Wildlife

conservation, 158

Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species, 228

damage control, 237-239

fact sheet, 160

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, 180

Wildlife Services program, 237-239

Wisconsin

animal disease eradication programs, 

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 

cash receipts ranking, by commodity 

43-44

government payments (1997), 48

net farm income, 38-39

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 1

number of farms and land in farms (1

290
Women

Business Enterprise Development, 73

household income, 59

percentage of USDA workers, 71

poverty rates, 59-60

unemployment rates, 57

WIC Programs, 127-129

Wood in Transportation Program, 170

Wood products. See also Forest products

exports, 104, 106, 108-109

Woodsy Owl, 171

Wool, government payments for, 47-49

World Agricultural Outlook Board, 74

World Bank, 114

World Food Programme, 111

World Food Summit, 114

World Health Organization, 148

World Trade Organization, 109-110

World Wide Web. See Web sites

WS. See Wildlife Services program

WTO. See World Trade Organization

Wyoming

animal disease eradication programs, 235

cash receipts from farm sales (1997), 42

cash receipts ranking, by commodity (1997), 44

government payments (1997), 48

net farm income, 38

NRCS State Public Affairs Contact, 193

number of farms and land in farms (1993-

1998), 21-22

State Statistical Office, 214

Y

Youth Conservation Corps, 175
Farmers Markets: http://www.ams.usda.gov/marketing.htmSmall Farms: http://www.usda.gov/oce/smallfarm/sfhome.htmMarket News: http://www.ams.usda.gov/marketnews.htmImporting and Exporting Animals: http://www.usda.gov/news/animals.htmSafeguarding Your Pet: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/pettheft.htmlBackyard Conservation: http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/CCS/Backyard.html National Resources Inventory: http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/CCS/NRIrlse.htmlForest Service Recreation Information: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/recreation.shtml Forest Service—2002 Winter Olympics: http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/2002/U.S. National Arboretum: http://www.ars-grin.gov/ars/Beltsville/na/USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map: http://www.ars-grin.gov/na/hardines.htmlNational Agricultural Library: http://www.nalusda.gov/USDA History Collection: http://www.nalusda.gov/speccoll/collect/history/index.htmGraphics of Agricultural Production: http://www.usda.gov/nass/aggraphs/graphics.htmEmployee Association: http://www.usdaesra.org 

This 1999 Agriculture Fact Book is at http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/fbook99/contents.htm
U.S. Department of Agriculture • Office of Communications